I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
It will annoy many on here, but the Telegraph were at the forefront of the investigations and the only unknown is who was doing the leaking to them ?
This is quite an achievement for the Telegraph. Bizarre that the deputy pm has fallen in scandal and the LOTO cannot claim a jot of the credit
Nonsense. It goes in the history books as Kemi got the scalp. Perhaps first of many, as who else in Starmer’s on the take government is stealing tax payers money?
Conservatives don’t need to steal tax payers money as many are already rich, which is why it’s only Labour governments and hangers on cronies who always constantly help themselves from the till.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
Kemi going two footed with a response video. Never sure these things are a good look. Let somebody else do the shin kicking.
Not wise. There are a lot of second home owners in her party.
I don't think that Rayner will be the only one exposed.
I think this might be a unique or rare case though as the issue really lies in the complication brought about through the trust and her child. I’m not sure many if any other Labour MOs will be in that situation and so any tax planning/property shenanigans would be easier to keep “clean”.
I imagine e all MPs with more than one property are doing some discreet checking though.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
It can’t be fraud if it wasn’t done knowingly & there’s no evidence that Rayner deliberately chose to pay the wrong rate of stamp duty. Given that she only had to wait six months for her son to reach 18 to avoid the need for the higher rate altogether it seems clear that she was entirely unaware of the need for her to pay it at that time.
Inadvertent underpayment of tax which is promptly disclosed to HMRC when it’s brought to your attention is not grounds for dismissal of an MP.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
She claimed that was the case, but clearly has not been able to provide any evidence this was the case. The investigation talks solely about the one firm who said they aren't in a position to provide complex tax advice, told her she needed to take further advice and that she didn't.
She lied to try and cover this up. Its the attempted cover up that gets up in the end.
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
Lawyers keep records/paper trails.
Indeed. The lesson from this is to employ a single firm, competent across the domains (trusts, tax etc) that you need. Get their advice. Then get them to implement it. That way there is no you said/i said ambiguity and you are definitely covered by their indemnities.
If she had done that, she could have asked the lawyers to issue a statement on both their behalf *and hers*. On the same side....
But if she’d have done that she’d have been landed with another £40k tax bill, and probably a higher interest rate on the mortgage as a result of the lower deposit.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
AIUI to error was that though she was not longer party to the original house ownership she was still drawn into her child's trust purely because the child is still under 18. This is very esoteric knowledge IMO and also I would say counter-intuitive.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
No sure that is the best way to address your fellow posters on here
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
I would like it put on the record that I’m perfectly capable of being a shit, but I just can’t get worked up about Angela’s accommodation.
Starmer will not bring her back as she broke the ministerial code . Rayner should try something in the media as I think her political ambitions are over .
She basically didn't take any real advice, contra to her claims, maybe she assumed she did, but didn't. She didn;t take tax advice-End of.
It's yet another case of "it's the cover-up that gets you." Although in this case, the cover was a sheet of tissue paper rather then six feet of concrete.
If she had been open and honest when this story broke, she might well still be in position.
She might. But the fact of the matter is that she was negligent, and compounded that by trying to pass off her own mistakes on others.
Neither of those things are ideal qualities in a minister.
Yes, one of the problems we have is too many senior politicians lacking attention to detail. If, when you are acting in your private life on the biggest transaction you will likely undertake which involves borrowing money and paying taxes as well as involving legal activities you cannot be arsed to check and triple check the info and what you are signing then how can you be trusted to have any rigour in reading briefs and making decisions as a minister.
I'm perfectly prepared to accept mistakes; not all ministers are ever going to be sticklers for detail. It's the trying to pass it off on others, after the event, and when she had time fully to consider what had happened, which really grates. That is a dreadful quality in a leader.
That she's resigned now, without further struggle, does at least demonstrate the ability to accept that she's got something wrong. If she'd done that in the first place she'd likely still be in post.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
She claimed that was the case, but clearly has not been able to provide any evidence this was the case. The investigation talks solely about the one firm who said they aren't in a position to provide complex tax advice, told her she needed to take further advice and that she didn't.
Standard small print. Not tailored to her.
The conveyancers tell everyone this purely to cover their arses in a similar way to how they tell every purchaser to have a full structural survey when only a small percentage actually do.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
Technically they can unless they are in jail for a year or more while serving as a legislator, even if they get a jail sentence of less than a year provided they avoid a recall petition legally they can stay. Indeed the Right Honourable Reform Member for Basildon has served a jail sentence in the past.
Provided too she didn't fund the flat from her allowance/expenses and no evidence she did, or is suspended from the House after a Cttee on Standards Report she can also stay an MP with no recall
She basically didn't take any real advice, contra to her claims, maybe she assumed she did, but didn't. She didn;t take tax advice-End of.
It's yet another case of "it's the cover-up that gets you." Although in this case, the cover was a sheet of tissue paper rather then six feet of concrete.
If she had been open and honest when this story broke, she might well still be in position.
She might. But the fact of the matter is that she was negligent, and compounded that by trying to pass off her own mistakes on others.
Neither of those things are ideal qualities in a minister.
Yes, one of the problems we have is too many senior politicians lacking attention to detail. If, when you are acting in your private life on the biggest transaction you will likely undertake which involves borrowing money and paying taxes as well as involving legal activities you cannot be arsed to check and triple check the info and what you are signing then how can you be trusted to have any rigour in reading briefs and making decisions as a minister.
