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.
You're quite rare on here - clearly left wing but much less tribal than some - you at least can see some of the faults on your own side!
IIRC MexicanPete votes Lib Dem - I don't think Labour are his side?
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"
My guess would be the majority will be sub contracted staff for cleaning, canteen, etc, and ICE overreach / poor discipline is probably also scooped up all "foreign" types i.e. some Koreans who are there legally but don't go to work with all their documentation.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
You can go on public websites like this one and see what stamp duty rate was paid. After the furore over her previous property purchases journalists were inevitably going to check it out. No whistleblower needed.
Um - where does it show that the transaction type was a btl or second home?
Transaction type on right hand side - shows if Additional or Standard price paid transaction. Rayners would show as standard and then that would lead to journalist enquiries about did she own more than one.
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Yes, some people have an odd view of the party. The hard left is no longer a factor. It's out and about doing other things.
Incidentally. There is no reason why there needs to be Deputy PM.
Maggie never had one IIRC.
Errr, Willie Whitelaw?
Sir Geoffrey Howe too.
Wikipedia is very weird: it says Howe and Whitelaw were Deputy PM on said politicians own pages, but then on the Deputy PM page (to which both those pages link) there is a big gap between Atlee in WW2 and Heseltine.
When I ask ChatGPT, it tells me: "Official title: When Thatcher formed her first Cabinet in 1979, Whitelaw was formally Deputy Prime Minister—it appeared in the published list of ministers."
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved 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.
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.
Huh. That does suggest she had no idea about the rules, so either a genuine mistake or the worst tax evasion ploy ever.
I'll go for mistake.
But it's the reaction to someone pointing out the mistake that is revealing and important. People make mistakes all the time. One of the main advantages of a democracy is that a free press enables mistakes to be identified and discussed in the open, so that they can then be fixed.
The reaction of politicians to mistakes being identified is uniformly awful. They deny, deflect and attempt to discredit the person pointing out the mistake. It's one reason so much bad law makes it to the statute book. Reasoned criticism is treated as ideological or reflexive opposition, to be ignored or steamrollered.
Take, for example, the change to landfill tax rates brought up on here recently. A government with a mature attitude to criticism would accept the damage that would do to housebuilding, correct the mistake, and move on. Instead we are likely to see ministers brush off the criticism and only a determined campaign will prevent a massive reduction in housebuilding rates.
Interesting example. The difficulty for politicians in policy is distinguishing from a genuine and thoughtful criticism, and people just doing performative self-serving histrionics. If you took every objection to cycle lanes seriously, you'd never get any built because whatever explanation or concession you make, you'll never satisfy the objectors.
But it also means we end up with some terribly designed cycle lanes, because amid all the flak there are some sensible and considered observations discarded with the rest.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she consulted 3 different legal opinions.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
You can go on public websites like this one and see what stamp duty rate was paid. After the furore over her previous property purchases journalists were inevitably going to check it out. No whistleblower needed.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Small boats data This page shows figures for the last 7 days for irregular migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK.
Date Migrants arrived Boats arrived Boats involved in uncontrolled landings Notes 29 August 2025 0 0 0 30 August 2025 0 0 0 31 August 2025 0 0 0 1 September 2025 0 0 0 2 September 2025 0 0 0 3 September 2025 0 0 0 4 September 2025 0 0 0
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
You can vote locally in all elections provided it’s different councils. What you can’t vote for more than once is your MP because that’s a national election
... but you can be registered to vote in multiple places, just as long as you only actually vote in one of them.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
You can go on public websites like this one and see what stamp duty rate was paid. After the furore over her previous property purchases journalists were inevitably going to check it out. No whistleblower needed.
Um - where does it show that the transaction type was a btl or second home?
Transaction type on right hand side - shows if Additional or Standard price paid transaction. Rayners would show as standard and then that would lead to journalist enquiries about did she own more than one.
Um not quite
PPD Category Type Indicates the type of Price Paid transaction. A = Standard Price Paid entry, includes single residential property sold for value. B = Additional Price Paid entry including transfers under a power of sale/repossessions, buy-to-lets (where they can be identified by a Mortgage), transfers to non-private individuals and sales where the property type is classed as ‘Other’.
