"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Is this the curse of 'the Rest is Politics'? Rory and Al coo over Ang quite a bit - her forceful personality, her rugged integrity, her background of incomprehensible hardship and strife...
So what will the public think about Raynor is the question. But there isn't a homogenous "public". Those who support Raynor (like me and Keir) will sympathise. Those who oppose Raynor will cackle. In the round, and in the long run, it will make no difference.
Hmm. Not convinced by that take. There are wider optics at play here. Even if you start from the view that Rayner was poorly advised and is righting the wrong, it is far from ideal for the most staunch defender of tax rises in the current government to be seen to have failed to pay herself.
This is also a government that in a few short week’s time is going to stand up and demand everyone reach into their pockets and pay more tax.
I have a fair bit of time for Rayner. I’ve commented before (in fact, as recently as yesterday) that she probably stood a better chance at combating Farage than Starmer, even if I don’t agree with her politics. But I do think this is probably damaging enough for her to go, and if not, it’s going to continue to haunt her throughout her political career - at least in the medium term.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
A lawyer on Sky said that the first line of attack is always to blame legal advice
He said that it is not as simple as that and depends on the information the client gives the lawyer and if full disclosure of circumstances was revealed
He said it is very unlikely she had the wrong advice from the lawyer if everything was disclosed
I have no idea what happens next, but those rushing to Rayner's defence sound a bit desperate and I am sure there.will be polling on this
Badenoch was poor but as much as some would like this story to be so it is not about Badenoch who may well face her own Waterloo next may but Rayner
Whether she survives or not she is certainly damaged by this
This would have required specialist advice that most conveyancing lawyers would probably not have picked up on - it’s a niche part of complex tax law. I can easily see why the wrong advice given
A lawyer on Sky said that the first line of attack is always to blame legal advice
He said that it is not as simple as that and depends on the information the client gives the lawyer and if full disclosure of circumstances was revealed
He said it is very unlikely she had the wrong advice from the lawyer if everything was disclosed
I have no idea what happens next, but those rushing to Rayner's defence sound a bit desperate and I am sure there.will be polling on this
Badenoch was poor but as much as some would like this story to be so it is not about Badenoch who may well face her own Waterloo next may but Rayner
Whether she survives or not she is certainly damaged by this
This would have required specialist advice that most conveyancing lawyers would probably not have picked up on - it’s a niche part of complex tax law. I can easily see why the wrong advice given
You'd think the deputy PM of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland might be able to get herself competent legal and financial advice. Probably not a case passed to the office junior/trainee
What the British diplomats think, but cannot say. Former Conservative chairman Lord Patten describing the "gathering of blood soaked dictators" in Shanghai as in part "a triumph for the ignorance of Trump’s foreign policy". Patten says the leader present in Shanghai that is most difficult to explain is the Indian prime minister Modi adding “that has happened as a result of America’s clueless diplomacy. The way in which Trump has managed to drive people into China’s arms is a very good display of the crazed diplomacy this sociopath has been inflicting on the rest of us. "In dealing with Trump, we have to recognise that America historically was our best friend and ally. Is that true today? I think at least self-respect has some part to play in foreign policy, and when the King in some style welcomes Trump on a state visit what values can we point which Trump shares with the rest of us? "He is on the road to becoming an authoritarian which makes it very difficult to explain to countries in Asia why democracy is better for them, and their security".
Labour could spend a lot of political capital and hang on to Ange
Kemi is already in deficit...
The strange thing is the clips of PMQs shows Badenoch attacking Rayner and Starmer and to anyone not politically engaged the clips actually show all that was needed
If you have simpler tax rules then these sorts of situations become less likely to occur. Politicians really should simplify tax rules out of self-interest, besides the potential benefit to everyone else.
The other thing is that it shows astonishingly poor judgement.
Punters seem not to be not upset by the Rayner revelation. She remains second favourite to be next Labour leader. Streeting 13% chance Rayner 11% Burnham 10%
Punters seem not to be not upset by the Rayner revelation. She remains second favourite to be next Labour leader. Streeting 13% chance Rayner 11% Burnham 10%
At a time when Keir Starmer is facing a very difficult party Conference, Autumn budget and Winter as PM and his personal ratings in the polls are terrible it is surely a hell of a coincidence that the Deputy Labour Leader and Prime Minister is now embroiled in a politically career ending scandal? Especially significant when they were already regarded as the clear front runner to replace Starmer and they were in a politically strong enough position up until now to possible mount a successful Cabinent coup to replace Starmer?
Punters seem not to be not upset by the Rayner revelation. She remains second favourite to be next Labour leader. Streeting 13% chance Rayner 11% Burnham 10%
Those who think Rayner is a goner can lay her.
Bit early to judge the polling fallout
Punters are judging, with money, that it will make no difference. They may be wrong. If you think they are, you can profitably lay her.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
Punters seem not to be not upset by the Rayner revelation. She remains second favourite to be next Labour leader. Streeting 13% chance Rayner 11% Burnham 10%
Those who think Rayner is a goner can lay her.
Bit early to judge the polling fallout
Punters are judging, with money, that it will make no difference. They may be wrong. If you think they are, you can profitably lay her.
The SD premium is payable if the place you're buying will not be your only owned property. Where your main residence is isn't relevant.
The Bournemouth flat was the only property Raynor owned.
The problem is that the rules around trusts mean that, for tax purposes, the property that was put into trust for her child is treated as if she owns it.
A competent lawyer would have spotted this immediately by all accounts, so either her lawyers were incompetent or she failed to give them the full details of her financial situation.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
Punters seem not to be not upset by the Rayner revelation. She remains second favourite to be next Labour leader. Streeting 13% chance Rayner 11% Burnham 10%
Those who think Rayner is a goner can lay her.
Bit early to judge the polling fallout
Punters are judging, with money, that it will make no difference. They may be wrong. If you think they are, you can profitably lay her.
I do not bet so not relevant to myself
The odds are indicative of what people who bet on politics actually believe will happen i.e. nothing. They are risking their money on their judgement so it's not partisan blogging or TV pundits.