I'm perfectly prepared to accept mistakes; not all ministers are ever going to be sticklers for detail. It's the trying to pass it off on others, after the event, and when she had time fully to consider what had happened, which really grates. That is a dreadful quality in a leader.
That she's resigned now, without further struggle, does at least demonstrate the ability to accept that she's got something wrong. If she'd done that in the first place she'd likely still be in post.
If she had just paid the extra tax on day one of the story, hands up, mistake, then done the teary interview with Beth Rigby, there probably still been an investigation, but it would have been a minor slap on the wrist. The report explicitly talks about not doing this and this was an extra black mark against her.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
AIUI to error was that though she was not longer party to the original house ownership she was still drawn into her child's trust purely because the child is still under 18. This is very esoteric knowledge IMO and also I would say counter-intuitive.
It’s especially counter-intuitive because the laws around trusts for vulnerable people are drawn up to make sure that the trustees are not liable for lots of taxes that would otherwise accrue to them for other kinds of trust. Stamp duty appears to be an accidental exception to this rule.
So now how does she afford that massive mortgage on her new house?
The same way that Mandelson afforded a mortgage that was 11x his ministerial salary. Some might say that the bank took the view that such a loan was actually an investment. But I couldn't possibly comment.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
She claimed that was the case, but clearly has not been able to provide any evidence this was the case. The investigation talks solely about the one firm who said they aren't in a position to provide complex tax advice, told her she needed to take further advice and that she didn't.
She lied to try and cover this up. Its the attempted cover up that gets up in the end.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
She claimed that was the case, but clearly has not been able to provide any evidence this was the case. The investigation talks solely about the one firm who said they aren't in a position to provide complex tax advice, told her she needed to take further advice and that she didn't.
Standard small print. Not tailored to her.
The conveyancers tell everyone this purely to cover their arses in a similar way to how they tell every purchaser to have a full structural survey when only a small percentage actually do.
But she's deputy PM, not just an ordinary citizen. The standards for her are higher.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.
See my reply just posted. Not sure if you have bought a property recently - but if you have look back and I'd bet that it tells you in some small print to seek expert advice on the stamp duty you are liable for as they are not giving advice on tax. And I also bet that you , like every one else, wouldn't do this. Property transaction leech fees are enough as it is.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
She claimed that was the case, but clearly has not been able to provide any evidence this was the case. The investigation talks solely about the one firm who said they aren't in a position to provide complex tax advice, told her she needed to take further advice and that she didn't.
Standard small print. Not tailored to her.
The conveyancers tell everyone this purely to cover their arses in a similar way to how they tell every purchaser to have a full structural survey when only a small percentage actually do.
Yes, but she told a load lies when it blew up talking about taking advice from 3 different legal professionals. That was the killer.
Must say I had no idea she was still alive. A figure from another era. That being the 1970's Daily Express. RIP.
Best known for comforting Jana Nowotna at Wimbledon I think. Which is a far better thing to be remembered for than many of the things other royals will be remembered for.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
It can’t be fraud if it wasn’t done knowingly & there’s no evidence that Rayner deliberately chose to pay the wrong rate of stamp duty. Given that she only had to wait six months for her son to reach 18 to avoid the need for the higher rate altogether it seems clear that she was entirely unaware of the need for her to pay it at that time.
Inadvertent underpayment of tax which is promptly disclosed to HMRC when it’s brought to your attention is not grounds for dismissal of an MP.
Rayner needs to prove how her carelessness gained her 40k at the expense of the british taxpayer not the other way round to her constituents in a by election.
If she feels she has an argument and case for the defence, let her put it to her constituents in a by election, and let them decide. What’s your problem with they, Eh?
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
Lawyers keep records/paper trails.
Indeed. The lesson from this is to employ a single firm, competent across the domains (trusts, tax etc) that you need. Get their advice. Then get them to implement it. That way there is no you said/i said ambiguity and you are definitely covered by their indemnities.
If she had done that, she could have asked the lawyers to issue a statement on both their behalf *and hers*. On the same side....
But if she’d have done that she’d have been landed with another £40k tax bill, and probably a higher interest rate on the mortgage as a result of the lower deposit.
Are we looking at a possible by-election? Or is it at 'ok for an MP but not a minister' level?
As much as I would like to see a Code for MP Ethics, it seems we can only rely on serious criminal behaviour or egregious financial miscounduct to get rid of the bad apples.
Being unfashionable, have we seen an improvement since the expenses scandal - at least on property matters, maybe Zahawi excepted?
The amounts being farmed on expenses by mortgage flipping and "main home" declaration management were iirc far larger than this - consider .. er .. the Ballses.
That was also the Telegraph, of course, before the slide.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
She claimed that was the case, but clearly has not been able to provide any evidence this was the case. The investigation talks solely about the one firm who said they aren't in a position to provide complex tax advice, told her she needed to take further advice and that she didn't.
She lied to try and cover this up. Its the attempted cover up that gets up in the end.
The investigation talks about TWO firms.
Do you have the link to the full report? Because the media reporting is the two bits of legal advice were the one before (the people who said we don't do tax advice) and the second was POST the news breaking. Not 3 separate views PRE the story breaking.
Funny how her carelessness gained her 40k and not the other way round.......
Her carelessness LOST her £40K and her job. If she had been really diligent she would have discovered, or been told, that by waiting six months until her a son was 18, his property would not have counted as hers, and she'd only be liable for the standard stamp duty.
There will be a great deal of sympathy for her from Labour supporters and others, including me. Her political career is not over. She'll be back. Six months?