Note that category B does not separately identify the transaction types stated. HM Land Registry has been collecting information on Category A transactions from January 1995. Category B transactions were identified from October 2013.
Stamp duty is not information the land registry has - but thanks for falling into the trap I laid to identify people claiming to know more than they actually do
The reason type B exists is to tell valuers that the data isn’t necessarily an open market transaction so the value should be treated with care
Small boats data This page shows figures for the last 7 days for irregular migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK.
Date Migrants arrived Boats arrived Boats involved in uncontrolled landings Notes 29 August 2025 0 0 0 30 August 2025 0 0 0 31 August 2025 0 0 0 1 September 2025 0 0 0 2 September 2025 0 0 0 3 September 2025 0 0 0 4 September 2025 0 0 0
Is this like petty crime in San Francisco, where if you stop reporting it and counting it, then it doesn’t count in the recorded statistics?
Cooper might not be a bad shout for DPM/Deputy Leader. Ticks the “is a woman” box, generally well regarded, senior and substantial, doesn’t really cause anyone to go into fits of apoplexy, stresses that dealing with immigration on the top of the agenda…
He might put her in as DPM today, with a view she campaigns for the deputy leadership too.
She doesn't have any of the popular touch that Rayner has, though. Perfect for the Right, and Reform.
The Telegraph have done Farage and Reform a huge favour here, as usual. They've become their sort of press wing.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?
Small boats data This page shows figures for the last 7 days for irregular migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK.
Date Migrants arrived Boats arrived Boats involved in uncontrolled landings Notes 29 August 2025 0 0 0 30 August 2025 0 0 0 31 August 2025 0 0 0 1 September 2025 0 0 0 2 September 2025 0 0 0 3 September 2025 0 0 0 4 September 2025 0 0 0
Is this like petty crime in San Francisco, where if you stop reporting it and counting it, then it doesn’t count in the recorded statistics?
Heh. This is the problem for the small boats issue - even if you actually come up with a solution that sees no migrants at all then you just get the "fake news, civil service cover up, MSM" line instead.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Being registered in two places is surely standard practice for students. Postal votes make it easy to abuse but postal votes are a cess pit anyway but nothing will be done while the main parties do so well from granny farming. (What might prompt action is the registration of fictitious voters who then vote by post. as was alleged in Tower Hamlets iirc.)
Small boats data This page shows figures for the last 7 days for irregular migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK.
Date Migrants arrived Boats arrived Boats involved in uncontrolled landings Notes 29 August 2025 0 0 0 30 August 2025 0 0 0 31 August 2025 0 0 0 1 September 2025 0 0 0 2 September 2025 0 0 0 3 September 2025 0 0 0 4 September 2025 0 0 0
Is this like petty crime in San Francisco, where if you stop reporting it and counting it, then it doesn’t count in the recorded statistics?
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
You can go on public websites like this one and see what stamp duty rate was paid. After the furore over her previous property purchases journalists were inevitably going to check it out. No whistleblower needed.
Um - where does it show that the transaction type was a btl or second home?
Ownership of property is also public domain. So if someone (of their trust) owns x bits of property…
Is it? - care of tell me how to get it without giving the land registry a bit of cash and gambling that the data has actually been processed by the land registry.
Eek twin A bought her property in May last year - it was only in February this year that the data was correct in the land registry records
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
The right of asylum seekers not to be dumped on the streets trumps the right of the people of Epping to abdicate from our national obligation to take in and process asylum seekers.
Not such a stirring soundbite but a little more accurate.
Well, once Sir Laurie Magnus ruled Rayner had breached the Ministerial code, she had to go. Many of us, in our professional lives, have had to abide by codes of conduct and rules concerning our propriety and in truth Ministers are no different. If Starmer wants a Cabinet who are beyond reproach in both their professional and personal lives, then he has no choice but to accept a resignation when a Minister fails to live up to those levels of conduct.
The other key take from all this is the truth memories are forever in politics whether it's the tweet you wish you hadn't written 15 years ago re-surfacing to make you look a hyprocrite today or the comment you made about your opponent in Opposition which they have never forgotten.