Edit: Someone has just taken the £3 available to lay her at 10.5 so it's too late.
This is not relevant to the next election, or really anything but purely from a statistical interest Find Out Now will be in the field with their weekly poll today. Given Labour have been at 18% with them for 2 weeks there's got to be a some chance we will see Labour hit their all time polling low tomorrow if todays news causes a knee jerk. With the Tories on 15% last week we might see their lowest ever too. In the same poll would be quite something
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
In which case, there would be no underpayment. However, she says that there was an underpayment. So, the Return was incorrect.
That might be an innocent, or negligent mistakr, rather than fraudulent, in fact, it most likely was.
Starmer should ask for confirmation of the legal advice she was given .
If he’s convinced that means she’ll be exonerated he should defend her .
It doesn't work like that
A commentator has just said she will have to produce all the documentation and advice she received to the ethics investigation and it wil review everything and advise the PM
A lawyer on Sky said that the first line of attack is always to blame legal advice
He said that it is not as simple as that and depends on the information the client gives the lawyer and if full disclosure of circumstances was revealed
He said it is very unlikely she had the wrong advice from the lawyer if everything was disclosed
I have no idea what happens next, but those rushing to Rayner's defence sound a bit desperate and I am sure there.will be polling on this
Badenoch was poor but as much as some would like this story to be so it is not about Badenoch who may well face her own Waterloo next may but Rayner
Whether she survives or not she is certainly damaged by this
This would have required specialist advice that most conveyancing lawyers would probably not have picked up on - it’s a niche part of complex tax law. I can easily see why the wrong advice given
Come come now, we're all familiar with the trust deeming provisions of para 12 schedule 4ZA Finance Act 2003, are we not ?
Starmer should ask for confirmation of the legal advice she was given .
If he’s convinced that means she’ll be exonerated he should defend her .
Exonerated? Hah. Even if the advice was wrong, it’s the sheer hypocrisy of using tax minimisation strategies whilst criticising others who do the same.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
I dislike Rayner's politics intensely, but I will actually be sad for her if she is done in by this. As a retired tax lawyer I can see that this is quite an obscure point of trust and tax law, and that it could easily have fallen into the gap between her competence in framing the initial request for advice and the conveyancer's competence in answering it. And I very much doubt she was contriving anything the sole or main purpose of which was to avoid or reduce a liability to tax.
Starmer should ask for confirmation of the legal advice she was given .
If he’s convinced that means she’ll be exonerated he should defend her .
It doesn't work like that
A commentator has just said she will have to produce all the documentation and advice she received to the ethics investigation and it wil review everything and advise the PM
The Prime Minister is very sad and disappointed that the PM’s ethics adviser has found that his potential leadership rival broke the ethics code and will be asked to resign. He is not laughing at all. No way.
The SD premium is payable if the place you're buying will not be your only owned property. Where your main residence is isn't relevant.
The Bournemouth flat was the only property Raynor owned.
The problem is that the rules around trusts mean that, for tax purposes, the property that was put into trust for her child is treated as if she owns it.
A competent lawyer would have spotted this immediately by all accounts, so either her lawyers were incompetent or she failed to give them the full details of her financial situation.
Yep. That's the crux of the matter. Did she disclose the trust situation to the professional advising her on the stamp duty for the flat purchase? This is the question for the investigation to focus on.
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
Voters don't care about tax avoidance by MPs? Its a view I mean its like saying they didn't care about expenses
I'm sure others will know more but how the hell does she afford an 800,000 pound flat? Does the deputy leader of the opposition earn that much?
You obviously forgetting her previous canny use of help to buy so will have equity.....and now earns over £150k a year. She better hope she doesn't lose her job though, otherwise she will be on the "An Evening with ..." circuit telling her life story.
Does she earn over 150K? I thought the deputy leader of the opposition wasn't on that much.
She’s a government minister now, will be on £160k ish. Until last year she had only an MP salary of £90k, no way she affords the new flat on that.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
I dislike Rayner's politics intensely, but I will actually be sad for her if she is done in by this. As a retired tax lawyer I can see that this is quite an obscure point of trust and tax law, and that it could easily have fallen into the gap between her competence in framing the initial request for advice and the conveyancer's competence in answering it. And I very much doubt she was contriving anything the sole or main purpose of which was to avoid or reduce a liability to tax.
It absolutely is most likely a mistake however she has been the most vociferous member of the Labour government in demanding resignations by other politicians for mistakes or errors in the past and highly critical of others using legal means to reduce tax liabilities.
I have absolutely zero sympathy for her and maybe she will heed her own advice to others and go.
I'm sure others will know more but how the hell does she afford an 800,000 pound flat? Does the deputy leader of the opposition earn that much?
You obviously forgetting her previous canny use of help to buy so will have equity.....and now earns over £150k a year. She better hope she doesn't lose her job though, otherwise she will be on the "An Evening with ..." circuit telling her life story.
Does she earn over 150K? I thought the deputy leader of the opposition wasn't on that much.
She’s a government minister now, will be on £160k ish. Until last year she had only an MP salary of £90k, no way she affords the new flat on that.
Imagine if it was a political opponent who had done this I’m sure Saint Angela of PB centrist dads would take the same benevolent vote her party and sycophants are taking now
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
I think they don’t care about the technicalities but they do about hypocrisy
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
I think they will care - because a lot of people are looking at the £800,000 flat and asking how can she afford that
This is not relevant to the next election, or really anything but purely from a statistical interest Find Out Now will be in the field with their weekly poll today. Given Labour have been at 18% with them for 2 weeks there's got to be a some chance we will see Labour hit their all time polling low tomorrow if todays news causes a knee jerk. With the Tories on 15% last week we might see their lowest ever too. In the same poll would be quite something
Very, very, very few things in the news have an immediate impact on polling. Most of the population are not glued to political news, so it can be days before they hear about something. Even then, very few things they hear about seem to move people's voting intents. This is not to exonerate Rayner's failings. It's just that the statistical noise in polls is greater than the impact of most events.