No. She might have returned if she hadn't broken the Ministerial code, she might then have gotten away with a quick resignation and a Mandelsonian return on the basis that she made an honest error
But she has lied consistently, she's lied badly, she even tried to throw her lawyers under the 235 to Muswell Hill, it's a grim litany, and it comes on top of many other close scrapes PLUS her record of sanctimonious hectoring
She's finished as a major politician. She will certainly never be PM and I very much doubt she will be an important Minister. Perhaps a lower role
If I were her (in a wobbly seat) I'd quit politics in this parliament and do an Ed Balls. Make more money and have more fun in the media
Bye bye Angie, don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.
What a horrible comment.
Perhaps if she hadn’t spent the last decade and a half being a mouthy gobshite, constantly calling for resignations of political opponents for the slightest of perceived infractions, there might be a little more sympathy out there for her £40,000 of tax avoidance.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
I can’t agree with this:
1. Anyone who buys a house will be told by their conveyancer that it is your duty to make sure the stamp duty position is correct. There isn’t anything unusual about this at all. If you have some arrangements that could make things different, then you should go to another professional (probably an accountant) and get that clarified.
In addition to that:
2. She’s the DPM, so it’s incumbent on her to be super careful about her tax affairs given her public role.
I do agree that I have some sympathy with the basic position, that she was in a complicated situation and that she slipped up (and I do think it was a genuine slip up). I do however have less sympathy for the approach of a) blame the conveyancers and b) (what now looks to be in doubt) suggest you got some other legal advice that it was all ok.
In all honesty, I wonder if she’d have done a tearful confession that she’d got it wrong, it was all her fault and she’d paid the difference, and she was going to step back from the housing role, when this whole story kicked off, might have actually been enough to save her government position.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.
See my reply just posted. Not sure if you have bought a property recently - but if you have look back and I'd bet that it tells you in some small print to seek expert advice on the stamp duty you are liable for as they are not giving advice on tax. And I also bet that you , like every one else, wouldn't do this. Property transaction leech fees are enough as it is.
That's quite probably the case, and it's why I had very little interest in the story when it first surfaced, and I said as much at the time.
But after this all became public, she had plenty of time to realise the position, and then tried to blame the solicitor for giving advice which clearly wan't given. That is either dishonesty or rank stupidity.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
She claimed that was the case, but clearly has not been able to provide any evidence this was the case. The investigation talks solely about the one firm who said they aren't in a position to provide complex tax advice, told her she needed to take further advice and that she didn't.
She lied to try and cover this up. Its the attempted cover up that gets up in the end.
The investigation talks about TWO firms.
Do you have the link to the full report? Because the media reporting is the two bits of legal advice were the one before (the people who said we don't do tax advice) and the second was POST the news breaking. Not 3 separate views PRE the story breaking.
Bye bye Angie, don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.
What a horrible comment.
I think you need to let the PB Tories have their fun.
They are enjoying their day- leave them alone.
I did say she should have walked on Wednesday.
By the way we are not allowed whataboutery regarding the PPE fast lane cf Rayner stamp duty failure.
Fair play to you
A lot of us on the right were pointing out that she was OBVIOUSLY toast, and could not hang on. And so it is
Most of the PB Centrist Dorks were convinced she could stay, but not you
If she hadn’t broken the ministerial code she would have stayed .
I disagree. Or, if she had stayed, it would have been for a few weeks, and then gone. Simply unsustainable for a Housing Minister to evade 40k housing tax, and then impose housing taxes on the rest of us
There will be a great deal of sympathy for her from Labour supporters and others, including me. Her political career is not over. She'll be back. Six months?
No. She might have returned if she hadn't broken the Ministerial code, she might then have gotten away with a quick resignation and a Mandelsonian return on the basis that she made an honest error
But she has lied consistently, she's lied badly, she even tried to throw her lawyers under the 235 to Muswell Hill, it's a grim litany, and it comes on top of many other close scrapes PLUS her record of sanctimonious hectoring
She's finished as a major politician. She will certainly never be PM and I very much doubt she will be an important Minister. Perhaps a lower role
If I were her (in a wobbly seat) I'd quit politics in this parliament and do an Ed Balls. Make more money and have more fun in the media
Yup, her seat may get swept aside by a Reform wave so it makes sense to stand down in 2029 and go down the media talking head route, she definitely needs the money given her giant mortgage and £70k pay cut.
I wonder whether, when the trust was being set up, she was walked through it to say "this is designed to do this etc" and she regarded that walk through as underpinning advice relevant to her house purchase.
Something like this would happen, for an example, for an agreed exit from a job.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
SFAICS at this moment no-one except a small number in the Rayner loop know all the relevant facts. I just wonder if it is possible that it is arguable - at an experienced professional level of KCs and top accountants - that Rayner did not owe the higher rate of duty, especially as it seems slightly counter intuitive that she did.
Every tax case that reaches the higher courts - and there are plenty - will involve two sets of lawyers (and accountants) arguing that they are right in law and the other side wrong. Might this be another or is it one of those cases where only one outcome is arguable?
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
AIUI to error was that though she was not longer party to the original house ownership she was still drawn into her child's trust purely because the child is still under 18. This is very esoteric knowledge IMO and also I would say counter-intuitive.
Also (I think since it's logical) she can claim back the extra £40k once she's paid it. Her son is 18 either now or very soon and the rule is you can claim back the additional stamp duty on a purchase if you eliminate your beneficial interest in other properties within 3 years.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
She claimed that was the case, but clearly has not been able to provide any evidence this was the case. The investigation talks solely about the one firm who said they aren't in a position to provide complex tax advice, told her she needed to take further advice and that she didn't.