Revenge is a dish best served cold and some will have been dining out well on Rayner's demise today just as many cheered the fall of the Conservatives in July 2024 - that's a human nature thing however magnanimous we might wish we were or should be.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?
God you are insufferable sometimes. We aren't peer reviewing academic papers here.
As for the lie about legal advice. If, as she claimed, had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. She was unable to do so. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.
What appears to be the truth is she has used two other legal firms to help her setup the trust and deal with her house in Ashton. However, both have publicly stated they were not asked nor knew about their new property / stamp duty liabilities.
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
The right of asylum seekers not to be dumped on the streets trumps the right of the people of Epping to abdicate from our national obligation to take in and process asylum seekers.
Not such a stirring soundbite but a little more accurate.
But it's okay for British people to be homeless? I don't see this same absolute obligation to house them.
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"
Well, there's an interesting fine line that has always existed. When I worked for Goldman Sachs, I regularly traveled to the US for work. Sometimes I'd be in the Goldman Sachs office in New York for a week at a time on a project. I didn't have a visa, I was employed by Goldman Sachs in London. I'd told immigration that I was there for work.
Was that OK? Or should I have gotten a work visa for that temporary assignment?
Generally speaking, this stuff is done by 'sniff test'.
It's entirely possible that Hyundai was pushing the boundaries here. South Koreans without visas, in the US for sustained periods, working for the company. (It is equally worth remembering, though, that the US wants TSMC and others to build fabrication plants in the US. If there's going to be a requirement for every Taiwanese manager coming over to go through the visa process - especially given the current delays in the system - then those plants aren't going to get built in a hurry.)
Small boats data This page shows figures for the last 7 days for irregular migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK.
Date Migrants arrived Boats arrived Boats involved in uncontrolled landings Notes 29 August 2025 0 0 0 30 August 2025 0 0 0 31 August 2025 0 0 0 1 September 2025 0 0 0 2 September 2025 0 0 0 3 September 2025 0 0 0 4 September 2025 0 0 0
Is this like petty crime in San Francisco, where if you stop reporting it and counting it, then it doesn’t count in the recorded statistics?
No, it's a consequence of the weather. Arrivals are extremely lumpy and weather dependent.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
A lot of university students used to be registered in two places at the same time. Don't know how common it still is today.
If she is admitting guilt, and proved guilty by the investigation, Rayner cannot possibly stay as an MP. Fraudsters and criminals cannot be legislators.
I'll save that comment as every bit of wrongdoing by a Tory MP gets unearthed over the next twelve month. I think Rayner had to go but what she did was chicken-feed compared to what the last Tory cabinet got up to. I imagine Jenrick, for one, is feeling a little uncomfortable right now. This has the same vibe as the expenses scandal when the right wing press piled on to Labour MPs initially only to find the Tories had done much the same and often much worse. Be careful what you wish 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.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?
God you are insufferable sometimes. We aren't peer reviewing academic papers here.
As for the lie about legal advice. If she had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.
So, there's no evidence that it's a lie. You have drawn that inference.
What she didn't do is seek adequate legal advice in which she fully informed the advisor of her situation.
I really don't know why you are insisting on this line that it's the cover-up that got her. No, it's not paying ~£40k in tax that got her.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?
God you are insufferable sometimes. We aren't peer reviewing academic papers here.
As for the lie about legal advice. If, as she claimed, had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. She was unable to do so. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.
What appears to be the truth is she has used two other legal firms to help her setup the trust and deal with her house in Ashton. However, both have publicly stated they were not asked nor knew about their new property / stamp duty liabilities.
Yes but all this semantic quibbling goes over the head of most people who do not notice the different implications of ‘sought legal advice’ and ‘was advised by three sets of lawyers’.
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"
Well, there's an interesting fine line that has always existed. When I worked for Goldman Sachs, I regularly traveled to the US for work. Sometimes I'd be in the Goldman Sachs office in New York for a week at a time on a project. I didn't have a visa, I was employed by Goldman Sachs in London. I'd told immigration that I was there for work.
Was that OK? Or should I have gotten a work visa for that temporary assignment?
Generally speaking, this stuff is done by 'sniff test'.
