Freshwater Strategy for September Ref 33 (=) Lab 20 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (+1) Grn 7 (+1) SNP 3(=)
To show how ridiculous Baxter has become, I put the numbers in and East Ham is a Reform gain from Labour.
Now, it's unlikely Labour will lose the seat as they've held it (and its equivalents) since the 1920s but if it were to be lost, it's much more likely it would go to an Independent than to Reform who start from 3.5% in fourth place in a constituency which is strongly Muslim. Even those who have become ardent Reform supporters on this forum have conceded East Ham isn't one of their more likely gains at the next election.
As we saw in the 2024 election, the pollsters seem unable or unwilling to pick up the "Independent" vote and I suspect that is inflating some of the Reform numbers. I would be astonished if Reform won East Ham at the next election - indeed, i'd be more astonished than if the Conservatives or Greens won it. The one thing that would be astonish me more would be a Liberal Democrat win.
That poll only has 5% for "others" so not much for pro-Hamas independents
Nationally, no, but we know from 2024 how the strength of that vote in Muslim areas was "missed" by pollsters.
In Newham, we have a by-election in Plaistow North on 16th September which should be enlightening as to the strength of the anti-Labour vote.
Anyhoo, a reliable source has been in touch, they think Badenoch is more likely to go before Rayner, as more is set to come out about her past as the uni offers is just the tip of the iceberg.
Why do people do this sort of idiocy? If you are in a public position where integrity is important, lots of people are looking to bring you down and everyone can find out info at the push of a button, why on earth would you make claims that just aren’t true? It’s absolutely beyond dumb.
If Kemi made false claims like this, even if to just big herself up and not on a CV when applying for a job it is still enough that she should step down as it shows a character flaw that should be an automatic bar to office.
The country is governed by fucking idiots, left, right and centre.
inter alia, they all make Farage look like a titanic figure of skill, charm, probity and intellect
The thing that Truss has achieved is that, when Farage becomes PM, he will only be the second-worst PM in British history.
'Genuine mistake' Im sure thousands will be relieved that any issue uncovered by HMRC etc can be waved away with this defence.
Generally, most errors in tax payment are dealt with as mistakes and you just pay what was owed (+ interest). Very few cases lead to any prosecution.
HMRC has a system where penalties can be applied from 0-100% of the underpaid tax. Presumably, they have not yet assessed what to do in this case and may yet apply penalties. The penalty scheme goes...
lack of reasonable care - the penalty will be between 0% and 30% of the extra tax due deliberate - the penalty will be between 20 and 70% of the extra tax due deliberate and concealed - the penalty will be between 30 and 100% of the extra tax due
Doesn’t matter, this is politics, as I’ve said, perceptions matter more than the facts.
All the public will see is she avoided £40,000, which is more than plenty of them earn.
She decided to do the trust to help look after her son which any parent would do in these circumstances. Her mistake seems genuine and I hope she can stay on as Deputy PM.
There is years and years of this, from her. She is now in a completely impossible position, and is damaging Starmer with every hour she stays
This is what I said yesterday, she has dodgy tax dealings so she can't be leader or even stay on in the Cabinet. She's a really nasty piece of work and all of this "oh it was by accident" doesn't hold water for me. She's very clearly in the wrong, she's set up a trust for her kid so they can continue to claim disability benefits despite a £1m cash settlement and now the trust has purchased the house off her enabling a massive tax free gain (which until recently she's been briefing the media about how wrong it is to have no CGT on primary residences) which she's used to fund the purchase of her shag pad with her new boyfriend in a safe Labour seat in Hove.
Nah, Rayner and her defenders can jog on. It's unedifying to see some defend her so hard when it's clear she's in the wrong and dodged £40k in tax.
I prefer to await the results of the inquiry. But then, I don’t have the visceral hatred of Rayner that you obviously do. Is it because she’s Labour, a woman, or both?
To be fair I think it is her hypocrisy and her position as DPM and housing minister
It just looks awful, and of course Reeves is not going to be happy just when she is about to launch property taxes
Nothing to do with her being labour and a woman
Of course it does.
You were the biggest defender of Johnson being "ambushed by cake" and Starmer and Rayner guilty of consuming a beer and a curry under the gaze of Ivo Delingpole's mobile phone camera.
She still needs to go mind.
I was not a Johnson defender and did not even vote for him as leader
Starmer and Rayner faced fair questions on currygate
And it is not about Rayner being Labour or a woman, just standards which Starmer said he would enforce
Yes you were, no they didn't, yes it is, and yes he did.*
Freshwater Strategy for September Ref 33 (=) Lab 20 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (+1) Grn 7 (+1) SNP 3(=)
To show how ridiculous Baxter has become, I put the numbers in and East Ham is a Reform gain from Labour.
Now, it's unlikely Labour will lose the seat as they've held it (and its equivalents) since the 1920s but if it were to be lost, it's much more likely it would go to an Independent than to Reform who start from 3.5% in fourth place in a constituency which is strongly Muslim. Even those who have become ardent Reform supporters on this forum have conceded East Ham isn't one of their more likely gains at the next election.
As we saw in the 2024 election, the pollsters seem unable or unwilling to pick up the "Independent" vote and I suspect that is inflating some of the Reform numbers. I would be astonished if Reform won East Ham at the next election - indeed, i'd be more astonished than if the Conservatives or Greens won it. The one thing that would be astonish me more would be a Liberal Democrat win.
That poll only has 5% for "others" so not much for pro-Hamas independents
Nationally, no, but we know from 2024 how the strength of that vote in Muslim areas was "missed" by pollsters.
In Newham, we have a by-election in Plaistow North on 16th September which should be enlightening as to the strength of the anti-Labour vote.
Yes the “Hamas independent” vote was very concentrated, hence the handful of MPs.
One of the more worrying takeaways from the last election, the potential for sectarian politics to dominate in many English towns.
Why has Ange bought a random £800k pad in Hove anyway?
Why not , what’s wrong with Hove? Seriously though she doesn’t need one in London or Ashton so maybe she thought it was a good investment.
She is Ashton's mp and you think it a good look she lives in Hove ?
Point me out Farage's static caravan in Little Clacton and she is banged to rights.
Reading your posts you have been unequivocally wanting her resignation
What's Farage does is another matter
I believe she should go.
I just think your post, in this instance about absenteeism only holds water if it applies to all MPs, that King of Clacton and Putin apologist too.
You, like the whole of the UK media have just given Farage a free pass.
Not convinced about the free pass. Guardian, Economist, Mirror, New Statesman, Politico, FT, lots of social media, loads of individual journalists on X and elsewhere, Political Betting, LBC, are examples of being nowhere close to a free pass.
The BBC is a bit strange on this in allowing Farage lots of voice, but this is arguably the right thing; but maintains its unblinking liberal line in general.
"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.
My view is that she should resign as a minister, if HMRC impose a penalty. But, not otherwise.
Essentially, penalties are imposed depending on whether the underpayment was innocent, negligent, or deliberate; and whether the disclosure of the underpayment was voluntary or prompted. On a few occasions, as a professional executor, I've discovered that I have underpaid Inheritance Tax, because more assets of the estate have come to light. I've faced no penalty, because the underpayment was innocent, and I disclosed it without any prompting. All I had to do was pay the balance with interest.
Rayner has voluntarily disclosed the underpayment, and it is most unlikely that she was deliberately filing a false return (if she did, she would be made to resign as an MP). So, the issue is likely to be innocence v negligence.
Voluntarily my arse, she has been disseminating on it for weeks and it was only because she knew she was nailed that she got in to try and save her skin. Be crocodile tears next.
Why has Ange bought a random £800k pad in Hove anyway?
Why not , what’s wrong with Hove? Seriously though she doesn’t need one in London or Ashton so maybe she thought it was a good investment.
She is Ashton's mp and you think it a good look she lives in Hove ?
Point me out Farage's static caravan in Little Clacton and she is banged to rights.
Reading your posts you have been unequivocally wanting her resignation
What's Farage does is another matter
I believe she should go.
I just think your post, in this instance about absenteeism only holds water if it applies to all MPs, that King of Clacton and Putin apologist too.
You, like the whole of the UK media have just given Farage a free pass.
Not convinced about the free pass. Guardian, Economist, Mirror, New Statesman, Politico, FT, lots of social media, loads of individual journalists on X and elsewhere, Political Betting, LBC, are examples of being nowhere close to a free pass.
The BBC is a bit strange on this in allowing Farage lots of voice, but this is arguably the right thing; but maintains its unblinking liberal line in general.
You clearly only listen to James O'Brexit and Nick Abbott on LBC.
Freshwater Strategy for September Ref 33 (=) Lab 20 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (+1) Grn 7 (+1) SNP 3(=)
Freshwater have markedly different results from other pollsters, and in a different way from others.
Reform is consistently higher, but it’s Green that is consistently lower. So this isn’t about over or under sampling politically engaged or extremist voters. The Lib Dems for example are on similar with this lot to the others. This is about over or under sampling the far right and far left.
Freshwater Strategy for September Ref 33 (=) Lab 20 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (+1) Grn 7 (+1) SNP 3(=)
To show how ridiculous Baxter has become, I put the numbers in and East Ham is a Reform gain from Labour.
Now, it's unlikely Labour will lose the seat as they've held it (and its equivalents) since the 1920s but if it were to be lost, it's much more likely it would go to an Independent than to Reform who start from 3.5% in fourth place in a constituency which is strongly Muslim. Even those who have become ardent Reform supporters on this forum have conceded East Ham isn't one of their more likely gains at the next election.
As we saw in the 2024 election, the pollsters seem unable or unwilling to pick up the "Independent" vote and I suspect that is inflating some of the Reform numbers. I would be astonished if Reform won East Ham at the next election - indeed, i'd be more astonished than if the Conservatives or Greens won it. The one thing that would be astonish me more would be a Liberal Democrat win.