She lied to try and cover this up. Its the attempted cover up that gets up in the end.
The investigation talks about TWO firms.
Do you have the link to the full report? Because the media reporting is the two bits of legal advice were the one before (the people who said we don't do tax advice) and the second was POST the news breaking. Not 3 separate views PRE the story breaking.
I read it now. Its clearly they are talking about the conveyancer for the Brighton home. Two instances are clearly two pieces of paperwork, in which they also said they don't provide tax advice. She claimed she consulted 3 different legal opinions.
I think she was trying to use the fact she did use other legal firms in the past for her trust and house sale as cover for I actually took loads of advice. But both of those other firms turned around straight away and said nope, we didn't know anything about this new house purchase.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
Funny how her carelessness gained her 40k and not the other way round.......
Her carelessness LOST her £40K and her job. If she had been really diligent she would have discovered, or been told, that by waiting six months until her a son was 18, his property would not have counted as hers, and she'd only be liable for the standard stamp duty.
So he'll be 18 prior to the end of this tax year? If this is the case, as she's now lost her job perhaps NOT pay the extra £40k and challenge HMRC to chase her for it!
There will be a great deal of sympathy for her from Labour supporters and others, including me. Her political career is not over. She'll be back. Six months?
No. She might have returned if she hadn't broken the Ministerial code, she might then have gotten away with a quick resignation and a Mandelsonian return on the basis that she made an honest error
But she has lied consistently, she's lied badly, she even tried to throw her lawyers under the 235 to Muswell Hill, it's a grim litany, and it comes on top of many other close scrapes PLUS her record of sanctimonious hectoring
She's finished as a major politician. She will certainly never be PM and I very much doubt she will be an important Minister. Perhaps a lower role
If I were her (in a wobbly seat) I'd quit politics in this parliament and do an Ed Balls. Make more money and have more fun in the media
Yup, her seat may get swept aside by a Reform wave so it makes sense to stand down in 2029 and go down the media talking head route, she definitely needs the money given her giant mortgage and £70k pay cut.
Would prob make more sense for her to hold her seat until the election as four years of salary, pension etc but also get a weekly column in the Mirror, columns in Guardian/Observer occasionally, speak to Gary Lineker about podcast opportunities with Goalhanger. Get an agent re I’m a celebrity and build up a tv career with the backstop of parliamentary salary and expenses.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.
See my reply just posted. Not sure if you have bought a property recently - but if you have look back and I'd bet that it tells you in some small print to seek expert advice on the stamp duty you are liable for as they are not giving advice on tax. And I also bet that you , like every one else, wouldn't do this. Property transaction leech fees are enough as it is.
Most people don’t do it because they either know they’ve got more than one property or they don’t. For the huge majority; they’re buying their new home and selling their old one. So of course they won’t forensically analyse it or seek expert advice because the basic SDLT rules apply to them and it’s all very simple to follow.
I said yesterday; the danger when you have atypical financial arrangements (which this trust structure is) is you do start to come into contact with the weird vagaries of tax law from time to time. At that point, as annoying as it is, it really pays to heed that advice to seek independent confirmation whenever a point comes that you’re being assessed for tax.
I appreciate this isn't the main focus of discussion right now, but a quick flag update from Manchester City Centre: there are quite a lot of union flags look to have been tied by cable ties quite some way up lamp posts - so look unofficial but some effort has gone in, especially given the relatively conspicuous (and territorially quite surprising) location - along with a smattering of various rainbow and/or trans flags, affixed in the same way, often to the same lamp post, possibly by the same person. I find this oddly cheering for reasons I can't put my finger on.
In the event, it did no harm at all, as she went on a supervised very low calorie diet, lost a significant amount of weight, and is feeling healthier than she has in a decade.
I appreciate this isn't the main focus of discussion right now, but a quick flag update from Manchester City Centre: there are quite a lot of union flags look to have been tied by cable ties quite some way up lamp posts - so look unofficial but some effort has gone in, especially given the relatively conspicuous (and territorially quite surprising) location - along with a smattering of various rainbow and/or trans flags, affixed in the same way, often to the same lamp post, possibly by the same person. I find this oddly cheering for reasons I can't put my finger on.
Pride was pretty late in Manchester wasn't it, only a couple of weeks back?
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
AIUI to error was that though she was not longer party to the original house ownership she was still drawn into her child's trust purely because the child is still under 18. This is very esoteric knowledge IMO and also I would say counter-intuitive.
Also (I think since it's logical) she can claim back the extra £40k once she's paid it. Her son is 18 either now or very soon and the rule is you can claim back the additional stamp duty on a purchase if you eliminate your beneficial interest in other properties within 3 years.
The son is 17 so in less than a year she can reclaim the £40k anyway. Its hardly a massive tax fraud which she would knowingly risk her career for, it is incompetence and mostly as with many charasmatic politicians, a lack of interest in the detail.
We should stop electing the most charasmatic ones, or stop moaning when the fail to follow rules and fail to deliver good governance.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.
See my reply just posted. Not sure if you have bought a property recently - but if you have look back and I'd bet that it tells you in some small print to seek expert advice on the stamp duty you are liable for as they are not giving advice on tax. And I also bet that you , like every one else, wouldn't do this. Property transaction leech fees are enough as it is.
That's quite probably the case, and it's why I had very little interest in the story when it first surfaced, and I said as much at the time.