It's entirely possible that Hyundai was pushing the boundaries here. South Koreans without visas, in the US for sustained periods, working for the company. (It is equally worth remembering, though, that the US wants TSMC and others to build fabrication plants in the US. If there's going to be a requirement for every Taiwanese manager coming over to go through the visa process - especially given the current delays in the system - then those plants aren't going to get built in a hurry.)
Presumably Hyundai themselves have their staff on appropriate visas, perhaps a few overstayers on visit visas working to set up the plant.
More likely to be ancially staff such as security, cleaners, caterers, building trades etc who aren’t going to be getting visas and aren’t employed directly, but the customer wanted Koreans.
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
The right of asylum seekers not to be dumped on the streets trumps the right of the people of Epping to abdicate from our national obligation to take in and process asylum seekers.
Not such a stirring soundbite but a little more accurate.
But it's okay for British people to be homeless? I don't see this same absolute obligation to house them.
14. Housing authorities have a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent any eligible person (regardless of priority need status, intentionality and whether they have a local connection) who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless. This means either helping them to stay in their current accommodation or helping them to find a new place to live before they become actually homeless. The prevention duty continues for 56 days unless it is brought to an end by an event such as accommodation being secured for the person, or by their becoming homeless.
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
The right of asylum seekers not to be dumped on the streets trumps the right of the people of Epping to abdicate from our national obligation to take in and process asylum seekers.
Not such a stirring soundbite but a little more accurate.
But it's okay for British people to be homeless? I don't see this same absolute obligation to house them.
There is an obligation to house homeless people. The vast majority of homeless people are not rough sleepers; those that are have typically refused help or have behaved in such a way to get booted out by the council.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?
God you are insufferable sometimes. We aren't peer reviewing academic papers here.
As for the lie about legal advice. If she had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.
So, there's no evidence that it's a lie. You have drawn that inference.
What she didn't do is seek adequate legal advice in which she fully informed the advisor of her situation.
I really don't know why you are insisting on this line that it's the cover-up that got her. No, it's not paying ~£40k in tax that got her.
Come on now....your career is on the line, you have been referred to standards investigation. You have claimed in interviews you took 3 separate legal opinions. The standards investigator first question will be can you show me all the legal advice you received. As noted in the report, the only evidence provided was two documents from conveyor firm stating your tax affairs are complicated, we aren't tax advisors, you need to get some. That is clear evidence she doesn't have the sort of legal advice that she claimed she had been given.
When it comes to legal advice, it is never word of mouth, it is all in writing.
What I saying is I think Rayner / Starmer wanted to ride this out and I think they might have been able to do if the order of events had been slightly different. Again, the report makes a point of how it was bad that she didn't address this issue as soon as it was raised.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
A lot of university students used to be registered in two places at the same time. Don't know how common it still is today.
Small boats data This page shows figures for the last 7 days for irregular migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK.
Date Migrants arrived Boats arrived Boats involved in uncontrolled landings Notes 29 August 2025 0 0 0 30 August 2025 0 0 0 31 August 2025 0 0 0 1 September 2025 0 0 0 2 September 2025 0 0 0 3 September 2025 0 0 0 4 September 2025 0 0 0
Is this like petty crime in San Francisco, where if you stop reporting it and counting it, then it doesn’t count in the recorded statistics?
No, it's a consequence of the weather. Arrivals are extremely lumpy and weather dependent.
Ah so a week of bad weather, rather than any success on the part of the government.
Cooper might not be a bad shout for DPM/Deputy Leader. Ticks the “is a woman” box, generally well regarded, senior and substantial, doesn’t really cause anyone to go into fits of apoplexy, stresses that dealing with immigration on the top of the agenda…
He might put her in as DPM today, with a view she campaigns for the deputy leadership too.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
Cooper might not be a bad shout for DPM/Deputy Leader. Ticks the “is a woman” box, generally well regarded, senior and substantial, doesn’t really cause anyone to go into fits of apoplexy, stresses that dealing with immigration on the top of the agenda…
He might put her in as DPM today, with a view she campaigns for the deputy leadership too.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
Angela Rayner never forgiven Starmer for his attempt to axe her from his team prior to the election. As the former Deputy Prime Minister, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried. And when the moment is right, and Starmer is at his most vulnerable, she will disinter them in spectacular fashion.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?