I'm sure others will know more but how the hell does she afford an 800,000 pound flat? Does the deputy leader of the opposition earn that much?
You obviously forgetting her previous canny use of help to buy so will have equity.....and now earns over £150k a year. She better hope she doesn't lose her job though, otherwise she will be on the "An Evening with ..." circuit telling her life story.
Does she earn over 150K? I thought the deputy leader of the opposition wasn't on that much.
She’s a government minister now, will be on £160k ish. Until last year she had only an MP salary of £90k, no way she affords the new flat on that.
Depends on her deposit......
I’m sure she had a good sized deposit from selling her constituency house. Oh.
If she quits to spend more time with her accountant, this will be the easiest by election gain in history
General election 2024: Party Candidate Votes % ±% Labour. Angela Rayner. 15,575 43.9 Reform UK Robert Barrowcliffe 8,784 24.8 Conservative Lizzie Hacking 4,375 12.3 Workers Aroma Hassan. 2,835 8.0 Green Lee Huntbach. 2,481 7.0 LibDem. Dominic Hardwick 1,411 4.0 Majority 6,791 19.1 +8.0 Turnout 35,461 49.9 −6.4 Registered electors 71,002
Probable Reform gain if it came up, for sure. Easiest Reform gain in history, not quite, as it needs direct Labour -> Reform and Labour -> left switchers over and above the 15% they already have.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
Simple! No idea why even HMRC talk about "main residence" it just confuses the issue.
It’s also that the council tax and Parliamentary rules also talk about “main residence”, and if you give different answers to three authorities you’re always going to be in political trouble.
She clearly lives in London in the grace-and-favour, shares the constituency home with her ex-husband in some way, and has just bought a seaside flat in Hove.
She has no other links to Hove AFAICS, so declaring it to be her main residence for stamp duty purposes just seems absurd to an outsider.
If she quits to spend more time with her accountant, this will be the easiest by election gain in history
General election 2024: Party Candidate Votes % ±% Labour. Angela Rayner. 15,575 43.9 Reform UK Robert Barrowcliffe 8,784 24.8 Conservative Lizzie Hacking 4,375 12.3 Workers Aroma Hassan. 2,835 8.0 Green Lee Huntbach. 2,481 7.0 LibDem. Dominic Hardwick 1,411 4.0 Majority 6,791 19.1 +8.0 Turnout 35,461 49.9 −6.4 Registered electors 71,002
I can see her resigning from the Cabinet maybe, but it seems unlikely she would retire from the Commons.
If she had to quit as deputy leader she might consider her career over and look to do something else (not a prediction but a perhaps remote possibility) - especially if she felt she'd been nobbled by leaks
If she quits to spend more time with her accountant, this will be the easiest by election gain in history
General election 2024: Party Candidate Votes % ±% Labour. Angela Rayner. 15,575 43.9 Reform UK Robert Barrowcliffe 8,784 24.8 Conservative Lizzie Hacking 4,375 12.3 Workers Aroma Hassan. 2,835 8.0 Green Lee Huntbach. 2,481 7.0 LibDem. Dominic Hardwick 1,411 4.0 Majority 6,791 19.1 +8.0 Turnout 35,461 49.9 −6.4 Registered electors 71,002
Probable Reform gain if it came up, for sure. Easiest Reform gain in history, not quite, as it needs direct Labour -> Reform and Labour -> left switchers over and above the 15% they already have.
As it would be a by-election due to disgrace then there’s likely to be a Lab get out the vote enthusiasm gap that reduces the number of direct switchers required. Ditto flow to Greens, LD and Workers.
If she resigned as Deputy Leader with Labour in power, would the replacement still have to come via a members’ vote?
If so, that’s surely a relevant calculation for Starmer. There’s a decent chance the members would vote for someone from the bonkers wing. Far better to keep her in place, weakened, quiet, and no threat.
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
I think they will care - because a lot of people are looking at the £800,000 flat and asking how can she afford that
There is a history of such things - Mandelson got a mortgage of 11x income to buy his house, when a minister.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
It’s lovely you’re mansplaining on her behalf
Cmon Taz don't be all tart with me. I was just correcting a misunderstanding for the benefit of the board. How about a thank you?
Starmer should ask for confirmation of the legal advice she was given .
If he’s convinced that means she’ll be exonerated he should defend her .
Exonerated? Hah. Even if the advice was wrong, it’s the sheer hypocrisy of using tax minimisation strategies whilst criticising others who do the same.
Is it a tax minimisation strategy to own one residential property & pay the relevant stamp duty on purchase? I’m not entirely sure people will see paying exactly what everyone else pays as “a tax minimisation strategy” however hard the right wing press pushes that angle.
Had Raynor transferred the family home to her husband when they divorced, all of her transactions would have been entirely above board.
Rather like David Laws, Raynor has been caught out by trying to structure her own affairs in ways that eventually came back to bite her. Like Laws, she might well have to resign but that’s not certain at this point - if she can prove that she was given bad legal advice even after revealing everything to her lawyers then she’s probably in the clear.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
Simple! No idea why even HMRC talk about "main residence" it just confuses the issue.
It’s also that the council tax and Parliamentary rules also talk about “main residence”, and if you give different answers to three authorities you’re always going to be in political trouble.
She clearly lives in London in the grace-and-favour, shares the constituency home with her ex-husband in some way, and has just bought a seaside flat in Hove.
She has no other links to Hove AFAICS, so declaring it to be her main residence for stamp duty purposes just seems absurd to an outsider.
She is (I believe) legally barred from claiming the grace & favour apartment as her main residence, even if she spends most of her time there.
If she quits to spend more time with her accountant, this will be the easiest by election gain in history
General election 2024: Party Candidate Votes % ±% Labour. Angela Rayner. 15,575 43.9 Reform UK Robert Barrowcliffe 8,784 24.8 Conservative Lizzie Hacking 4,375 12.3 Workers Aroma Hassan. 2,835 8.0 Green Lee Huntbach. 2,481 7.0 LibDem. Dominic Hardwick 1,411 4.0 Majority 6,791 19.1 +8.0 Turnout 35,461 49.9 −6.4 Registered electors 71,002
I can see her resigning from the Cabinet maybe, but it seems unlikely she would retire from the Commons.