But after this all became public, she had plenty of time to realise the position, and then tried to blame the solicitor for giving advice which clearly wan't given. That is either dishonesty or rank stupidity.
She's clearly not stupid, so she is obviously dishonest, and in quite an unpleasant way
I feel a bit melancholy as she departs, even as I like seeing Labour suffer. She, at least, has some character and vim, and her backstory is remarkable. Very working class single mum to PM would have been quite a journey, and I suspect she'd have been a considerably better PM than Starmer (even as I dislike her politics). She could have been inspirising for working class girls
What a shame. And all for £40k which, to be frank, she can easily afford, or earn outside politics. Silly woman
I raised the issue of blind trusts used to be a thing. I checked, under Blair, ministers did have to put their assets into blind trust. I wonder when that went the doo doo?
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
Indeed, the hyperbole on this issue is reaching absurd proportions. This is the kind of oversight that essentially the majority of the population would have made, but just refracted through both the political axe-grinding of the Telegraph, and someone with an unusual amount of information to give them.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
I can’t agree with this:
1. Anyone who buys a house will be told by their conveyancer that it is your duty to make sure the stamp duty position is correct. There isn’t anything unusual about this at all. If you have some arrangements that could make things different, then you should go to another professional (probably an accountant) and get that clarified.
In addition to that:
2. She’s the DPM, so it’s incumbent on her to be super careful about her tax affairs given her public role.
I do agree that I have some sympathy with the basic position, that she was in a complicated situation and that she slipped up (and I do think it was a genuine slip up). I do however have less sympathy for the approach of a) blame the conveyancers and b) (what now looks to be in doubt) suggest you got some other legal advice that it was all ok.
In all honesty, I wonder if she’d have done a tearful confession that she’d got it wrong, it was all her fault and she’d paid the difference, and she was going to step back from the housing role, when this whole story kicked off, might have actually been enough to save her government position.
I'm unconvinced that it would have made any difference.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.
See my reply just posted. Not sure if you have bought a property recently - but if you have look back and I'd bet that it tells you in some small print to seek expert advice on the stamp duty you are liable for as they are not giving advice on tax. And I also bet that you , like every one else, wouldn't do this. Property transaction leech fees are enough as it is.
Most people don’t do it because they either know they’ve got more than one property or they don’t. For the huge majority; they’re buying their new home and selling their old one. So of course they won’t forensically analyse it or seek expert advice because the basic SDLT rules apply to them and it’s all very simple to follow.
I said yesterday; the danger when you have atypical financial arrangements (which this trust structure is) is you do start to come into contact with the weird vagaries of tax law from time to time. At that point, as annoying as it is, it really pays to heed that advice to seek independent confirmation whenever a point comes that you’re being assessed for tax.
OK but 'buying a their new home and selling their old one' is exactly what she did AIUI.
She sold her remaining stake in the old home so the new one would be the only property ownership she had. Perhaps she got some advice of some sort to do this so that the penalty tax rate, they thought, wouldn't apply.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
Indeed, the hyperbole on this issue is reaching absurd proportions. This is the kind of oversight that essentially t the majority of the population would have made, refracted through both the political axe-grinding of the Telegraph, and someone with an unusual amount of information to give them.
Its the attempted cover up / lies / deflection that has done for her, not the original tax issue. If she had paid the extra on day one of the story, explained the situation honestly, think would have survived and all be forgotten in 6 months. I doubt most people remember her previous run in with the media over confusion about just where she actually lived for years.
The report explicitly mentions that she didn't act straight away on the issue when it came to light.
I appreciate this isn't the main focus of discussion right now, but a quick flag update from Manchester City Centre: there are quite a lot of union flags look to have been tied by cable ties quite some way up lamp posts - so look unofficial but some effort has gone in, especially given the relatively conspicuous (and territorially quite surprising) location - along with a smattering of various rainbow and/or trans flags, affixed in the same way, often to the same lamp post, possibly by the same person. I find this oddly cheering for reasons I can't put my finger on.
Would be a a slightly disconcerting outcome if the Union Flag becomes the symbol of the woke left, particularly up here.
There's already some discussion by cyclists of flying St George's off the back of the pannier rack to deter aggressive drivers.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
AIUI to error was that though she was not longer party to the original house ownership she was still drawn into her child's trust purely because the child is still under 18. This is very esoteric knowledge IMO and also I would say counter-intuitive.
Also (I think since it's logical) she can claim back the extra £40k once she's paid it. Her son is 18 either now or very soon and the rule is you can claim back the additional stamp duty on a purchase if you eliminate your beneficial interest in other properties within 3 years.
That would be quite amusing, if only see the reactions of today's outraged Tories.
Bye bye Angie, don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.
What a horrible comment.
Perhaps if she hadn’t spent the last decade and a half being a mouthy gobshite, constantly calling for resignations of political opponents for the slightest of perceived infractions, there might be a little more sympathy out there for her £40,000 of tax avoidance.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
I can’t agree with this:
1. Anyone who buys a house will be told by their conveyancer that it is your duty to make sure the stamp duty position is correct. There isn’t anything unusual about this at all. If you have some arrangements that could make things different, then you should go to another professional (probably an accountant) and get that clarified.
In addition to that:
2. She’s the DPM, so it’s incumbent on her to be super careful about her tax affairs given her public role.
I do agree that I have some sympathy with the basic position, that she was in a complicated situation and that she slipped up (and I do think it was a genuine slip up). I do however have less sympathy for the approach of a) blame the conveyancers and b) (what now looks to be in doubt) suggest you got some other legal advice that it was all ok.