Baxter is using uniform swing which is okay in most seats where it's Con v Lab.
Freshwater Strategy for September Ref 33 (=) Lab 20 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (+1) Grn 7 (+1) SNP 3(=)
To show how ridiculous Baxter has become, I put the numbers in and East Ham is a Reform gain from Labour.
Now, it's unlikely Labour will lose the seat as they've held it (and its equivalents) since the 1920s but if it were to be lost, it's much more likely it would go to an Independent than to Reform who start from 3.5% in fourth place in a constituency which is strongly Muslim. Even those who have become ardent Reform supporters on this forum have conceded East Ham isn't one of their more likely gains at the next election.
As we saw in the 2024 election, the pollsters seem unable or unwilling to pick up the "Independent" vote and I suspect that is inflating some of the Reform numbers. I would be astonished if Reform won East Ham at the next election - indeed, i'd be more astonished than if the Conservatives or Greens won it. The one thing that would be astonish me more would be a Liberal Democrat win.
That poll only has 5% for "others" so not much for pro-Hamas independents
Nationally, no, but we know from 2024 how the strength of that vote in Muslim areas was "missed" by pollsters.
In Newham, we have a by-election in Plaistow North on 16th September which should be enlightening as to the strength of the anti-Labour vote.
Yes the “Hamas independent” vote was very concentrated, hence the handful of MPs.
One of the more worrying takeaways from the last election, the potential for sectarian politics to dominate in many English towns.
Baxter bases it's swing calculations on the PLMR MRP, which had a few unusual results like Reform sweeping Birmingham.
The Feb 25 Yougov MRP, had East Ham as Lab 42, Green 15, Ref 14, Con 10, Other 10, LD 8
And as you say in terms of resources, Ref's main targets in E London will be Hornchurch, Romford and Dagenham, then Chingford if IDS retires. Stretch targets would be Barking and Ilford N
As stated, it is very difficult for the pollsters to deal with independents until they know who is actually standing.
This I why I would be sacking, or reshuffling Raynor I really don't give a crap either way about this tax thing; let the Revenue sort it out.
Over the last three years, housebuilding in London has collapsed. Molior recorded just 2,158 private starts in the first half of 2025, around 5% of London’s (low) targets, and still falling.
What is going on? I have posed this question to numerous specialists, most of whom cannot comment publicly for professional reasons. This thread is a summary of what I have gleaned. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1963196403913494704
Whether or not she made a mistake or accidentally-on-purpose misstated her tax position is of minimal interest to me. The fact that this government is proving as feeble as the last one in sorting out the planning morass, actually matters to millions of people's lives.
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey says he believes Deputy PM Angela Rayner's property decisions had been guided by her disabled child's interests.
Davey notes that often members of the opposition "jump up and down and call for resignations" in situations like this, but as a parent of a disabled child, he says, "I know the thing my wife and I worry most about is our son's care after we have gone".
"I completely understand and trust that the deputy prime minister was thinking about the same thing here," he says.
Davey, a vocal advocate for disabled people's rights and support for their carers, adds: "Perhaps now is a good time to talk about how we look after disabled people and how we can build a more caring country."
What a weird pivot. I don’t think anyone’s attacking her on the basis of her family arrangements. Does having atypical family arrangements/caring responsibilities excuse you from not paying tax?
The confusion (according to Rayner) arose because of the odd rules around trusts. AIUI, she declared she didn't own any other house and she didn't, but she was tripped up because she counts as owning a house that is owned in trust for her son. The reason she has a trust is because she has a disabled son.
But it doesn’t excuse it.
Life forces us into making all sorts of arrangements sometimes. These can sometimes be very difficult, and complicated, and I sympathise when people have to put these kind of arrangements in place: but it is still your responsibility to make sure that your affairs are above board. The average man/woman on the street doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this.
Yes, she is responsible for the error. (If it's an error. If it's not an error, she is also responsible!)
If the case is as she describes, I would have sympathy with her given the oddity of the rules. It's easy to see how one could be tripped up. It is not a situation most of us, thankfully, have to deal with.
The average man/woman on the street absolutely does get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this. The average man/woman on the street would not lose their job over this. They would not be plastered over the media because of this. If it was a mistake and they reported themselves to HMRC, they wouldn't be prosecuted and they would probably not be fined.
I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street.
But Rayner is not the average man /woman, she is DPM and housing minister requiring the highest of standards
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey says he believes Deputy PM Angela Rayner's property decisions had been guided by her disabled child's interests.
Davey notes that often members of the opposition "jump up and down and call for resignations" in situations like this, but as a parent of a disabled child, he says, "I know the thing my wife and I worry most about is our son's care after we have gone".
"I completely understand and trust that the deputy prime minister was thinking about the same thing here," he says.
Davey, a vocal advocate for disabled people's rights and support for their carers, adds: "Perhaps now is a good time to talk about how we look after disabled people and how we can build a more caring country."
What a weird pivot. I don’t think anyone’s attacking her on the basis of her family arrangements. Does having atypical family arrangements/caring responsibilities excuse you from not paying tax?
The confusion (according to Rayner) arose because of the odd rules around trusts. AIUI, she declared she didn't own any other house and she didn't, but she was tripped up because she counts as owning a house that is owned in trust for her son. The reason she has a trust is because she has a disabled son.
But it doesn’t excuse it.
Life forces us into making all sorts of arrangements sometimes. These can sometimes be very difficult, and complicated, and I sympathise when people have to put these kind of arrangements in place: but it is still your responsibility to make sure that your affairs are above board. The average man/woman on the street doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this.
Yes, she is responsible for the error. (If it's an error. If it's not an error, she is also responsible!)
If the case is as she describes, I would have sympathy with her given the oddity of the rules. It's easy to see how one could be tripped up. It is not a situation most of us, thankfully, have to deal with.
The average man/woman on the street absolutely does get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this. The average man/woman on the street would not lose their job over this. They would not be plastered over the media because of this. If it was a mistake and they reported themselves to HMRC, they wouldn't be prosecuted and they would probably not be fined.
I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street.
But she doesn’t have a normal job, she’s paid £160k a year of public money to be the housing minister, in charge of the rules the rest of us are expected to follow but she can’t follow herself.
Freshwater Strategy for September Ref 33 (=) Lab 20 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (+1) Grn 7 (+1) SNP 3(=)
Freshwater have markedly different results from other pollsters, and in a different way from others.
Reform is consistently higher, but it’s Green that is consistently lower. So this isn’t about over or under sampling politically engaged or extremist voters. The Lib Dems for example are on similar with this lot to the others. This is about over or under sampling the far right and far left.
No, i'm sorry that's just not accurate, they are not markedly different. Reform is not consistently higher, its not even the highest of the current round of polls (FoN 34, BMG 35) The Greens are in line with polling from MiC, Survation and BMG None of their polling is out of line for any party with other pollsters
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey says he believes Deputy PM Angela Rayner's property decisions had been guided by her disabled child's interests.
Davey notes that often members of the opposition "jump up and down and call for resignations" in situations like this, but as a parent of a disabled child, he says, "I know the thing my wife and I worry most about is our son's care after we have gone".
"I completely understand and trust that the deputy prime minister was thinking about the same thing here," he says.
Davey, a vocal advocate for disabled people's rights and support for their carers, adds: "Perhaps now is a good time to talk about how we look after disabled people and how we can build a more caring country."
What a weird pivot. I don’t think anyone’s attacking her on the basis of her family arrangements. Does having atypical family arrangements/caring responsibilities excuse you from not paying tax?
The confusion (according to Rayner) arose because of the odd rules around trusts. AIUI, she declared she didn't own any other house and she didn't, but she was tripped up because she counts as owning a house that is owned in trust for her son. The reason she has a trust is because she has a disabled son.
But it doesn’t excuse it.
Life forces us into making all sorts of arrangements sometimes. These can sometimes be very difficult, and complicated, and I sympathise when people have to put these kind of arrangements in place: but it is still your responsibility to make sure that your affairs are above board. The average man/woman on the street doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this.
Yes, she is responsible for the error. (If it's an error. If it's not an error, she is also responsible!)
If the case is as she describes, I would have sympathy with her given the oddity of the rules. It's easy to see how one could be tripped up. It is not a situation most of us, thankfully, have to deal with.
The average man/woman on the street absolutely does get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this. The average man/woman on the street would not lose their job over this. They would not be plastered over the media because of this. If it was a mistake and they reported themselves to HMRC, they wouldn't be prosecuted and they would probably not be fined.
I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street.
But Rayner is not the average man /woman, she is DPM and housing minister requiring the highest of standards
Indeed. The question of whether she should remain housing minister is not a situation where she should be treated like the average man/woman on the street, and she won't be.
However, what I said was, I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street. We should all be equal before the law... or HMRC. HMRC should treat her the same as anyone else.
There is years and years of this, from her. She is now in a completely impossible position, and is damaging Starmer with every hour she stays
This is what I said yesterday, she has dodgy tax dealings so she can't be leader or even stay on in the Cabinet. She's a really nasty piece of work and all of this "oh it was by accident" doesn't hold water for me. She's very clearly in the wrong, she's set up a trust for her kid so they can continue to claim disability benefits despite a £1m cash settlement and now the trust has purchased the house off her enabling a massive tax free gain (which until recently she's been briefing the media about how wrong it is to have no CGT on primary residences) which she's used to fund the purchase of her shag pad with her new boyfriend in a safe Labour seat in Hove.
Nah, Rayner and her defenders can jog on. It's unedifying to see some defend her so hard when it's clear she's in the wrong and dodged £40k in tax.