If she had to quit as deputy leader she might consider her career over and look to do something else (not a prediction but a perhaps remote possibility) - especially if she felt she'd been nobbled by leaks
Hmm. Time is a bit of a healer in politics, and I think if she were to go in relation to this it wouldn’t be terminal to her entire career. She could probably make a comeback in a few years’ time, just as a fair few resigning cabinet ministers have. Look at Mandelson for instance.
It likely precludes her from succeeding Starmer. Depending on the outcome of any investigation, and again, the passage of time, it might not completely rule her out from ever being party leader (though the chances must have significantly reduced).
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
Simple! No idea why even HMRC talk about "main residence" it just confuses the issue.
It’s also that the council tax and Parliamentary rules also talk about “main residence”, and if you give different answers to three authorities you’re always going to be in political trouble.
She clearly lives in London in the grace-and-favour, shares the constituency home with her ex-husband in some way, and has just bought a seaside flat in Hove.
She has no other links to Hove AFAICS, so declaring it to be her main residence for stamp duty purposes just seems absurd to an outsider.
She is (I believe) legally barred from claiming the grace & favour apartment as her main residence, even if she spends most of her time there.
If she quits to spend more time with her accountant, this will be the easiest by election gain in history
General election 2024: Party Candidate Votes % ±% Labour. Angela Rayner. 15,575 43.9 Reform UK Robert Barrowcliffe 8,784 24.8 Conservative Lizzie Hacking 4,375 12.3 Workers Aroma Hassan. 2,835 8.0 Green Lee Huntbach. 2,481 7.0 LibDem. Dominic Hardwick 1,411 4.0 Majority 6,791 19.1 +8.0 Turnout 35,461 49.9 −6.4 Registered electors 71,002
I can see her resigning from the Cabinet maybe, but it seems unlikely she would retire from the Commons.
If she had to quit as deputy leader she might consider her career over and look to do something else (not a prediction but a perhaps remote possibility) - especially if she felt she'd been nobbled by leaks
Hmm. Time is a bit of a healer in politics, and I think if she were to go in relation to this it wouldn’t be terminal to her entire career. She could probably make a comeback in a few years’ time, just as a fair few resigning cabinet ministers have. Look at Mandelson for instance.
It likely precludes her from succeeding Starmer. Depending on the outcome of any investigation, and again, the passage of time, it might not completely rule her out from ever being party leader (though the chances must have significantly reduced).
For sure, its more a pondering of whether she would consider it time to move on
Dan Neidle on WATO "It is very unusual for a specialist tax lawyer to get the law wrong" HA HA HA HA HA HA! HA HA HA HA HA HA! Tell that to "loan charge" contractors*, pop stars, footballers etc who relied on an opinion by a tax barrister. *note, no sympathy to anyone who markets themself as a competent professional and used a Doug Barrowman payroll arrangement run out of IOM
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
I think they will care - because a lot of people are looking at the £800,000 flat and asking how can she afford that
£400k from her half of the sale of the family property into trust, paid for out of the financial settlement for her child’s future care needs & the other half from a mortgage at ~5x MP‘s salary of £80k. (Exact financial details to be determined, but it will probably turn out to be something like that.)
It's not a good look. At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation, while criticising others for similar behaviour. (I.e. rank hypocricy.)
It's entirely possible it is outright tax evasion.
I like "Our Ange", and thing she's a great bruiser. She's also essentially impossible to remove if she does not want to go. But this was bad behaviuour.
If she resigned as Deputy Leader with Labour in power, would the replacement still have to come via a members’ vote?
If so, that’s surely a relevant calculation for Starmer. There’s a decent chance the members would vote for someone from the bonkers wing. Far better to keep her in place, weakened, quiet, and no threat.
Candidates need 20% MP backing though. Are there 80 odd who'll back a nutcase onto the ballot?
It's not a good look. At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation, while criticising others for similar behaviour. (I.e. rank hypocricy.)
It's entirely possible it is outright tax evasion.
I like "Our Ange", and thing she's a great bruiser. She's also essentially impossible to remove if she does not want to go. But this was bad behaviuour.
"LOCK HER UP! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!"
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
In which case, there would be no underpayment. However, she says that there was an underpayment. So, the Return was incorrect.
That might be an innocent, or negligent mistakr, rather than fraudulent, in fact, it most likely was.
Yes exactly. The issue would appear to be the trust which owns the family house. That constitutes an interest in it (for her) such that the flat becomes not her only owned property and thus liable for the higher rate of stamp duty.
They must now ascertain whether the error was an innocent one. If it was perhaps she survives (and deserves to). If not she surely doesn't.
Dan Neidle on WATO "It is very unusual for a specialist tax lawyer to get the law wrong" HA HA HA HA HA HA! HA HA HA HA HA HA! Tell that to "loan charge" contractors*, pop stars, footballers etc who relied on an opinion by a tax barrister. *note, no sympathy to anyone who markets themself as a competent professional and used a Doug Barrowman payroll arrangement run out of IOM
Like making a profit drilling dry holes in the oil, “mistakenly” approving tax schemes, for a fee, is a thing.
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
I think they will care - because a lot of people are looking at the £800,000 flat and asking how can she afford that
£400k from her half of the sale of the family property into trust, paid for out of the financial settlement for her child’s future care needs & the other half from a mortgage at ~5x MP‘s salary of £80k. (Exact financial details to be determined, but it will probably turn out to be something like that.)
Sorry, how does she “sell” her property into trust for her children? Who is giving her £400k? Wasn’t the house also valued at a convenient £650k for settlement into the Trust.
Starmer should ask for confirmation of the legal advice she was given .
If he’s convinced that means she’ll be exonerated he should defend her .
Exonerated? Hah. Even if the advice was wrong, it’s the sheer hypocrisy of using tax minimisation strategies whilst criticising others who do the same.
Is it a tax minimisation strategy to own one residential property & pay the relevant stamp duty on purchase? I’m not entirely sure people will see paying exactly what everyone else pays as “a tax minimisation strategy” however hard the right wing press pushes that angle.