In all honesty, I wonder if she’d have done a tearful confession that she’d got it wrong, it was all her fault and she’d paid the difference, and she was going to step back from the housing role, when this whole story kicked off, might have actually been enough to save her government position.
Its also fairly clear on HMRC website that property put in Trust for a child is still counted as if you own property , I guess to prevent individuals placing assets in the name of the children which they still control. Tellingly Angela did not seek proper advice , did not ask the question's she should have done and then initially sought to blame her Conveyancer for giving her the incorrect advice. She has been unforgiving for the transgressions of overs and deserves little sympathy for her self inflicted situation.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
So not everyone on here's a shit. That's good to know.
AIUI to error was that though she was not longer party to the original house ownership she was still drawn into her child's trust purely because the child is still under 18. This is very esoteric knowledge IMO and also I would say counter-intuitive.
Also (I think since it's logical) she can claim back the extra £40k once she's paid it. Her son is 18 either now or very soon and the rule is you can claim back the additional stamp duty on a purchase if you eliminate your beneficial interest in other properties within 3 years.
That's a very good point. Usually applied to more regular non-simultaneous property transactions , of course.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
I can’t agree with this:
1. Anyone who buys a house will be told by their conveyancer that it is your duty to make sure the stamp duty position is correct. There isn’t anything unusual about this at all. If you have some arrangements that could make things different, then you should go to another professional (probably an accountant) and get that clarified.
In addition to that:
2. She’s the DPM, so it’s incumbent on her to be super careful about her tax affairs given her public role.
I do agree that I have some sympathy with the basic position, that she was in a complicated situation and that she slipped up (and I do think it was a genuine slip up). I do however have less sympathy for the approach of a) blame the conveyancers and b) (what now looks to be in doubt) suggest you got some other legal advice that it was all ok.
In all honesty, I wonder if she’d have done a tearful confession that she’d got it wrong, it was all her fault and she’d paid the difference, and she was going to step back from the housing role, when this whole story kicked off, might have actually been enough to save her government position.
Its also fairly clear on HMRC website that property put in Trust for a child is still counted as if you own property , I guess to prevent individuals placing assets in the name of the children which they still control. Tellingly Angela did not seek proper advice , did not ask the question's she should have done and then initially sought to blame her Conveyancer for giving her the incorrect advice. She has been unforgiving for the transgressions of overs and deserves little sympathy for her self inflicted situation.
Different sort of trust: incapax person, I think. Which - in everything except this very anomaly - actuially has very different tax rules, as pointed out by others here.
She basically didn't take any real advice, contra to her claims, maybe she assumed she did, but didn't. She didn;t take tax advice-End of.
It's yet another case of "it's the cover-up that gets you." Although in this case, the cover was a sheet of tissue paper rather then six feet of concrete.
If she had been open and honest when this story broke, she might well still be in position.
She might. But the fact of the matter is that she was negligent, and compounded that by trying to pass off her own mistakes on others.
Neither of those things are ideal qualities in a minister.
Yes, one of the problems we have is too many senior politicians lacking attention to detail. If, when you are acting in your private life on the biggest transaction you will likely undertake which involves borrowing money and paying taxes as well as involving legal activities you cannot be arsed to check and triple check the info and what you are signing then how can you be trusted to have any rigour in reading briefs and making decisions as a minister.
I'm perfectly prepared to accept mistakes; not all ministers are ever going to be sticklers for detail. It's the trying to pass it off on others, after the event, and when she had time fully to consider what had happened, which really grates. That is a dreadful quality in a leader.
That she's resigned now, without further struggle, does at least demonstrate the ability to accept that she's got something wrong. If she'd done that in the first place she'd likely still be in post.
Yes, the attempt to big up standard conveyancing practice as expert tax advice was a bad move. You're usually better off doing a clean mea culpa. Esp when the error is (like this one) pretty understandable. Probably she'd have had to go anyway but the manner of it does count from the point of view of future prospects for herself and the government. Ah well. Rough old game.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
She has not been proven to be a fraudster or a criminal. The HMRC can consider seeking a criminal prosecution, but it's highly unlikely they would.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
There will be a great deal of sympathy for her from Labour supporters and others, including me. Her political career is not over. She'll be back. Six months?
No. She might have returned if she hadn't broken the Ministerial code, she might then have gotten away with a quick resignation and a Mandelsonian return on the basis that she made an honest error
But she has lied consistently, she's lied badly, she even tried to throw her lawyers under the 235 to Muswell Hill, it's a grim litany, and it comes on top of many other close scrapes PLUS her record of sanctimonious hectoring
She's finished as a major politician. She will certainly never be PM and I very much doubt she will be an important Minister. Perhaps a lower role
If I were her (in a wobbly seat) I'd quit politics in this parliament and do an Ed Balls. Make more money and have more fun in the media
Maybe she can team up with the money guy expert on mortgages Martin Lewis 😂😂😂
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.
See my reply just posted. Not sure if you have bought a property recently - but if you have look back and I'd bet that it tells you in some small print to seek expert advice on the stamp duty you are liable for as they are not giving advice on tax. And I also bet that you , like every one else, wouldn't do this. Property transaction leech fees are enough as it is.
Most people don’t do it because they either know they’ve got more than one property or they don’t. For the huge majority; they’re buying their new home and selling their old one. So of course they won’t forensically analyse it or seek expert advice because the basic SDLT rules apply to them and it’s all very simple to follow.