God you are insufferable sometimes. We aren't peer reviewing academic papers here.
As for the lie about legal advice. If she had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.
So, there's no evidence that it's a lie. You have drawn that inference.
What she didn't do is seek adequate legal advice in which she fully informed the advisor of her situation.
I really don't know why you are insisting on this line that it's the cover-up that got her. No, it's not paying ~£40k in tax that got her.
Come on now....your career is on the line, you have been referred to standards investigation. You have claimed in interviews you took 3 separate legal opinions. The standards investigator first question will be can you show me all the legal advice you received. As noted in the report, the only evidence provided was two documents from conveyor firm stating your tax affairs are complicated, we aren't tax advisors, you need to get some. That is clear evidence she doesn't have the sort of legal advice that she claimed she had been given.
When it comes to legal advice, it is never word of mouth, it is all in writing.
What I saying is I think Rayner / Starmer wanted to ride this out and I think they might have been able to do if the order of events had been slightly different. Again, the report makes a point of how it was bad that she didn't address this issue as soon as it was raised.
"I should acknowledge that Ms Rayner has provided her full and open cooperation in assisting me with my inquiries."
And:
"It is the realisation of this error that prompted Ms Rayner, shortly after having received the final tax law advice, to refer the matter to me on Wednesday 3 September."
Note the use of the word "shortly".
And:
"On realisation of this error, she has sought quickly to correct the mistake and to refer herself to HMRC in order to ensure that she pays the correct amount."
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
The right of asylum seekers not to be dumped on the streets trumps the right of the people of Epping to abdicate from our national obligation to take in and process asylum seekers.
Not such a stirring soundbite but a little more accurate.
But it's okay for British people to be homeless? I don't see this same absolute obligation to house them.
There is an obligation to house homeless people. The vast majority of homeless people are not rough sleepers; those that are have typically refused help or have behaved in such a way to get booted out by the council.
There is something interesting there, though.
A number of cases about the quality of temporary accommodation for the homeless have been raised on Human Rights grounds. And rejected. For far worse places than the taken over hotels.
Small boats data This page shows figures for the last 7 days for irregular migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK.
Date Migrants arrived Boats arrived Boats involved in uncontrolled landings Notes 29 August 2025 0 0 0 30 August 2025 0 0 0 31 August 2025 0 0 0 1 September 2025 0 0 0 2 September 2025 0 0 0 3 September 2025 0 0 0 4 September 2025 0 0 0
Is this like petty crime in San Francisco, where if you stop reporting it and counting it, then it doesn’t count in the recorded statistics?
No, it's a consequence of the weather. Arrivals are extremely lumpy and weather dependent.
Ah so a week of bad weather, rather than any success on the part of the government.
Yes. It's been very blustery this last week. (And crossings are pretty seasonal too. More in summer. Less in winter.)
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
I wouldn't argue that Rayner is innocent or that she shouldn't have resigned, but surely the real story here is the one @Roger alluded to yesterday - who informed on her? There's an assassin at the heart of the government, elected or unelected. Their motives are unclear, and, unlike Rayner, they're still there.
You can go on public websites like this one and see what stamp duty rate was paid. After the furore over her previous property purchases journalists were inevitably going to check it out. No whistleblower needed.
Um - where does it show that the transaction type was a btl or second home?
Ownership of property is also public domain. So if someone (of their trust) owns x bits of property…
Is it? - care of tell me how to get it without giving the land registry a bit of cash and gambling that the data has actually been processed by the land registry.
Eek twin A bought her property in May last year - it was only in February this year that the data was correct in the land registry records
When I sold my late father's house, (a) he wasn't even on the registry despite - indeed, because of - living there since 1950 and (b) it turned out that the LR data was also duff because some solicitor/conveyancer had made a mistake with the neighbouring plot and it was not at all clear who owned it. If I'd moved into his house I'd have done some inquiries and made a quiet offer.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
The electoral roll is publicly available.
No, it isn't; or at least you can be taken off the public roll.
Angela Rayner never forgiven Starmer for his attempt to axe her from his team prior to the election. As the former Deputy Prime Minister, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried. And when the moment is right, and Starmer is at his most vulnerable, she will disinter them in spectacular fashion.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
The electoral roll is publicly available.