Had Raynor transferred the family home to her husband when they divorced, all of her transactions would have been entirely above board.
Rather like David Laws, Raynor has been caught out by trying to structure her own affairs in ways that eventually came back to bite her. Like Laws, she might well have to resign but that’s not certain at this point - if she can prove that she was given bad legal advice even after revealing everything to her lawyers then she’s probably in the clear.
David Laws lied.
Now, he allegedly lied for non-financial reasons (as in to try and prevent his parents from finding out he was gay). I would argue that his breach was the less serious because the investigation found "no evidence that [he] made his claims with the intention of benefiting himself or his partner". Nevertheless, he was right to resign.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
In which case, there would be no underpayment. However, she says that there was an underpayment. So, the Return was incorrect.
That might be an innocent, or negligent mistakr, rather than fraudulent, in fact, it most likely was.
Yes exactly. The issue would appear to be the trust which owns the family house. That constitutes an interest in it (for her) such that the flat becomes not her only owned property and thus liable for the higher rate of stamp duty.
They must now ascertain whether the error was an innocent one. If it was perhaps she survives (and deserves to). If not she surely doesn't.
If she wants to use trusts to get around rules, she needs to buy multiple football clubs.
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
Simple! No idea why even HMRC talk about "main residence" it just confuses the issue.
It’s also that the council tax and Parliamentary rules also talk about “main residence”, and if you give different answers to three authorities you’re always going to be in political trouble.
She clearly lives in London in the grace-and-favour, shares the constituency home with her ex-husband in some way, and has just bought a seaside flat in Hove.
She has no other links to Hove AFAICS, so declaring it to be her main residence for stamp duty purposes just seems absurd to an outsider.
She is (I believe) legally barred from claiming the grace & favour apartment as her main residence, even if she spends most of her time there.
Of course - it isn't her residence...
As above, for SDLT purposes the "main residence" question is redundant and just confuses things. All that matters is how many properties you will own. You can answer Yes or No to the main residence question and the same stamp duty is due.
It's not a good look. At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation, while criticising others for similar behaviour. (I.e. rank hypocricy.)
It's entirely possible it is outright tax evasion.
I like "Our Ange", and thing she's a great bruiser. She's also essentially impossible to remove if she does not want to go. But this was bad behaviuour.
According to her, it was an error. To say, "At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation" is clearly wrong. At the very least, she and her ex set up a trust because of her son's life-changing injuries and, because of the confusion arising from the trust owning a property and not Rayner, but her counting as owning it for certain tax purposes, she made a mistake.
At the very least may be being too generous to her, but at the very least, it was an innocent error.
Kemi and the rest of the Tories can do one . Rayner trying to support her son and ensure he’s looked after is now a crime apparently .
And Tice can also do one , supporting Farage the traitor.
Rayner should stress the good parent angle , she tried to do the right thing , was given bad advice and tell the right wing press to go fxck themselves .
I’m pretty sure when I last bought a house (though may be misremembering) I had to sign a big disclaimer that said it was my responsibility to ensure that I was comfortable with the SDLT position on the purchase. Which sort of makes sense. Conveyancers aren’t tax lawyers, they wont spend hours advising on the nuances of second home treatment. They might, I suppose, give a view, but typically any view on tax arrangements will be backed up somewhere by a strong recommendation to seek specialist advice.
So if Ange wasn’t relying on a conveyancer’s opinion, did she go to someone else and ask them for a view?
It's not a good look. At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation, while criticising others for similar behaviour. (I.e. rank hypocricy.)
It's entirely possible it is outright tax evasion.
I like "Our Ange", and thing she's a great bruiser. She's also essentially impossible to remove if she does not want to go. But this was bad behaviuour.
According to her, it was an error. To say, "At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation" is clearly wrong. At the very least, she and her ex set up a trust because of her son's life-changing injuries and, because of the confusion arising from the trust owning a property and not Rayner, but her counting as owning it for certain tax purposes, she made a mistake.
At the very least may be being too generous to her, but at the very least, it was an innocent error.
Would she be as charitable if it was a political opponent ?
"She said in her statement: “Ashton remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them.”
Rayner has another property she spends time in, too – a grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House on Whitehall. She neither owns this nor pays council tax on it.
This is one reason some have accused her of hypocrisy. For almost everything, Rayner counts the Ashton home as her main property. For stamp duty reasons only, the Hove flat took precedence"
It already looked dodgy af. Where did she get the money?! But now there is potential fraud, to add to the dodginess
And she's housing minister
This is surely not survivable
It depends whether she engaged in tax evasion or not. And we don't know.
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
Yes, it's the optics
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
That point can be squared away. I'll do it now.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
In which case, there would be no underpayment. However, she says that there was an underpayment. So, the Return was incorrect.
That might be an innocent, or negligent mistakr, rather than fraudulent, in fact, it most likely was.
Yes exactly. The issue would appear to be the trust which owns the family house. That constitutes an interest in it (for her) such that the flat becomes not her only owned property and thus liable for the higher rate of stamp duty.
They must now ascertain whether the error was an innocent one. If it was perhaps she survives (and deserves to). If not she surely doesn't.
If she wants to use trusts to get around rules, she needs to buy multiple football clubs.
Lol, yes.
Tbf it doesn't look like the trust was set up to get around stamp duty rules. Because it clearly doesn't, hence the problem. But let's see what comes out in the wash.
Kemi and the rest of the Tories can do one . Rayner trying to support her son and ensure he’s looked after is now a crime apparently .
And Tice can also do one , supporting Farage the traitor.
Rayner should stress the good parent angle , she tried to do the right thing , was given bad advice and tell the right wing press to go fxck themselves .
So tax minimisation is actually OK providing you have a good enough reason to do it?
Kemi and the rest of the Tories can do one . Rayner trying to support her son and ensure he’s looked after is now a crime apparently .
And Tice can also do one , supporting Farage the traitor.