I said yesterday; the danger when you have atypical financial arrangements (which this trust structure is) is you do start to come into contact with the weird vagaries of tax law from time to time. At that point, as annoying as it is, it really pays to heed that advice to seek independent confirmation whenever a point comes that you’re being assessed for tax.
OK but 'buying a their new home and selling their old one' is exactly what she did AIUI.
She sold her remaining stake in the old home so the new one would be the only property ownership she had. Perhaps she got some advice of some sort to do this so that the penalty tax rate, they thought, wouldn't apply.
Well if she did get that advice, she didn’t produce it!
And she sold her personal stake, but the trust retained an interest in the property. I don’t think it’s a straightforward arrangement, and I do think it’s reasonable to do further diligence in that scenario.
I think the nail in the coffin was the statement from her conveyancers after she tried to throw them under the bus.
I wonder if she had kept strum she might have got away with it. Instead she came out throwing everybody else under the bus, claiming was them lawyers fault.
I am sure TSE will tell us, "You come at the king lawyers, you best not miss."
It will annoy many on here, but the Telegraph were at the forefront of the investigations and the only unknown is who was doing the leaking to them ?
You have been very robust too. Don't underestimate the reach of PB. A very big win for PB Tories.
Rayner was aways the embodiment of gobby Lefty entitlement.
The sympathy well is bone dry.
I've been away so catching up on this story.
I think I disagree on both of your counts.
The conveyancing solicitor pays the stamp duty land tax as part of their tallying-up process. Most people would not doubt or check that the tax stated by the solicitor is correct. Raynor, remember, is a dim Labour MP who is, like the rest, numerically 'uninterested'. I very much doubt she knows much about tax rates in general. I doubt, therefore, that this was deliberate.
She no doubt sold her remaining stake in the existing house to her child's trust so that the new property would be the only property she would own, meaning the penalty second home tax rate would not apply. I can understand this. When the error came to light she immediately offered to pay the extra to HMRC.
So, as much as I dislike her, and think her unfit for office, I DO have sympathy over this issue and do not see it to be serious enough for her to go.
Try claiming to HMRC that you have taken advice from 2 other legal firms on this matter and they say it is all above board and when you are asked for the proof you can't provide it.
As I say I'm catching up on this story - so she had legal advice (she says) from two lawyers plus her conveyancer and they agreed the level is duty should be the standard rate?
No she didn't, that's why she's had to resign. The conveyancing firm told her to seek expert advice, she neglected to do so either from laziness, incompetence or not wanting to pay the additional tax due.
See my reply just posted. Not sure if you have bought a property recently - but if you have look back and I'd bet that it tells you in some small print to seek expert advice on the stamp duty you are liable for as they are not giving advice on tax. And I also bet that you , like every one else, wouldn't do this. Property transaction leech fees are enough as it is.
Most people don’t do it because they either know they’ve got more than one property or they don’t. For the huge majority; they’re buying their new home and selling their old one. So of course they won’t forensically analyse it or seek expert advice because the basic SDLT rules apply to them and it’s all very simple to follow.
I said yesterday; the danger when you have atypical financial arrangements (which this trust structure is) is you do start to come into contact with the weird vagaries of tax law from time to time. At that point, as annoying as it is, it really pays to heed that advice to seek independent confirmation whenever a point comes that you’re being assessed for tax.
OK but 'buying a their new home and selling their old one' is exactly what she did AIUI.
She sold her remaining stake in the old home so the new one would be the only property ownership she had. Perhaps she got some advice of some sort to do this so that the penalty tax rate, they thought, wouldn't apply.
Well if she did get that advice, she didn’t produce it!
And she sold her personal stake, but the trust retained an interest in the property. I don’t think it’s a straightforward arrangement, and I do think it’s reasonable to do further diligence in that scenario.
Yup, that's really it - as soon as you're involved in being a trustee of a property or your kids own property via a trust from an inheritance or something like that then you must seek expert tax advice when buying or selling your own personal property. To not do so invites tax irregularities as Rayner has found out to her detriment.
Comments
Conservatives don’t need to steal tax payers money as many are already rich, which is why it’s only Labour governments and hangers on cronies who always constantly help themselves from the till.
I imagine e all MPs with more than one property are doing some discreet checking though.
Inadvertent underpayment of tax which is promptly disclosed to HMRC when it’s brought to your attention is not grounds for dismissal of an MP.
She lied to try and cover this up. Its the attempted cover up that gets up in the end.
A figure from another era.
That being the 1970's Daily Express.
RIP.
It's the trying to pass it off on others, after the event, and when she had time fully to consider what had happened, which really grates.
That is a dreadful quality in a leader.
That she's resigned now, without further struggle, does at least demonstrate the ability to accept that she's got something wrong. If she'd done that in the first place she'd likely still be in post.
The conveyancers tell everyone this purely to cover their arses in a similar way to how they tell every purchaser to have a full structural survey when only a small percentage actually do.
Provided too she didn't fund the flat from her allowance/expenses and no evidence she did, or is suspended from the House after a Cttee on Standards Report she can also stay an MP with no recall
A lot of us on the right were pointing out that she was OBVIOUSLY toast, and could not hang on. And so it is
Most of the PB Centrist Dorks were convinced she could stay, but not you
Which is a far better thing to be remembered for than many of the things other royals will be remembered for.
If she feels she has an argument and case for the defence, let her put it to her constituents in a by election, and let them decide. What’s your problem with they, Eh?