She has always been a nasty piece of work. Her supporters like to claim that she apologised for saying nasty things about Tories but in reality any apology had to be forced out of her. You can disagree with someone's politics without believing them to be scum.
And now to be shown to be as venal as any Tory that she demanded resign. I imagine many of her previous targets are enjoying the irony of a Housing Minister - A HOUSING MINISTER - getting into a pickle about housing.
This I why I would be sacking, or reshuffling Raynor I really don't give a crap either way about this tax thing; let the Revenue sort it out.
Over the last three years, housebuilding in London has collapsed. Molior recorded just 2,158 private starts in the first half of 2025, around 5% of London’s (low) targets, and still falling.
What is going on? I have posed this question to numerous specialists, most of whom cannot comment publicly for professional reasons. This thread is a summary of what I have gleaned. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1963196403913494704
Whether or not she made a mistake or accidentally-on-purpose misstated her tax position is of minimal interest to me. The fact that this government is proving as feeble as the last one in sorting out the planning morass, actually matters to millions of people's lives.
That’s a very good thread, well worth reading.
If it’s too difficult to build in the most expensive city in Europe, then there’s a big problem with the regulatory environment.
Anyhoo, a reliable source has been in touch, they think Badenoch is more likely to go before Rayner, as more is set to come out about her past as the uni offers is just the tip of the iceberg.
Why do people do this sort of idiocy? If you are in a public position where integrity is important, lots of people are looking to bring you down and everyone can find out info at the push of a button, why on earth would you make claims that just aren’t true? It’s absolutely beyond dumb.
If Kemi made false claims like this, even if to just big herself up and not on a CV when applying for a job it is still enough that she should step down as it shows a character flaw that should be an automatic bar to office.
The country is governed by fucking idiots, left, right and centre.
inter alia, they all make Farage look like a titanic figure of skill, charm, probity and intellect
The thing that Truss has achieved is that, when Farage becomes PM, he will only be the second-worst PM in British history.
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey says he believes Deputy PM Angela Rayner's property decisions had been guided by her disabled child's interests.
Davey notes that often members of the opposition "jump up and down and call for resignations" in situations like this, but as a parent of a disabled child, he says, "I know the thing my wife and I worry most about is our son's care after we have gone".
"I completely understand and trust that the deputy prime minister was thinking about the same thing here," he says.
Davey, a vocal advocate for disabled people's rights and support for their carers, adds: "Perhaps now is a good time to talk about how we look after disabled people and how we can build a more caring country."
What a weird pivot. I don’t think anyone’s attacking her on the basis of her family arrangements. Does having atypical family arrangements/caring responsibilities excuse you from not paying tax?
The confusion (according to Rayner) arose because of the odd rules around trusts. AIUI, she declared she didn't own any other house and she didn't, but she was tripped up because she counts as owning a house that is owned in trust for her son. The reason she has a trust is because she has a disabled son.
But it doesn’t excuse it.
Life forces us into making all sorts of arrangements sometimes. These can sometimes be very difficult, and complicated, and I sympathise when people have to put these kind of arrangements in place: but it is still your responsibility to make sure that your affairs are above board. The average man/woman on the street doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this.
She's paying the tax. The question is whether she also loses her job. If she does she'll have got less slack than the average person. Which is maybe fair enough for a politician - but on the tax point she isn't claiming special treatment.
Now, she was previously in avoiding paying , how can a housing minister not know the rules. No excuse possible it is a red card.
Irreparable damage to her reputation. Tories getting caught dodging tax is a trifle and the public accepts it to a certain extent. Labour MPs getting caught is career ending.
She should resign for her lack of ambition, having to resign for a tax minimisation strategy for £40,000 is embarrassing, think big, and try minimise hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I honestly think it was a cock up. She would have been asked by her conveyancing solicitor “do you own any other property” and would have ticked “no”. The solicitor would then have calculated the stamp duty due.
In her position it would have been prudent to consult a trust lawyer but she probably didn’t think of it
Yes, having lawyers involved makes things so much better, and she wouldn’t be in this mess.
Not the lawyer my great-aunt had. Lost the will, title deeds, and everything.
It would be everything, as all her papers were presumably kept together - for safety!
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey says he believes Deputy PM Angela Rayner's property decisions had been guided by her disabled child's interests.
Davey notes that often members of the opposition "jump up and down and call for resignations" in situations like this, but as a parent of a disabled child, he says, "I know the thing my wife and I worry most about is our son's care after we have gone".
"I completely understand and trust that the deputy prime minister was thinking about the same thing here," he says.
Davey, a vocal advocate for disabled people's rights and support for their carers, adds: "Perhaps now is a good time to talk about how we look after disabled people and how we can build a more caring country."
What a weird pivot. I don’t think anyone’s attacking her on the basis of her family arrangements. Does having atypical family arrangements/caring responsibilities excuse you from not paying tax?
The confusion (according to Rayner) arose because of the odd rules around trusts. AIUI, she declared she didn't own any other house and she didn't, but she was tripped up because she counts as owning a house that is owned in trust for her son. The reason she has a trust is because she has a disabled son.
Why has Ange bought a random £800k pad in Hove anyway?
Why not , what’s wrong with Hove? Seriously though she doesn’t need one in London or Ashton so maybe she thought it was a good investment.
She is Ashton's mp and you think it a good look she lives in Hove ?
Point me out Farage's static caravan in Little Clacton and she is banged to rights.
Reading your posts you have been unequivocally wanting her resignation
What's Farage does is another matter
I believe she should go.
I just think your post, in this instance about absenteeism only holds water if it applies to all MPs, that King of Clacton and Putin apologist too.
You, like the whole of the UK media have just given Farage a free pass.
Not convinced about the free pass. Guardian, Economist, Mirror, New Statesman, Politico, FT, lots of social media, loads of individual journalists on X and elsewhere, Political Betting, LBC, are examples of being nowhere close to a free pass.
The BBC is a bit strange on this in allowing Farage lots of voice, but this is arguably the right thing; but maintains its unblinking liberal line in general.
You clearly only listen to James O'Brexit and Nick Abbott on LBC.
No more than I can help thanks. But it is just not right to say the media is giving Reform a free pass, and the examples you give prove the point.
One further point: if the media were giving Farage a free pass, he would be willing to be interviewed by Andrew Neil (often on Times Radio, giving no-one a free pass), which, IIRC, is an offer not recently accepted.
PS The indispensible person on LBC, IMO, is Simon Marks on USA politics. Funny and deadly.
Labour's efforts to attract support on right 'have brought little reward', says election study
The British Election Study, the most authoritative study of voting behaviour in the UK, has published new research today looking at how support for Labour has declined since last summer. “Labour’s collapse in support since the 2024 General Election has been remarkable,” it says.
Though Reform has taken Labour’s place at the top of the polls, it is not the case that the two parties are simply trading voters. Reform’s rise has for the most part come from the Conservatives and non-voters, whereas Labour’s support has splintered between indecision and other left-liberal parties. Labour’s efforts to attract support on the right have brought little reward and have potentially alienated much of their base (who make up most of Labour’s losses), and there is a lot of work to be done to convince voters that they can make a difference on the economy. Labour have a large majority in Parliament and four years until they need to hold a new general election, but they have a difficult task to turn things around.
Freshwater Strategy for September Ref 33 (=) Lab 20 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (+1) Grn 7 (+1) SNP 3(=)
Freshwater have markedly different results from other pollsters, and in a different way from others.
Reform is consistently higher, but it’s Green that is consistently lower. So this isn’t about over or under sampling politically engaged or extremist voters. The Lib Dems for example are on similar with this lot to the others. This is about over or under sampling the far right and far left.
No, i'm sorry that's just not accurate, they are not markedly different. Reform is not consistently higher, its not even the highest of the current round of polls (FoN 34, BMG 35) The Greens are in line with polling from MiC, Survation and BMG None of their polling is out of line for any party with other pollsters
You’re right. I must have been seeing too many Green 10%+ polls recently. The 7% struck me as very low.
Setting up a trust for for a child or adult with disabilities means that the money will not affect their eligibility for benefits since the money technically does not belong to them, but the trustees have responsibility for it.
Ah, so more tax avoidance then. Win £1m in compensation and then claim means-tested benefits.
it wouldn't be for her but for the child.
Payment for injury or negligence is not included in any calculation for means testing.
Also if you are liable to pay for a negligent act which causes injury, it’s not wiped out by bankruptcy.
These payments are considered money for future needs.
Labour's efforts to attract support on right 'have brought little reward', says election study
The British Election Study, the most authoritative study of voting behaviour in the UK, has published new research today looking at how support for Labour has declined since last summer. “Labour’s collapse in support since the 2024 General Election has been remarkable,” it says.
Though Reform has taken Labour’s place at the top of the polls, it is not the case that the two parties are simply trading voters. Reform’s rise has for the most part come from the Conservatives and non-voters, whereas Labour’s support has splintered between indecision and other left-liberal parties. Labour’s efforts to attract support on the right have brought little reward and have potentially alienated much of their base (who make up most of Labour’s losses), and there is a lot of work to be done to convince voters that they can make a difference on the economy. Labour have a large majority in Parliament and four years until they need to hold a new general election, but they have a difficult task to turn things around.
It’s interesting. I’ve generally been a fan of parties triangulating and focusing on the floating voter rather than their base, but I now wonder whether Labour might not be better off focusing on getting those greens, indies and don’t knows back with something more full blooded. Wouldn’t appeal to me, but I’m not their target voter anyway.
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey says he believes Deputy PM Angela Rayner's property decisions had been guided by her disabled child's interests.
Davey notes that often members of the opposition "jump up and down and call for resignations" in situations like this, but as a parent of a disabled child, he says, "I know the thing my wife and I worry most about is our son's care after we have gone".