Rayner should stress the good parent angle , she tried to do the right thing , was given bad advice and tell the right wing press to go fxck themselves .
So tax minimisation is actually OK providing you have a good enough reason to do it?
A lawyer on Sky said that the first line of attack is always to blame legal advice
He said that it is not as simple as that and depends on the information the client gives the lawyer and if full disclosure of circumstances was revealed
He said it is very unlikely she had the wrong advice from the lawyer if everything was disclosed
I have no idea what happens next, but those rushing to Rayner's defence sound a bit desperate and I am sure there.will be polling on this
Badenoch was poor but as much as some would like this story to be so it is not about Badenoch who may well face her own Waterloo next may but Rayner
Whether she survives or not she is certainly damaged by this
I agree - the client should disclose everything. However, if the client is using a solicitor with whom they have consulted in the past, then it is reasonable to assume that the solicitor should already be aware of these issues.
My parents used the same firm of solicitors for the entirety of their married lives. Individuals would, admittedly, come and go but having moved house countless times and had various business interests, investments, legal requirements and heaven only knows what else, they were known to the staff working at the solicitors. By the same measure, my parents knew those individuals working there.
There is a scenario where, having set up the trust in 2020, divorced in 2023 and sold her share of the property to the trust in 2025, the same solicitors would have been used (not necessarily on the divorce but certainly to establish the trust and to sell the property to the trust). It's not beyond the realm of possibility that she thought they would be aware of everything.
I've read her statement. I'm not sure that she should go (either by choice or otherwise). If it is genuinely cockup rather than conspiracy, then being an MP (let alone Deputy Prime Minister) with access to some decent legal and tax resources wasn't enough to spot the issue. If that's the case then imagine what it's like for the rest of us. The Conservatives harped on about reforming planning laws and property taxes and simplifying the home buying system for years. Perhaps, if this is used as a platform for a broader discussion, they may want to get behind it.
It's not a good look. At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation, while criticising others for similar behaviour. (I.e. rank hypocricy.)
It's entirely possible it is outright tax evasion.
I like "Our Ange", and thing she's a great bruiser. She's also essentially impossible to remove if she does not want to go. But this was bad behaviuour.
According to her, it was an error. To say, "At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation" is clearly wrong. At the very least, she and her ex set up a trust because of her son's life-changing injuries and, because of the confusion arising from the trust owning a property and not Rayner, but her counting as owning it for certain tax purposes, she made a mistake.
At the very least may be being too generous to her, but at the very least, it was an innocent error.
Would she be as charitable if it was a political opponent ?
There’s plenty of videos out there of her proving that not to be the case.
Kemi and the rest of the Tories can do one . Rayner trying to support her son and ensure he’s looked after is now a crime apparently .
And Tice can also do one , supporting Farage the traitor.
Rayner should stress the good parent angle , she tried to do the right thing , was given bad advice and tell the right wing press to go fxck themselves .
So tax minimisation is actually OK providing you have a good enough reason to do it?
The trust was set up to look after her son , that’s it. Any good parent would do what they could to do that given he’s now disabled . The Tories who were happy to fellate Bozo and Tice who supports a traitor should STFU .
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
I think they will care - because a lot of people are looking at the £800,000 flat and asking how can she afford that
£400k from her half of the sale of the family property into trust, paid for out of the financial settlement for her child’s future care needs & the other half from a mortgage at ~5x MP‘s salary of £80k. (Exact financial details to be determined, but it will probably turn out to be something like that.)
Sorry, how does she “sell” her property into trust for her children? Who is giving her £400k? Wasn’t the house also valued at a convenient £650k for settlement into the Trust.
@Phil's made that clear in their scenario, assumption is that there is an insurance settlement from the NHS trust for their failures WRT maternity care. £650k valuation, you may have a point. Though remember that there is the realistic property valuation and there is the "marketing asking price" that internet site / estate agent gives to generate business.
It's not a good look. At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation, while criticising others for similar behaviour. (I.e. rank hypocricy.)
It's entirely possible it is outright tax evasion.
I like "Our Ange", and thing she's a great bruiser. She's also essentially impossible to remove if she does not want to go. But this was bad behaviuour.
As suggested the other day even before this tax kerfuffle, it looks bad for a Labour would-be leader.
But context is everything. The second MP who springs to mind for home-shuffling is Robert Jenrick, the man who would be LotO, who drove between first and second and third homes during the pandemic. So it is unfortunate for Rayner that, due to Labour's landslide, so many backbenchers will not remember the days when MPs routinely flipped the designations of first and second homes to maximise their parliamentary expenses. To the newbies, this looks bad.
Unlike most others, apparently, I'm content to await the judgement of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards before I decide whether Ange is a saint or a sinner. I suspect Starmer will do the same, as he's as boring as me.
OT - Prior to today Rayner was most likely to be the next PM and no doubt losing that is a difficult pill to swallow.
However, this is a resignation issue both as a Minister and IMHO as an MP. I understand current MPs tend to think these things don't matter but they do. Certainly she should be gone as a Minister and putting the ball in Starmer's court to sack her rather than being ready to preempt the inevitable is not the sign of either a team player or a capable politician
Not a big fan of Angela's, but I'm not convinced that voters in general care very much. I've not read every detail but gather that she misinterpreted the rules during a divorce. It's a fringe issue for most people. However, resigning to sort out her affairs may make sense, and would probably be enough to enable her to stand for the leadership in a couple of years.
I think they will care - because a lot of people are looking at the £800,000 flat and asking how can she afford that
£400k from her half of the sale of the family property into trust, paid for out of the financial settlement for her child’s future care needs & the other half from a mortgage at ~5x MP‘s salary of £80k. (Exact financial details to be determined, but it will probably turn out to be something like that.)
Sorry, how does she “sell” her property into trust for her children? Who is giving her £400k? Wasn’t the house also valued at a convenient £650k for settlement into the Trust.
I was making up the numbers. If the house was £650k, then presumably her & her husband received £325k each.
The trust that received the settlement payment from the NHS to fund care for her child is the legal entity giving her the £325k in this scenario.