The amounts being farmed on expenses by mortgage flipping and "main home" declaration management were iirc far larger than this - consider .. er .. the Ballses.
That was also the Telegraph, of course, before the slide.
Fraudsters and criminals can be legislators. A past criminal record is no obstacle to becoming an MP. A jail sentence of more than a year while you are an MP gets you disqualified, but less does not (but will trigger a recall petition).
There is a very long list of fraudsters and/or criminals who have been or are legislators.
If she had been really diligent she would have discovered, or been told, that by waiting six months until her a son was 18, his property would not have counted as hers, and she'd only be liable for the standard stamp duty.
But she has lied consistently, she's lied badly, she even tried to throw her lawyers under the 235 to Muswell Hill, it's a grim litany, and it comes on top of many other close scrapes PLUS her record of sanctimonious hectoring
She's finished as a major politician. She will certainly never be PM and I very much doubt she will be an important Minister. Perhaps a lower role
If I were her (in a wobbly seat) I'd quit politics in this parliament and do an Ed Balls. Make more money and have more fun in the media
1. Anyone who buys a house will be told by their conveyancer that it is your duty to make sure the stamp duty position is correct. There isn’t anything unusual about this at all. If you have some arrangements that could make things different, then you should go to another professional (probably an accountant) and get that clarified.
In addition to that:
2. She’s the DPM, so it’s incumbent on her to be super careful about her tax affairs given her public role.
I do agree that I have some sympathy with the basic position, that she was in a complicated situation and that she slipped up (and I do think it was a genuine slip up). I do however have less sympathy for the approach of a) blame the conveyancers and b) (what now looks to be in doubt) suggest you got some other legal advice that it was all ok.
In all honesty, I wonder if she’d have done a tearful confession that she’d got it wrong, it was all her fault and she’d paid the difference, and she was going to step back from the housing role, when this whole story kicked off, might have actually been enough to save her government position.
But after this all became public, she had plenty of time to realise the position, and then tried to blame the solicitor for giving advice which clearly wan't given. That is either dishonesty or rank stupidity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0lk8ye1979t
Seriously she’s useless . Her statement is laughable given what the Tories got up to .
Something like this would happen, for an example, for an agreed exit from a job.
Every tax case that reaches the higher courts - and there are plenty - will involve two sets of lawyers (and accountants) arguing that they are right in law and the other side wrong. Might this be another or is it one of those cases where only one outcome is arguable?
I think she was trying to use the fact she did use other legal firms in the past for her trust and house sale as cover for I actually took loads of advice. But both of those other firms turned around straight away and said nope, we didn't know anything about this new house purchase.
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1963933456939024654?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
I said yesterday; the danger when you have atypical financial arrangements (which this trust structure is) is you do start to come into contact with the weird vagaries of tax law from time to time. At that point, as annoying as it is, it really pays to heed that advice to seek independent confirmation whenever a point comes that you’re being assessed for tax.
I find this oddly cheering for reasons I can't put my finger on.
Labour are going to get smashed at the next election and it will be glorious.
Rebecca Long-Bailey (still an MP) ?
Last hurrah for Diane Abbott?
Hmmm.
All other countries are run by little girls!"
Error leaves 55,000 diabetes patients needing new tests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g7d3w7gdlo
In the event, it did no harm at all, as she went on a supervised very low calorie diet, lost a significant amount of weight, and is feeling healthier than she has in a decade.
We should stop electing the most charasmatic ones, or stop moaning when the fail to follow rules and fail to deliver good governance.
I feel a bit melancholy as she departs, even as I like seeing Labour suffer. She, at least, has some character and vim, and her backstory is remarkable. Very working class single mum to PM would have been quite a journey, and I suspect she'd have been a considerably better PM than Starmer (even as I dislike her politics). She could have been inspirising for working class girls
What a shame. And all for £40k which, to be frank, she can easily afford, or earn outside politics. Silly woman
She sold her remaining stake in the old home so the new one would be the only property ownership she had. Perhaps she got some advice of some sort to do this so that the penalty tax rate, they thought, wouldn't apply.
The report explicitly mentions that she didn't act straight away on the issue when it came to light.
The pressure on parents and divorcees has never been so harsh.
By Vicky Spratt"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/09/angela-rayner-is-a-victim-of-britains-housing-crisis
There's already some discussion by cyclists of flying St George's off the back of the pannier rack to deter aggressive drivers.
It's only day 3 and his Housing Minister and Deupty Prime Minister has had to resign in disgrace. What will it be like after a fortnight?
Its also fairly clear on HMRC website that property put in Trust for a child is still counted as if you own property , I guess to prevent individuals placing assets in the name of the children which they still control. Tellingly Angela did not seek proper advice , did not ask the question's she should have done and then initially sought to blame her Conveyancer for giving her the incorrect advice. She has been unforgiving for the transgressions of overs and deserves little sympathy for her self inflicted situation.
I'll miss Angela Rayner. Maybe she'll be back one day................
What a mess.
You obviously misunderstood Phase 2 which was labelled 'Dump my Deputy' week.
Streeting is Starmer's only real rival now and heir in the PLP but Streeting unlike Rayner is a firm Starmer loyalist
Times Radio Politics"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF0L_MNTQ1g
And she sold her personal stake, but the trust retained an interest in the property. I don’t think it’s a straightforward arrangement, and I do think it’s reasonable to do further diligence in that scenario.
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2025/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-emergency-alerts-test-on-7-september/