"I completely understand and trust that the deputy prime minister was thinking about the same thing here," he says.
Davey, a vocal advocate for disabled people's rights and support for their carers, adds: "Perhaps now is a good time to talk about how we look after disabled people and how we can build a more caring country."
What a weird pivot. I don’t think anyone’s attacking her on the basis of her family arrangements. Does having atypical family arrangements/caring responsibilities excuse you from not paying tax?
The confusion (according to Rayner) arose because of the odd rules around trusts. AIUI, she declared she didn't own any other house and she didn't, but she was tripped up because she counts as owning a house that is owned in trust for her son. The reason she has a trust is because she has a disabled son.
But it doesn’t excuse it.
Life forces us into making all sorts of arrangements sometimes. These can sometimes be very difficult, and complicated, and I sympathise when people have to put these kind of arrangements in place: but it is still your responsibility to make sure that your affairs are above board. The average man/woman on the street doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this.
Yes, she is responsible for the error. (If it's an error. If it's not an error, she is also responsible!)
If the case is as she describes, I would have sympathy with her given the oddity of the rules. It's easy to see how one could be tripped up. It is not a situation most of us, thankfully, have to deal with.
The average man/woman on the street absolutely does get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this. The average man/woman on the street would not lose their job over this. They would not be plastered over the media because of this. If it was a mistake and they reported themselves to HMRC, they wouldn't be prosecuted and they would probably not be fined.
I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street.
But Rayner is not the average man /woman, she is DPM and housing minister requiring the highest of standards
Indeed. The question of whether she should remain housing minister is not a situation where she should be treated like the average man/woman on the street, and she won't be.
However, what I said was, I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street. We should all be equal before the law... or HMRC. HMRC should treat her the same as anyone else.
It’s a fair point that the legal and political considerations should (and likely will) be separate.
The problem comes if HMRC treat her more leniently because of who she is, compared to others with similar circumstances.
Freshwater Strategy for September Ref 33 (=) Lab 20 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (+1) Grn 7 (+1) SNP 3(=)
Freshwater have markedly different results from other pollsters, and in a different way from others.
Reform is consistently higher, but it’s Green that is consistently lower. So this isn’t about over or under sampling politically engaged or extremist voters. The Lib Dems for example are on similar with this lot to the others. This is about over or under sampling the far right and far left.
No, i'm sorry that's just not accurate, they are not markedly different. Reform is not consistently higher, its not even the highest of the current round of polls (FoN 34, BMG 35) The Greens are in line with polling from MiC, Survation and BMG None of their polling is out of line for any party with other pollsters
You’re right. I must have been seeing too many Green 10%+ polls recently. The 7% struck me as very low.
There is a definite split I'll grant you - the Greens on about what they got last year versus the double figures club but its about half and half. Lib Dems also split between roughly 2024 static versus 15/16% club Tories are pretty much clustered round 17 to 18% with everyone and Labour on about 20 to 21% Reform in 2 clubs - high 20s vs low to mid 30s
Anyhoo, a reliable source has been in touch, they think Badenoch is more likely to go before Rayner, as more is set to come out about her past as the uni offers is just the tip of the iceberg.
Why do people do this sort of idiocy? If you are in a public position where integrity is important, lots of people are looking to bring you down and everyone can find out info at the push of a button, why on earth would you make claims that just aren’t true? It’s absolutely beyond dumb.
If Kemi made false claims like this, even if to just big herself up and not on a CV when applying for a job it is still enough that she should step down as it shows a character flaw that should be an automatic bar to office.
The country is governed by fucking idiots, left, right and centre.
inter alia, they all make Farage look like a titanic figure of skill, charm, probity and intellect
The thing that Truss has achieved is that, when Farage becomes PM, he will only be the second-worst PM in British history.
Liberal Democrats leader Ed Davey says he believes Deputy PM Angela Rayner's property decisions had been guided by her disabled child's interests.
Davey notes that often members of the opposition "jump up and down and call for resignations" in situations like this, but as a parent of a disabled child, he says, "I know the thing my wife and I worry most about is our son's care after we have gone".
"I completely understand and trust that the deputy prime minister was thinking about the same thing here," he says.
Davey, a vocal advocate for disabled people's rights and support for their carers, adds: "Perhaps now is a good time to talk about how we look after disabled people and how we can build a more caring country."
What a weird pivot. I don’t think anyone’s attacking her on the basis of her family arrangements. Does having atypical family arrangements/caring responsibilities excuse you from not paying tax?
The confusion (according to Rayner) arose because of the odd rules around trusts. AIUI, she declared she didn't own any other house and she didn't, but she was tripped up because she counts as owning a house that is owned in trust for her son. The reason she has a trust is because she has a disabled son.
But it doesn’t excuse it.
Life forces us into making all sorts of arrangements sometimes. These can sometimes be very difficult, and complicated, and I sympathise when people have to put these kind of arrangements in place: but it is still your responsibility to make sure that your affairs are above board. The average man/woman on the street doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this.
Yes, she is responsible for the error. (If it's an error. If it's not an error, she is also responsible!)
If the case is as she describes, I would have sympathy with her given the oddity of the rules. It's easy to see how one could be tripped up. It is not a situation most of us, thankfully, have to deal with.
The average man/woman on the street absolutely does get the benefit of the doubt in respect of this. The average man/woman on the street would not lose their job over this. They would not be plastered over the media because of this. If it was a mistake and they reported themselves to HMRC, they wouldn't be prosecuted and they would probably not be fined.
I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street.
But Rayner is not the average man /woman, she is DPM and housing minister requiring the highest of standards
Indeed. The question of whether she should remain housing minister is not a situation where she should be treated like the average man/woman on the street, and she won't be.
However, what I said was, I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street. We should all be equal before the law... or HMRC. HMRC should treat her the same as anyone else.
It’s a fair point that the legal and political considerations should (and likely will) be separate.
The problem comes if HMRC treat her more leniently because of who she is, compared to others with similar circumstances.
It would be wrong for HMRC to treat her more leniently. There is no evidence to suggest that will happen.
Loving all the contortions from people here desperate to defend Rayner because who she is or her politics. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. Doesn’t matter who it is.
It’s sexism
It’s anti working class prejudice.
Oops, she was in the wrong in the first place.
She was labours attack dog. Hoist by her own petard. She deserves to be taken down a peg or two.
He can be very good but he does phone it in a bit often for a guy on a reported salary of £650k!
Even the greatest of artists, in any medium, cannot churn out masterworks consisitently forever. Plenty of great directors who made shitty movies, or great authors who wrote shitty novels. Especially when they've been at it for decades.
He can be very good but he does phone it in a bit often for a guy on a reported salary of £650k!
That one’s an 8 rather than the usual 9s and 10s.
The Matt story is brilliant, he gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that Matt leaving is a resigning issue for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from both the Mail and the Sun, and his own Twitter account which posts the cartoons for free!
He can be very good but he does phone it in a bit often for a guy on a reported salary of £650k!
That one’s an 8 rather than the usual 9s and 10s.
The Matt story is brilliant, he gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that Matt leaving is a resigning issue for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from both the Mail and the Sun, and his own Twitter account which posts the cartoons for free!
But you don't need to buy the paper to see his work. So what's in it for the Telegraph?
T The fact that this government is proving as feeble as the last one in sorting out the planning morass, actually matters to millions of people's lives.
I tried to hope that they would do a better job on it after some early comments, but the opposition (not Opposition, to be clear) is just too strong and they're already giving up unfortunately.
He can be very good but he does phone it in a bit often for a guy on a reported salary of £650k!
That one’s an 8 rather than the usual 9s and 10s.
The Matt story is brilliant, he gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that Matt leaving is a resigning issue for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from both the Mail and the Sun, and his own Twitter account which posts the cartoons for free!
But you don't need to buy the paper to see his work. So what's in it for the Telegraph?
Which makes it an even more incredible deal for him, he should undertake our international negotiations for us.
A seeming reverse ferret by Notts CC Leader saying it's only him who wasn't talking to the Nottingham Post and their outlets, not that he'd instructed all his Councillors to do it.
He can be very good but he does phone it in a bit often for a guy on a reported salary of £650k!
That one’s an 8 rather than the usual 9s and 10s.
The Matt story is brilliant, he gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that Matt leaving is a resigning issue for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from both the Mail and the Sun, and his own Twitter account which posts the cartoons for free!
But you don't need to buy the paper to see his work. So what's in it for the Telegraph?
For the editor, his own job.
For the publisher, his cartoons not driving traffic to rival newspapers.
May not be quite that bad, but it isn't good when it feels like this is one of the few things they might actually achieve.
He does have a very weird, prickly way of communicating sometimes. The nanny state stuff sounds more belligerent than it needs to? Just say you think it’s the right thing to do, then have that debate if people start knocking you for it.
This is how he manages to get people’s backs up for little benefit.
May not be quite that bad, but it isn't good when it feels like this is one of the few things they might actually achieve.
He does have a very weird, prickly way of communicating sometimes. The nanny state stuff sounds more belligerent than it needs to? Just say you think it’s the right thing to do, then have that debate if people start knocking you for it.
This is how he manages to get people’s backs up for little benefit.
It reminds me of how in the 2010s politicians started to develop a tactic to deal with aggressive interviewers of being aggressive themselves, but would frequently launch into it well before the interviewer actually started being aggressive. It's meant to be showing strength, but comes across as defensive, as you try to pre-empt criticism to undercut it, when reactive responses is probably more effective.
(That may still be the case, but I don't watch enough TV to notice)
May not be quite that bad, but it isn't good when it feels like this is one of the few things they might actually achieve.
He does have a very weird, prickly way of communicating sometimes. The nanny state stuff sounds more belligerent than it needs to? Just say you think it’s the right thing to do, then have that debate if people start knocking you for it.