Kemi and the rest of the Tories can do one . Rayner trying to support her son and ensure he’s looked after is now a crime apparently .
And Tice can also do one , supporting Farage the traitor.
Rayner should stress the good parent angle , she tried to do the right thing , was given bad advice and tell the right wing press to go fxck themselves .
So tax minimisation is actually OK providing you have a good enough reason to do it?
The trust was set up to look after her son , that’s it. Any good parent would what they could to do that given he’s now disabled . The Tories who were happy to fellate Bozo and Tice who supports a traitor should STFU .
Rayner doesn’t need lectures from them .
We need a bespoke word for hypocrites alleging hypocrisy.
Kemi and the rest of the Tories can do one . Rayner trying to support her son and ensure he’s looked after is now a crime apparently .
And Tice can also do one , supporting Farage the traitor.
Rayner should stress the good parent angle , she tried to do the right thing , was given bad advice and tell the right wing press to go fxck themselves .
So tax minimisation is actually OK providing you have a good enough reason to do it?
The trust was set up to look after her son , that’s it. Any good parent would what they could to do that given he’s now disabled . The Tories who were happy to fellate Bozo and Tice who supports a traitor should STFU .
Rayner doesn’t need lectures from them .
We need a bespoke word for hypocrites alleging hypocrisy.
Hyperhypocrites?
What if they are riding horses? Hippohyperhypocrites?
A huge moment -- Melvyn Bragg steps down from In Our Time after over a quarter of a century. What a programme and what a legacy! Just a model for how to make great, clever, engaging radio, and a twenty-seven-year experiment that proves there's a huge global audience for smart, scholarly programming.
Starmer should ask for confirmation of the legal advice she was given .
If he’s convinced that means she’ll be exonerated he should defend her .
It doesn't work like that
A commentator has just said she will have to produce all the documentation and advice she received to the ethics investigation and it wil review everything and advise the PM
I can see a huge issue here. Having produced all of the documentation and advice, etc. let's say that Rayner is cleared. Will that documentation be released to the public? Will it be included in the advice from the Sir Laurie Magnus to the Prime Minister? How much will be redacted?
Even if she's cleared, this will be a point of contention with some sections of the media or politics demanding to see the documents. They will chip away day in, day out until it becomes untenable for her to remain in post and she steps aside. She may win but ultimately, she will lose.
Comments
My problem is the optics. Basic principle in our modern democracy surely has to be that you live in and around the constituency? I give a little leeway for people who find themselves removed from it by a boundary change, but in and around the constituents you represent.
She claims that she still does. But not when declaring taxes? Even when the belief was that this tax arrangement was allowable it looked politically brave.
This is also a government that in a few short week’s time is going to stand up and demand everyone reach into their pockets and pay more tax.
I have a fair bit of time for Rayner. I’ve commented before (in fact, as recently as yesterday) that she probably stood a better chance at combating Farage than Starmer, even if I don’t agree with her politics. But I do think this is probably damaging enough for her to go, and if not, it’s going to continue to haunt her throughout her political career - at least in the medium term.
Even if it turns out she has a decent excuse for underpaid tax, the optics are terminal. At the very least she bent the law to avoid tax, on a lovely new flat, by claming her real home is hundreds of miles from her constituency. And she is housing minister?!
Can't be squared away
They haven't learned the golden rule. Better to resign before it becomes untenable, and then get reappointed in a few months time....
Kemi is already in deficit...
What the British diplomats think, but cannot say.
Former Conservative chairman Lord Patten describing the "gathering of blood soaked dictators" in Shanghai as in part "a triumph for the ignorance of Trump’s foreign policy".
Patten says the leader present in Shanghai that is most difficult to explain is the Indian prime minister Modi adding “that has happened as a result of America’s clueless diplomacy. The way in which Trump has managed to drive people into China’s arms is a very good display of the crazed diplomacy this sociopath has been inflicting on the rest of us.
"In dealing with Trump, we have to recognise that America historically was our best friend and ally. Is that true today? I think at least self-respect has some part to play in foreign policy, and when the King in some style welcomes Trump on a state visit what values can we point which Trump shares with the rest of us?
"He is on the road to becoming an authoritarian which makes it very difficult to explain to countries in Asia why democracy is better for them, and their security".
https://x.com/patrickwintour/status/1963226522317164567
Does this mean she’ll be doing a pre-PM Boris Johnson, whoreing herself on TV and in the papers every day to earn some cash?
The other thing is that it shows astonishingly poor judgement.
They'll definitely be queueing up to defend her next time
She remains second favourite to be next Labour leader.
Streeting 13% chance
Rayner 11%
Burnham 10%
Those who think Rayner is a goner can lay her.
I doubt most people can afford an £800,000 flat
They may be wrong.
If you think they are, you can profitably lay her.
The stamp duty payable on the Hove flat depends on whether it was the only property she owned when she bought it. She declared it was. This meant she avoided the higher rate of stamp duty that's applicable to second (and third etc) properties.
This is not tantamount to her claiming it as her 'real home'. Main residence is a separate matter which isn't relevant to the stamp duty calculation.
The problem is that the rules around trusts mean that, for tax purposes, the property that was put into trust for her child is treated as if she owns it.
A competent lawyer would have spotted this immediately by all accounts, so either her lawyers were incompetent or she failed to give them the full details of her financial situation.
If he’s convinced that means she’ll be exonerated he should defend her .
They are risking their money on their judgement so it's not partisan blogging or TV pundits.
Edit: Someone has just taken the £3 available to lay her at 10.5 so it's too late.
That might be an innocent, or negligent mistakr, rather than fraudulent, in fact, it most likely was.
A commentator has just said she will have to produce all the documentation and advice she received to the ethics investigation and it wil review everything and advise the PM
"Will the purchase of the property result in owning two or more properties?" Yes, extra 5%
Simple! No idea why even HMRC talk about "main residence" it just confuses the issue.