This is how he manages to get people’s backs up for little benefit.
There's a bit of history that might be relevant to this discussion:
The attempted enforcement of the Stamp Act 1765 in the British colonies in America led to the outcry of "no taxation without representation". The argument over stamp duty contributed to the outbreak of the American War of Independence.
(Having read part of this discussion, I am still wondering why you have this particular tax. Perhaps there are some economic advantages to it that I am missing.)
May not be quite that bad, but it isn't good when it feels like this is one of the few things they might actually achieve.
He does have a very weird, prickly way of communicating sometimes. The nanny state stuff sounds more belligerent than it needs to? Just say you think it’s the right thing to do, then have that debate if people start knocking you for it.
This is how he manages to get people’s backs up for little benefit.
It reminds me of how in the 2010s politicians started to develop a tactic to deal with aggressive interviewers of being aggressive themselves, but would frequently launch into it well before the interviewer actually started being aggressive. It's meant to be showing strength, but comes across as defensive, as you try to pre-empt criticism to undercut it, when reactive responses is probably more effective.
(That may still be the case, but I don't watch enough TV to notice)
There was that cringy power-stance. Legs spread apart. Is that still a thing?
Anyhoo, a reliable source has been in touch, they think Badenoch is more likely to go before Rayner, as more is set to come out about her past as the uni offers is just the tip of the iceberg.
She was sub- Westland crisis Kinnock at PMQs today.
She's toast, and she knows she's toast, and she knows everyone knows she's toast
It's sad. I like her. I had hopes. But she's seriously poor
There's no mechanism to remove her though, is there?
There's a bit of history that might be relevant to this discussion:
The attempted enforcement of the Stamp Act 1765 in the British colonies in America led to the outcry of "no taxation without representation". The argument over stamp duty contributed to the outbreak of the American War of Independence.
(Having read part of this discussion, I am still wondering why you have this particular tax. Perhaps there are some economic advantages to it that I am missing.)
They have it in many countries, it’s just called by variations of a property purchase tax.
May not be quite that bad, but it isn't good when it feels like this is one of the few things they might actually achieve.
He does have a very weird, prickly way of communicating sometimes. The nanny state stuff sounds more belligerent than it needs to? Just say you think it’s the right thing to do, then have that debate if people start knocking you for it.
This is how he manages to get people’s backs up for little benefit.
It reminds me of how in the 2010s politicians started to develop a tactic to deal with aggressive interviewers of being aggressive themselves, but would frequently launch into it well before the interviewer actually started being aggressive. It's meant to be showing strength, but comes across as defensive, as you try to pre-empt criticism to undercut it, when reactive responses is probably more effective.
(That may still be the case, but I don't watch enough TV to notice)
There was that cringy power-stance. Legs spread apart. Is that still a thing?
I hope so, it was absolutely hilarious.
I was convinced it was some PR consultant who watched that episode of Blackadder where actors convince Prince George to spread his legs and 'roar' before speeches, and was just messing with politicians by getting them to do the same thing.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The other thing that needs looking into is that she as a trustee authorised money from the trust to be spent enriching herself by using the trust's funds to purchase her house in Ashton.
This is the part of the story that doesn't make sense to me. If she has a disabled kid under the age of 18 then it's not as if she can live away from him so he has to go wherever she goes at least until he's 18 and probably a lot longer given the disability. So why is the trust purchasing the family home and draining it of substantial funds when there doesn't seem to be a need to do so. From here it looks like Rayner has transferred the settlement money from the trust to herself and still benefits from living in the property now owned by the trust.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
Is Sir Ed's argument that if you have a disabled child you can dodge tax?
He can be very good but he does phone it in a bit often for a guy on a reported salary of £650k!
Even the greatest of artists, in any medium, cannot churn out masterworks consisitently forever. Plenty of great directors who made shitty movies, or great authors who wrote shitty novels. Especially when they've been at it for decades.
I went round the Picasso museum in Paris a couple of weeks ago. Generally very interesting, but you realise halfway through that he stopped doing anything new or innovative after the 1930s. He was churning out the same cubist stuff until his death decades later.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
Is Sir Ed's argument that if you have a disabled child you can dodge tax?
Rayner's position could become untenable, says Davey - but we should reflect on her challenges Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, is the latest political figure to weigh in on what has been a tumultuous day for deputy prime minister Angela Rayner.
"It's right this has gone to the independent ethics adviser," he says.
"Depending on what they say, Angela Rayner's position may become untenable."
But, Davey says "we should all reflect on the challenges that she has been through".
"We all worry about what's going to happen to our children when we have died," he says.
"And, I can see that in what Angela said today. I hope there's now a debate about that; about how we support children when their parents have died."
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The latter is reflective of Lib Dem members, take a look on here - the government's main defenders aren't Labour voters who are all in despair, it's Lib Dems who are really out there pushing the Labour narrative.
He can be very good but he does phone it in a bit often for a guy on a reported salary of £650k!
Even the greatest of artists, in any medium, cannot churn out masterworks consisitently forever. Plenty of great directors who made shitty movies, or great authors who wrote shitty novels. Especially when they've been at it for decades.
I went round the Picasso museum in Paris a couple of weeks ago. Generally very interesting, but you realise halfway through that he stopped doing anything new or innovative after the 1930s. He was churning out the same cubist stuff until his death decades later.
Well, I don't think new and innovative is always a path to being better in most areas, it is useful but critics tend to overselect for the unique because understandably they get bored of so much 'mainstream' stuff, but that would seem to be a problem for an artist, particularly of that type.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The party has decided on an approach of constructive opposition as a way of seeming like the grown ups. It’s probably on balance worked up to now, because there have been enough visible differences (eg on Trump or Gaza), and I expect the reaction to Rayner is Davey’s sincere view, but it’ll get politically more tricky over time. As was the case for the party during the coalition.
This I why I would be sacking, or reshuffling Raynor I really don't give a crap either way about this tax thing; let the Revenue sort it out.
Over the last three years, housebuilding in London has collapsed. Molior recorded just 2,158 private starts in the first half of 2025, around 5% of London’s (low) targets, and still falling.
What is going on? I have posed this question to numerous specialists, most of whom cannot comment publicly for professional reasons. This thread is a summary of what I have gleaned. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1963196403913494704
Whether or not she made a mistake or accidentally-on-purpose misstated her tax position is of minimal interest to me. The fact that this government is proving as feeble as the last one in sorting out the planning morass, actually matters to millions of people's lives.
I've been told by a property developer the cost of building in London is prohibitively expensive and, especially in areas like Newham, good sites are hard to find.
There's a site near me which adjoins the A406 and has an old gas holder, electricity pylons and a high pressure gas line all on it. To develop this brownfield site will require a fortune to be spent in decontamination (as required by regulation). On top of that you have ther Section 106 payments, the Carbon Off-Set Tax and the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Not unreasonably, bringing more people into a community creates pressure on infrastructure, not just the physical but things like health as well.
That's not to say development isn't happening - the Twelvetrees development at West Ham is massive (the site includes one of the best preserved collections of original gas holders (1879)). The flats in the first 32-storey block are now on sale for between £970k and £1 million and the second 34 storet block are on offer from £640k. I'm not sure how much "local" interest there will be at those prices and it will be fascinating to see the rate of sale given the economic headwinds.
These factors, combined with the regulatory issues Samuel Hughes identifies, are the crux of the failure to resolve the housing crisis more than political sniping about NIMBY-ism and planning.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
Is Sir Ed's argument that if you have a disabled child you can dodge tax?
Rayner's position could become untenable, says Davey - but we should reflect on her challenges Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, is the latest political figure to weigh in on what has been a tumultuous day for deputy prime minister Angela Rayner.
"It's right this has gone to the independent ethics adviser," he says.
"Depending on what they say, Angela Rayner's position may become untenable."
But, Davey says "we should all reflect on the challenges that she has been through".
"We all worry about what's going to happen to our children when we have died," he says.
"And, I can see that in what Angela said today. I hope there's now a debate about that; about how we support children when their parents have died."
The 'challenges' being either that she tried to avoid - at best - tax she should have paid? The 'challenges' of being an utter hypocrite? Or the 'challenges' that just because she is an MP or DPM, she should pay just the same taxes as the rest of us?
Rayner should not go - at the moment. If she has not told 100% the truth, then Starmer should just throw her out ASAP. But there's also that she's made several mistakes now, and the "Oh, I'm only a working class woman who has done well for herself" excuses are growing cruddier by the day. When does she become more of a liability than a benefit to Labour?
Am still waiting for some Labour MPs to stick the boot in, or at the very least make unattributed briefings to the press. Rayner has been sailing very close to the wind but she is still hanging on. How far anything else emerges about her tax arrangements remains to be seen. But Matt sums it up nicely.
The other thing that needs looking into is that she as a trustee authorised money from the trust to be spent enriching herself by using the trust's funds to purchase her house in Ashton.
This is the part of the story that doesn't make sense to me. If she has a disabled kid under the age of 18 then it's not as if she can live away from him so he has to go wherever she goes at least until he's 18 and probably a lot longer given the disability. So why is the trust purchasing the family home and draining it of substantial funds when there doesn't seem to be a need to do so. From here it looks like Rayner has transferred the settlement money from the trust to herself and still benefits from living in the property now owned by the trust.
This whole thing absolutely stinks.
I would guess that by the trust buying the house it ensures continuity of residence for the child for the future. If they are in the bad way they seem to be then it makes sense that if they can stay in a familiar place for their lifetime then it’s good for them.
The trust would inevitably buy a property for them so might as well buy this one.
I understand that she and the father alternate living there to provide stability which does however make me think that being in Hove and London the rest of the time isn’t ideal as not exactly around the corner in an emergency but that’s for her conscience.