General election 2024:
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Labour. Angela Rayner. 15,575 43.9
Reform UK Robert Barrowcliffe 8,784 24.8
Conservative Lizzie Hacking 4,375 12.3
Workers Aroma Hassan. 2,835 8.0
Green Lee Huntbach. 2,481 7.0
LibDem. Dominic Hardwick 1,411 4.0
Majority 6,791 19.1 +8.0
Turnout 35,461 49.9 −6.4
Registered electors 71,002
Its a view
I mean its like saying they didn't care about expenses
Until last year she had only an MP salary of £90k, no way she affords the new flat on that.
I have absolutely zero sympathy for her and maybe she will heed her own advice to others and go.
She clearly lives in London in the grace-and-favour, shares the constituency home with her ex-husband in some way, and has just bought a seaside flat in Hove.
She has no other links to Hove AFAICS, so declaring it to be her main residence for stamp duty purposes just seems absurd to an outsider.
Lol
If so, that’s surely a relevant calculation for Starmer. There’s a decent chance the members would vote for someone from the bonkers wing. Far better to keep her in place, weakened, quiet, and no threat.
Had Raynor transferred the family home to her husband when they divorced, all of her transactions would have been entirely above board.
Rather like David Laws, Raynor has been caught out by trying to structure her own affairs in ways that eventually came back to bite her. Like Laws, she might well have to resign but that’s not certain at this point - if she can prove that she was given bad legal advice even after revealing everything to her lawyers then she’s probably in the clear.
It likely precludes her from succeeding Starmer. Depending on the outcome of any investigation, and again, the passage of time, it might not completely rule her out from ever being party leader (though the chances must have significantly reduced).
Tell that to "loan charge" contractors*, pop stars, footballers etc who relied on an opinion by a tax barrister.
*note, no sympathy to anyone who markets themself as a competent professional and used a Doug Barrowman payroll arrangement run out of IOM
It's not a good look. At the very least it was aggressive tax minimisation, while criticising others for similar behaviour. (I.e. rank hypocricy.)
It's entirely possible it is outright tax evasion.
I like "Our Ange", and thing she's a great bruiser. She's also essentially impossible to remove if she does not want to go. But this was bad behaviuour.
Perhaps someone should send a dictionary to the head of the Met with the word “discretion” underlined?
They must now ascertain whether the error was an innocent one. If it was perhaps she survives (and deserves to). If not she surely doesn't.
Now, he allegedly lied for non-financial reasons (as in to try and prevent his parents from finding out he was gay). I would argue that his breach was the less serious because the investigation found "no evidence that [he] made his claims with the intention of benefiting himself or his partner". Nevertheless, he was right to resign.
All that matters is how many properties you will own. You can answer Yes or No to the main residence question and the same stamp duty is due.
At the very least may be being too generous to her, but at the very least, it was an innocent error.
And Tice can also do one , supporting Farage the traitor.
Rayner should stress the good parent angle , she tried to do the right thing , was given bad advice and tell the right wing press to go fxck themselves .
I’m pretty sure when I last bought a house (though may be misremembering) I had to sign a big disclaimer that said it was my responsibility to ensure that I was comfortable with the SDLT position on the purchase. Which sort of makes sense. Conveyancers aren’t tax lawyers, they wont spend hours advising on the nuances of second home treatment. They might, I suppose, give a view, but typically any view on tax arrangements will be backed up somewhere by a strong recommendation to seek specialist advice.
So if Ange wasn’t relying on a conveyancer’s opinion, did she go to someone else and ask them for a view?
Would she be as charitable if it was a political opponent ?
Tbf it doesn't look like the trust was set up to get around stamp duty rules. Because it clearly doesn't, hence the problem. But let's see what comes out in the wash.
https://x.com/kevin_maguire/status/1963189526123225263?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
My parents used the same firm of solicitors for the entirety of their married lives. Individuals would, admittedly, come and go but having moved house countless times and had various business interests, investments, legal requirements and heaven only knows what else, they were known to the staff working at the solicitors. By the same measure, my parents knew those individuals working there.
There is a scenario where, having set up the trust in 2020, divorced in 2023 and sold her share of the property to the trust in 2025, the same solicitors would have been used (not necessarily on the divorce but certainly to establish the trust and to sell the property to the trust). It's not beyond the realm of possibility that she thought they would be aware of everything.
I've read her statement. I'm not sure that she should go (either by choice or otherwise). If it is genuinely cockup rather than conspiracy, then being an MP (let alone Deputy Prime Minister) with access to some decent legal and tax resources wasn't enough to spot the issue. If that's the case then imagine what it's like for the rest of us. The Conservatives harped on about reforming planning laws and property taxes and simplifying the home buying system for years. Perhaps, if this is used as a platform for a broader discussion, they may want to get behind it.
https://x.com/angelarayner/status/1616729550913949696
https://x.com/danieljhannan/status/1961388935114117535
Rayner doesn’t need lectures from them .
£650k valuation, you may have a point. Though remember that there is the realistic property valuation and there is the "marketing asking price" that internet site / estate agent gives to generate business.
But context is everything. The second MP who springs to mind for home-shuffling is Robert Jenrick, the man who would be LotO, who drove between first and second and third homes during the pandemic. So it is unfortunate for Rayner that, due to Labour's landslide, so many backbenchers will not remember the days when MPs routinely flipped the designations of first and second homes to maximise their parliamentary expenses. To the newbies, this looks bad.
I suspect Starmer will do the same, as he's as boring as me.
The trust that received the settlement payment from the NHS to fund care for her child is the legal entity giving her the £325k in this scenario.
Hyperhypocrites?
@iandunt.bsky.social
Oh God no.
John Gallagher
@earlymodernjohn.bsky.social
A huge moment -- Melvyn Bragg steps down from In Our Time after over a quarter of a century. What a programme and what a legacy! Just a model for how to make great, clever, engaging radio, and a twenty-seven-year experiment that proves there's a huge global audience for smart, scholarly programming.
https://bsky.app/profile/iandunt.bsky.social/post/3lxwjecxpfc2x
Even if she's cleared, this will be a point of contention with some sections of the media or politics demanding to see the documents. They will chip away day in, day out until it becomes untenable for her to remain in post and she steps aside. She may win but ultimately, she will lose.