The tax issue and any other financial problems are a different matter though.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The latter is reflective of Lib Dem members, take a look on here - the government's main defenders aren't Labour voters who are all in despair, it's Lib Dems who are really out there pushing the Labour narrative.
No, what we’re pushing is the non-Farage narrative. The fact that Starmer, Cooper and Co are all happily channelling the Reform leader leaves a gap.
Lib Dems aren’t suddenly going to stop being liberal internationalists or pro-Europeans just because the ruling party is - on paper if not in fact - also a liberal internationalist and pro-European party.
This I why I would be sacking, or reshuffling Raynor I really don't give a crap either way about this tax thing; let the Revenue sort it out.
Over the last three years, housebuilding in London has collapsed. Molior recorded just 2,158 private starts in the first half of 2025, around 5% of London’s (low) targets, and still falling.
What is going on? I have posed this question to numerous specialists, most of whom cannot comment publicly for professional reasons. This thread is a summary of what I have gleaned. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1963196403913494704
Whether or not she made a mistake or accidentally-on-purpose misstated her tax position is of minimal interest to me. The fact that this government is proving as feeble as the last one in sorting out the planning morass, actually matters to millions of people's lives.
I've been told by a property developer the cost of building in London is prohibitively expensive and, especially in areas like Newham, good sites are hard to find.
There's a site near me which adjoins the A406 and has an old gas holder, electricity pylons and a high pressure gas line all on it. To develop this brownfield site will require a fortune to be spent in decontamination (as required by regulation). On top of that you have ther Section 106 payments, the Carbon Off-Set Tax and the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Not unreasonably, bringing more people into a community creates pressure on infrastructure, not just the physical but things like health as well.
That's not to say development isn't happening - the Twelvetrees development at West Ham is massive (the site includes one of the best preserved collections of original gas holders (1879)). The flats in the first 32-storey block are now on sale for between £970k and £1 million and the second 34 storet block are on offer from £640k. I'm not sure how much "local" interest there will be at those prices and it will be fascinating to see the rate of sale given the economic headwinds.
These factors, combined with the regulatory issues Samuel Hughes identifies, are the crux of the failure to resolve the housing crisis more than political sniping about NIMBY-ism and planning.
Where's the contamination that needs decontaminating if the site is an old gas storage holder and some pylons? Does gas sweep into the subsoil and leave it poisoned for decades?
Anyhoo, a reliable source has been in touch, they think Badenoch is more likely to go before Rayner, as more is set to come out about her past as the uni offers is just the tip of the iceberg.
She was sub- Westland crisis Kinnock at PMQs today.
She's toast, and she knows she's toast, and she knows everyone knows she's toast
It's sad. I like her. I had hopes. But she's seriously poor
There's no mechanism to remove her though, is there?
She can just wait it out.
She can't wait out the voters.
They will be unforgiving until forever. Doing a nurse out of a job? Inexcusable...
The other thing that needs looking into is that she as a trustee authorised money from the trust to be spent enriching herself by using the trust's funds to purchase her house in Ashton.
This is the part of the story that doesn't make sense to me. If she has a disabled kid under the age of 18 then it's not as if she can live away from him so he has to go wherever she goes at least until he's 18 and probably a lot longer given the disability. So why is the trust purchasing the family home and draining it of substantial funds when there doesn't seem to be a need to do so. From here it looks like Rayner has transferred the settlement money from the trust to herself and still benefits from living in the property now owned by the trust.
This whole thing absolutely stinks.
I would guess that by the trust buying the house it ensures continuity of residence for the child for the future. If they are in the bad way they seem to be then it makes sense that if they can stay in a familiar place for their lifetime then it’s good for them.
The trust would inevitably buy a property for them so might as well buy this one.
I understand that she and the father alternate living there to provide stability which does however make me think that being in Hove and London the rest of the time isn’t ideal as not exactly around the corner in an emergency but that’s for her conscience.
The tax issue and any other financial problems are a different matter though.
Wouldn't the child inherit the property from the parents though, negating the need to purchase it and even as a secondary residence that's 40% of the value payable in inheritance tax rather than the full value payable to the current owners.
He can be very good but he does phone it in a bit often for a guy on a reported salary of £650k!
Even the greatest of artists, in any medium, cannot churn out masterworks consisitently forever. Plenty of great directors who made shitty movies, or great authors who wrote shitty novels. Especially when they've been at it for decades.
I went round the Picasso museum in Paris a couple of weeks ago. Generally very interesting, but you realise halfway through that he stopped doing anything new or innovative after the 1930s. He was churning out the same cubist stuff until his death decades later.
Well, I don't think new and innovative is always a path to being better in most areas, it is useful but critics tend to overselect for the unique because understandably they get bored of so much 'mainstream' stuff, but that would seem to be a problem for an artist, particularly of that type.
I think it’s particularly difficult if your fame comes from being a disruptor and a revolutionary. Picasso’s pieces are not beautiful examples of the artist’s craft, they’re arresting and challenging (or were when they first appeared).
Same is true of disruptive technologies or platforms, as we’re sort of seeing with Tesla and has certainly happened to Facebook.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The latter is reflective of Lib Dem members, take a look on here - the government's main defenders aren't Labour voters who are all in despair, it's Lib Dems who are really out there pushing the Labour narrative.
No, what we’re pushing is the non-Farage narrative. The fact that Starmer, Cooper and Co are all happily channelling the Reform leader leaves a gap.
Lib Dems aren’t suddenly going to stop being liberal internationalists or pro-Europeans just because the ruling party is - on paper if not in fact - also a liberal internationalist and pro-European party.
And yet they didn't come out against the OSA, one of the most illiberal policies in a generation. Pull the other one.
The other thing that needs looking into is that she as a trustee authorised money from the trust to be spent enriching herself by using the trust's funds to purchase her house in Ashton.
This is the part of the story that doesn't make sense to me. If she has a disabled kid under the age of 18 then it's not as if she can live away from him so he has to go wherever she goes at least until he's 18 and probably a lot longer given the disability. So why is the trust purchasing the family home and draining it of substantial funds when there doesn't seem to be a need to do so. From here it looks like Rayner has transferred the settlement money from the trust to herself and still benefits from living in the property now owned by the trust.
This whole thing absolutely stinks.
I would guess that by the trust buying the house it ensures continuity of residence for the child for the future. If they are in the bad way they seem to be then it makes sense that if they can stay in a familiar place for their lifetime then it’s good for them.
The trust would inevitably buy a property for them so might as well buy this one.
I understand that she and the father alternate living there to provide stability which does however make me think that being in Hove and London the rest of the time isn’t ideal as not exactly around the corner in an emergency but that’s for her conscience.
The tax issue and any other financial problems are a different matter though.
Wouldn't the child inherit the property from the parents though, negating the need to purchase it and even as a secondary residence that's 40% of the value payable in inheritance tax rather than the full value payable to the current owners.
The child “should” inherit it but there are things that could stop that if, for example the parents frittered away the money and remortgaged it etc so didn’t own it, then it’s discovered the child has to move out. This way the child’s future in the house is secure as nobody can borrow against it. Who knows if also there could be grounds where the other children make a claim against the house as part of the estate if it was the only asset left or was worth more than their shares.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The party has decided on an approach of constructive opposition as a way of seeming like the grown ups. It’s probably on balance worked up to now, because there have been enough visible differences (eg on Trump or Gaza), and I expect the reaction to Rayner is Davey’s sincere view, but it’ll get politically more tricky over time. As was the case for the party during the coalition.
It gets particularly tricky if the driving factor is Get Labour Out as a mirror of GTTO '24. Why would any floaters plump for a 'mini me' party (which could hurt them in 'some' blue wall seats, but by no means most) Polanski has gone straight for the 'we want to replace Labour on the left line for example. YP and Greens could hurt the LDs amongst NOTA floaters. 11% versus 15% might be the difference between solid advancement perhaps beyond Tories and retreat to 40 to 50 seats
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The latter is reflective of Lib Dem members, take a look on here - the government's main defenders aren't Labour voters who are all in despair, it's Lib Dems who are really out there pushing the Labour narrative.
Are they? Seriously?
To be politically realistic, Rayner will have to go if and when Starmer thinks her story is damaging the Government and preventing it getting its message across. That's true of all these Ministerial resignations - the facts aren't relevant, the political perception over a period of time is.
If something else comes along and pushes the story off the front pages, Rayner will be fine. If MPs at the weekend start hearing nothing but Rayner and a vein of discontent among the public appears, then it will be game over.
I thought Davey's intervention very good today but that won't surprise you.
"A Spanish friend once told me that for years after the death of Franco, every time a larger than usual number of car accidents occurred over a weekend, there was a call for the return of fascism. For some, freedom of expression could not hold a candle to freedom from physical harm."
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the issue, the optics are horrific. For the good of the Labour Party, she needed to go today. ITV playing back her “one rule for them” speech at conference. Bad Al would have had her out this morning.
This I why I would be sacking, or reshuffling Raynor I really don't give a crap either way about this tax thing; let the Revenue sort it out.
Over the last three years, housebuilding in London has collapsed. Molior recorded just 2,158 private starts in the first half of 2025, around 5% of London’s (low) targets, and still falling.
What is going on? I have posed this question to numerous specialists, most of whom cannot comment publicly for professional reasons. This thread is a summary of what I have gleaned. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1963196403913494704
Whether or not she made a mistake or accidentally-on-purpose misstated her tax position is of minimal interest to me. The fact that this government is proving as feeble as the last one in sorting out the planning morass, actually matters to millions of people's lives.
I've been told by a property developer the cost of building in London is prohibitively expensive and, especially in areas like Newham, good sites are hard to find.
There's a site near me which adjoins the A406 and has an old gas holder, electricity pylons and a high pressure gas line all on it. To develop this brownfield site will require a fortune to be spent in decontamination (as required by regulation). On top of that you have ther Section 106 payments, the Carbon Off-Set Tax and the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Not unreasonably, bringing more people into a community creates pressure on infrastructure, not just the physical but things like health as well.
That's not to say development isn't happening - the Twelvetrees development at West Ham is massive (the site includes one of the best preserved collections of original gas holders (1879)). The flats in the first 32-storey block are now on sale for between £970k and £1 million and the second 34 storet block are on offer from £640k. I'm not sure how much "local" interest there will be at those prices and it will be fascinating to see the rate of sale given the economic headwinds.
These factors, combined with the regulatory issues Samuel Hughes identifies, are the crux of the failure to resolve the housing crisis more than political sniping about NIMBY-ism and planning.
Where's the contamination that needs decontaminating if the site is an old gas storage holder and some pylons? Does gas sweep into the subsoil and leave it poisoned for decades?
If it was a gasworks site, there may well be oodles of contamination. Especially if it is an old coal gas site. Lovely stuff like benzene, heavy metals and tar.
A hundred years ago, if not much more recently, there was little or no consideration to pollution.
The worst I know of was an old sewage farm that was covered over with rubble and soil. Which might be fine, aside from the bearings for the flocculators (round tanks with sweeping arms) were mercury. Which was not removed before burial. This all came out when a document and ground survey was done before a prospective new housing estate. "Why is the ground like Qin Shi Huang's burial mound?"
This I why I would be sacking, or reshuffling Raynor I really don't give a crap either way about this tax thing; let the Revenue sort it out.
Over the last three years, housebuilding in London has collapsed. Molior recorded just 2,158 private starts in the first half of 2025, around 5% of London’s (low) targets, and still falling.
What is going on? I have posed this question to numerous specialists, most of whom cannot comment publicly for professional reasons. This thread is a summary of what I have gleaned. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1963196403913494704
Whether or not she made a mistake or accidentally-on-purpose misstated her tax position is of minimal interest to me. The fact that this government is proving as feeble as the last one in sorting out the planning morass, actually matters to millions of people's lives.
I've been told by a property developer the cost of building in London is prohibitively expensive and, especially in areas like Newham, good sites are hard to find.
There's a site near me which adjoins the A406 and has an old gas holder, electricity pylons and a high pressure gas line all on it. To develop this brownfield site will require a fortune to be spent in decontamination (as required by regulation). On top of that you have ther Section 106 payments, the Carbon Off-Set Tax and the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Not unreasonably, bringing more people into a community creates pressure on infrastructure, not just the physical but things like health as well.
That's not to say development isn't happening - the Twelvetrees development at West Ham is massive (the site includes one of the best preserved collections of original gas holders (1879)). The flats in the first 32-storey block are now on sale for between £970k and £1 million and the second 34 storet block are on offer from £640k. I'm not sure how much "local" interest there will be at those prices and it will be fascinating to see the rate of sale given the economic headwinds.
These factors, combined with the regulatory issues Samuel Hughes identifies, are the crux of the failure to resolve the housing crisis more than political sniping about NIMBY-ism and planning.
Where's the contamination that needs decontaminating if the site is an old gas storage holder and some pylons? Does gas sweep into the subsoil and leave it poisoned for decades?
Making/storing town gas has often left a legacy of heavy hydrocarbons (funky stuff), ammonia, cyanides, arsenic and lead.
Another fun one on really old industrial sites are underground tanks. Often filled with a mix of waste and then asphalt poured in to solidify it before being abandoned.
OMG Peston still doesn’t understand that it’s not what you class as your home but what you actually own. He’s had hours to get this right and still failed !
OMG Peston still doesn’t understand that it’s not what you class as your home but what you actually own. He’s had hours to get this right and still failed !
Classic Pesto. He'd make an excellent badly-briefed tory minister. Posh, lugubrious and patronising.
This I why I would be sacking, or reshuffling Raynor I really don't give a crap either way about this tax thing; let the Revenue sort it out.
Over the last three years, housebuilding in London has collapsed. Molior recorded just 2,158 private starts in the first half of 2025, around 5% of London’s (low) targets, and still falling.
What is going on? I have posed this question to numerous specialists, most of whom cannot comment publicly for professional reasons. This thread is a summary of what I have gleaned. https://x.com/SCP_Hughes/status/1963196403913494704
Whether or not she made a mistake or accidentally-on-purpose misstated her tax position is of minimal interest to me. The fact that this government is proving as feeble as the last one in sorting out the planning morass, actually matters to millions of people's lives.
I've been told by a property developer the cost of building in London is prohibitively expensive and, especially in areas like Newham, good sites are hard to find.
There's a site near me which adjoins the A406 and has an old gas holder, electricity pylons and a high pressure gas line all on it. To develop this brownfield site will require a fortune to be spent in decontamination (as required by regulation). On top of that you have ther Section 106 payments, the Carbon Off-Set Tax and the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Not unreasonably, bringing more people into a community creates pressure on infrastructure, not just the physical but things like health as well.
That's not to say development isn't happening - the Twelvetrees development at West Ham is massive (the site includes one of the best preserved collections of original gas holders (1879)). The flats in the first 32-storey block are now on sale for between £970k and £1 million and the second 34 storet block are on offer from £640k. I'm not sure how much "local" interest there will be at those prices and it will be fascinating to see the rate of sale given the economic headwinds.
These factors, combined with the regulatory issues Samuel Hughes identifies, are the crux of the failure to resolve the housing crisis more than political sniping about NIMBY-ism and planning.
Where's the contamination that needs decontaminating if the site is an old gas storage holder and some pylons? Does gas sweep into the subsoil and leave it poisoned for decades?
The way it worked was the gas was held in a storage tank which basically floated up and down as the content rose and fell. The tank was about 40 feet below ground and at the bottom there's this toxic slurry which leaches into the surrounding soil. All this has to be cleared before any construction work can be carried out.
These holders stored coal gas which was created from the burning of coal - we're in the 19th and early 20th centuries here, before the eras of gas from oil or natural gas from the North Sea.
OMG Peston still doesn’t understand that it’s not what you class as your home but what you actually own. He’s had hours to get this right and still failed !
OMG Peston still doesn’t understand that it’s not what you class as your home but what you actually own. He’s had hours to get this right and still failed !
Classic Pesto. He'd make an excellent badly-briefed tory minister. Posh, lugubrious and patronising.
And wrong. Always wrong. If Peston thinks Rayner is doomed, things are probably looking up for her.
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The latter is reflective of Lib Dem members, take a look on here - the government's main defenders aren't Labour voters who are all in despair, it's Lib Dems who are really out there pushing the Labour narrative.
No, what we’re pushing is the non-Farage narrative. The fact that Starmer, Cooper and Co are all happily channelling the Reform leader leaves a gap.
Lib Dems aren’t suddenly going to stop being liberal internationalists or pro-Europeans just because the ruling party is - on paper if not in fact - also a liberal internationalist and pro-European party.
And yet they didn't come out against the OSA, one of the most illiberal policies in a generation. Pull the other one.
We’re a liberal party, not a libertarian party. That means we weigh up the harm of infringing on civil liberties against the harm caused by the thing being regulated. It’s why the Lib Dems also don’t oppose air pollution regulation, or the public spaces smoking ban.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the OSA it’s not inconsistent with liberalism to support a regulation.
OMG Peston still doesn’t understand that it’s not what you class as your home but what you actually own. He’s had hours to get this right and still failed !
There is no beginning to Pesto’s expertise.
His entire career since 2008 has been based on 1 “scoop”
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The party has decided on an approach of constructive opposition as a way of seeming like the grown ups. It’s probably on balance worked up to now, because there have been enough visible differences (eg on Trump or Gaza), and I expect the reaction to Rayner is Davey’s sincere view, but it’ll get politically more tricky over time. As was the case for the party during the coalition.
It gets particularly tricky if the driving factor is Get Labour Out as a mirror of GTTO '24. Why would any floaters plump for a 'mini me' party (which could hurt them in 'some' blue wall seats, but by no means most) Polanski has gone straight for the 'we want to replace Labour on the left line for example. YP and Greens could hurt the LDs amongst NOTA floaters. 11% versus 15% might be the difference between solid advancement perhaps beyond Tories and retreat to 40 to 50 seats
We’d have happily taken retreat to 40 or 50 seats in 2015, 17 or 19.
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 .
Rayner doesn’t need lectures from them .
In what way is it necessary to set up a trust to look after a child?
I feel like trusts only reason for existence is to dodge tax.
If the child lacks capacity to be an independent adult
Re Rayner: I do have a little sympathy for her if she's been badly advised but I think the politics means she will have to go:
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards 2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
The party has decided on an approach of constructive opposition as a way of seeming like the grown ups. It’s probably on balance worked up to now, because there have been enough visible differences (eg on Trump or Gaza), and I expect the reaction to Rayner is Davey’s sincere view, but it’ll get politically more tricky over time. As was the case for the party during the coalition.
It gets particularly tricky if the driving factor is Get Labour Out as a mirror of GTTO '24. Why would any floaters plump for a 'mini me' party (which could hurt them in 'some' blue wall seats, but by no means most) Polanski has gone straight for the 'we want to replace Labour on the left line for example. YP and Greens could hurt the LDs amongst NOTA floaters. 11% versus 15% might be the difference between solid advancement perhaps beyond Tories and retreat to 40 to 50 seats
We’d have happily taken retreat to 40 or 50 seats in 2015, 17 or 19.
Absolutely. But less so now! Once you're 3/4 of the way up Everest you wouldnt settle for halfway, but you might have before you started to climb
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 .
Rayner doesn’t need lectures from them .
In what way is it necessary to set up a trust to look after a child?
I feel like trusts only reason for existence is to dodge tax.
If the child lacks capacity to be an independent adult
I'm sure all of us could tell a story of why we need our money more than the taxman does. But most of us haven't made political speeches about the evils of those who think they need their own money more than the taxman.
Comments
In Newham, we have a by-election in Plaistow North on 16th September which should be enlightening as to the strength of the anti-Labour vote.
*which is why she should go.
One of the more worrying takeaways from the last election, the potential for sectarian politics to dominate in many English towns.
The BBC is a bit strange on this in allowing Farage lots of voice, but this is arguably the right thing; but maintains its unblinking liberal line in general.
Reform is consistently higher, but it’s Green that is consistently lower. So this isn’t about over or under sampling politically engaged or extremist voters. The Lib Dems for example are on similar with this lot to the others. This is about over or under sampling the far right and far left.
The Feb 25 Yougov MRP, had East Ham as Lab 42, Green 15, Ref 14, Con 10, Other 10, LD 8
And as you say in terms of resources, Ref's main targets in E London will be Hornchurch, Romford and Dagenham, then Chingford if IDS retires. Stretch targets would be Barking and Ilford N
As stated, it is very difficult for the pollsters to deal with independents until they know who is actually standing.
https://news.sky.com/story/two-women-arrested-in-nuneaton-on-suspicion-of-public-order-offences-after-sky-news-interview-13424394
Reform is not consistently higher, its not even the highest of the current round of polls (FoN 34, BMG 35)
The Greens are in line with polling from MiC, Survation and BMG
None of their polling is out of line for any party with other pollsters
However, what I said was, I hope and expect HMRC to treat Rayner like the average man/woman on the street. We should all be equal before the law... or HMRC. HMRC should treat her the same as anyone else.
If it’s too difficult to build in the most expensive city in Europe, then there’s a big problem with the regulatory environment.
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1963276780757750162
One further point: if the media were giving Farage a free pass, he would be willing to be interviewed by Andrew Neil (often on Times Radio, giving no-one a free pass), which, IIRC, is an offer not recently accepted.
PS The indispensible person on LBC, IMO, is Simon Marks on USA politics. Funny and deadly.
Labour's efforts to attract support on right 'have brought little reward', says election study
The British Election Study, the most authoritative study of voting behaviour in the UK, has published new research today looking at how support for Labour has declined since last summer. “Labour’s collapse in support since the 2024 General Election has been remarkable,” it says.
Though Reform has taken Labour’s place at the top of the polls, it is not the case that the two parties are simply trading voters. Reform’s rise has for the most part come from the Conservatives and non-voters, whereas Labour’s support has splintered between indecision and other left-liberal parties. Labour’s efforts to attract support on the right have brought little reward and have potentially alienated much of their base (who make up most of Labour’s losses), and there is a lot of work to be done to convince voters that they can make a difference on the economy. Labour have a large majority in Parliament and four years until they need to hold a new general election, but they have a difficult task to turn things around.
And here is one of the charts from the report.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/uncategorized/looking-for-labours-lost-voters/
Also if you are liable to pay for a negligent act which causes injury, it’s not wiped out by bankruptcy.
These payments are considered money for future needs.
The problem comes if HMRC treat her more leniently because of who she is, compared to others with similar circumstances.
Tories are pretty much clustered round 17 to 18% with everyone and Labour on about 20 to 21%
Reform in 2 clubs - high 20s vs low to mid 30s
(just kiddin')
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1963251546386259984
It’s sexism
It’s anti working class prejudice.
Oops, she was in the wrong in the first place.
She was labours attack dog. Hoist by her own petard. She deserves to be taken down a peg or two.
But, but, Boris 😂
Rayner is toast.
Therefore Rayner is Marmite on toast.
The Matt story is brilliant, he gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that Matt leaving is a resigning issue for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from both the Mail and the Sun, and his own Twitter account which posts the cartoons for free!
That's not what everybody else thought he said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxgxzzjx3zo
(There's a 30k petititon somewhere on 38degrees.)
For the publisher, his cartoons not driving traffic to rival newspapers.
This is how he manages to get people’s backs up for little benefit.
Edit - October you goof
(That may still be the case, but I don't watch enough TV to notice)
She can just wait it out.
They have it in many countries, it’s just called by variations of a property purchase tax.
I was convinced it was some PR consultant who watched that episode of Blackadder where actors convince Prince George to spread his legs and 'roar' before speeches, and was just messing with politicians by getting them to do the same thing.
Pfft.
1) It's a large sum of money - she'd probably get away with underpaying £200 but £40k is a huge amount by anyone's standards
2) Labour are about to put up taxes in the next budget. If she stays then the attack lines write themselves.
One thing I found interesting is Davey's stance on this. I wonder if the LDs are getting a bit too cosy with Labour. Certainly, Davey never seems to throw any hardball questions at Starmer during PMQs.
This is the part of the story that doesn't make sense to me. If she has a disabled kid under the age of 18 then it's not as if she can live away from him so he has to go wherever she goes at least until he's 18 and probably a lot longer given the disability. So why is the trust purchasing the family home and draining it of substantial funds when there doesn't seem to be a need to do so. From here it looks like Rayner has transferred the settlement money from the trust to herself and still benefits from living in the property now owned by the trust.
This whole thing absolutely stinks.
Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, is the latest political figure to weigh in on what has been a tumultuous day for deputy prime minister Angela Rayner.
"It's right this has gone to the independent ethics adviser," he says.
"Depending on what they say, Angela Rayner's position may become untenable."
But, Davey says "we should all reflect on the challenges that she has been through".
"We all worry about what's going to happen to our children when we have died," he says.
"And, I can see that in what Angela said today. I hope there's now a debate about that; about how we support children when their parents have died."
There's a site near me which adjoins the A406 and has an old gas holder, electricity pylons and a high pressure gas line all on it. To develop this brownfield site will require a fortune to be spent in decontamination (as required by regulation). On top of that you have ther Section 106 payments, the Carbon Off-Set Tax and the Community Infrastructure Levy.
Not unreasonably, bringing more people into a community creates pressure on infrastructure, not just the physical but things like health as well.
That's not to say development isn't happening - the Twelvetrees development at West Ham is massive (the site includes one of the best preserved collections of original gas holders (1879)). The flats in the first 32-storey block are now on sale for between £970k and £1 million and the second 34 storet block are on offer from £640k. I'm not sure how much "local" interest there will be at those prices and it will be fascinating to see the rate of sale given the economic headwinds.
These factors, combined with the regulatory issues Samuel Hughes identifies, are the crux of the failure to resolve the housing crisis more than political sniping about NIMBY-ism and planning.
Rayner should not go - at the moment. If she has not told 100% the truth, then Starmer should just throw her out ASAP. But there's also that she's made several mistakes now, and the "Oh, I'm only a working class woman who has done well for herself" excuses are growing cruddier by the day. When does she become more of a liability than a benefit to Labour?
Am still waiting for some Labour MPs to stick the boot in, or at the very least make unattributed briefings to the press. Rayner has been sailing very close to the wind but she is still hanging on. How far anything else emerges about her tax arrangements remains to be seen. But Matt sums it up nicely.
The trust would inevitably buy a property for them so might as well buy this one.
I understand that she and the father alternate living there to provide stability which does however make me think that being in Hove and London the rest of the time isn’t ideal as not exactly around the corner in an emergency but that’s for her conscience.
The tax issue and any other financial problems are a different matter though.
Lib Dems aren’t suddenly going to stop being liberal internationalists or pro-Europeans just because the ruling party is - on paper if not in fact - also a liberal internationalist and pro-European party.
They will be unforgiving until forever. Doing a nurse out of a job? Inexcusable...
Same is true of disruptive technologies or platforms, as we’re sort of seeing with Tesla and has certainly happened to Facebook.
Polanski has gone straight for the 'we want to replace Labour on the left line for example. YP and Greens could hurt the LDs amongst NOTA floaters. 11% versus 15% might be the difference between solid advancement perhaps beyond Tories and retreat to 40 to 50 seats
To be politically realistic, Rayner will have to go if and when Starmer thinks her story is damaging the Government and preventing it getting its message across. That's true of all these Ministerial resignations - the facts aren't relevant, the political perception over a period of time is.
If something else comes along and pushes the story off the front pages, Rayner will be fine. If MPs at the weekend start hearing nothing but Rayner and a vein of discontent among the public appears, then it will be game over.
I thought Davey's intervention very good today but that won't surprise you.
https://unherd.com/2025/09/trumps-crackdown-is-only-just-beginning
A hundred years ago, if not much more recently, there was little or no consideration to pollution.
The worst I know of was an old sewage farm that was covered over with rubble and soil. Which might be fine, aside from the bearings for the flocculators (round tanks with sweeping arms) were mercury. Which was not removed before burial. This all came out when a document and ground survey was done before a prospective new housing estate. "Why is the ground like Qin Shi Huang's burial mound?"
Another fun one on really old industrial sites are underground tanks. Often filled with a mix of waste and then asphalt poured in to solidify it before being abandoned.
The way it worked was the gas was held in a storage tank which basically floated up and down as the content rose and fell. The tank was about 40 feet below ground and at the bottom there's this toxic slurry which leaches into the surrounding soil. All this has to be cleared before any construction work can be carried out.
These holders stored coal gas which was created from the burning of coal - we're in the 19th and early 20th centuries here, before the eras of gas from oil or natural gas from the North Sea.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the OSA it’s not inconsistent with liberalism to support a regulation.
Once you're 3/4 of the way up Everest you wouldnt settle for halfway, but you might have before you started to climb
But most of us haven't made political speeches about the evils of those who think they need their own money more than the taxman.