No, it isn't; or at least you can be taken off the public roll.
Note the words de facto which is Latin for you should have gone to a better school. Or possibly Greek, I'm not sure.
I wonder if the confusion arises because 'deputy prime minister' is not a position recognised by our consititutional arrangements and except completely informally does not exist. It is in the same category as 'Minister for the Today Programme' once so ably filled by John Reid and more recently by, IIRC, Pat McFadden. In our great constitution it has less real status than that of a Sixer (or perhaps Seconder, also a constitutional position) in a Cub Pack, both positions once held by me.
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"
Well, there's an interesting fine line that has always existed. When I worked for Goldman Sachs, I regularly traveled to the US for work. Sometimes I'd be in the Goldman Sachs office in New York for a week at a time on a project. I didn't have a visa, I was employed by Goldman Sachs in London. I'd told immigration that I was there for work.
Was that OK? Or should I have gotten a work visa for that temporary assignment?
Generally speaking, this stuff is done by 'sniff test'.
It's entirely possible that Hyundai was pushing the boundaries here. South Koreans without visas, in the US for sustained periods, working for the company. (It is equally worth remembering, though, that the US wants TSMC and others to build fabrication plants in the US. If there's going to be a requirement for every Taiwanese manager coming over to go through the visa process - especially given the current delays in the system - then those plants aren't going to get built in a hurry.)
Presumably Hyundai themselves have their staff on appropriate visas, perhaps a few overstayers on visit visas working to set up the plant.
More likely to be ancially staff such as security, cleaners, caterers, building trades etc who aren’t going to be getting visas and aren’t employed directly, but the customer wanted Koreans.
Well, anyone needing to live in the US with a bank account will have a visa. But what if you are the Hyundai expert on the use of a particular Kuka machine as part of the production line? You'll want to oversee it's installation, but you're not being transferred to the US, you're there for a few weeks.
But what if that few weeks becomes a month because of delays?
But you're right: we don't really know yet exactly what has happened. It could be cleaning (or catering) staff. it could be line workers without visas from Central America. It could be Spanish speaking Americans without proper documentation on them.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
The electoral roll is publicly available.
PS To be more precise ... I had forgotten I have the letter for the annual check with me so checked it.
The *electoral register*, which ios what you presumably mean, is not publicly available. It is only used for elections (and presumably police etc.)
The *open register* is derived from it, and is what shit journalists and telemarketers pay good money for. You can tick a box to be removed from that. And many do. It'd be a security breach to have pols' private addresses on the open register, certainly for anyone at cabinet level.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
The electoral roll is publicly available.
No, it isn't; or at least you can be taken off the public roll.
Most people are on the Open Register, unless they specifically ask to be taken off.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
Also, I have never taken myself off the register when I have moved house, simply failed to register next year - the new householder should complete the return
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?
God you are insufferable sometimes. We aren't peer reviewing academic papers here.
As for the lie about legal advice. If she had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.
So, there's no evidence that it's a lie. You have drawn that inference.
What she didn't do is seek adequate legal advice in which she fully informed the advisor of her situation.
I really don't know why you are insisting on this line that it's the cover-up that got her. No, it's not paying ~£40k in tax that got her.
Come on now....your career is on the line, you have been referred to standards investigation. You have claimed in interviews you took 3 separate legal opinions. The standards investigator first question will be can you show me all the legal advice you received. As noted in the report, the only evidence provided was two documents from conveyor firm stating your tax affairs are complicated, we aren't tax advisors, you need to get some. That is clear evidence she doesn't have the sort of legal advice that she claimed she had been given.
When it comes to legal advice, it is never word of mouth, it is all in writing.
What I saying is I think Rayner / Starmer wanted to ride this out and I think they might have been able to do if the order of events had been slightly different. Again, the report makes a point of how it was bad that she didn't address this issue as soon as it was raised.
"I should acknowledge that Ms Rayner has provided her full and open cooperation in assisting me with my inquiries."
And:
"It is the realisation of this error that prompted Ms Rayner, shortly after having received the final tax law advice, to refer the matter to me on Wednesday 3 September."
Note the use of the word "shortly".
And:
"On realisation of this error, she has sought quickly to correct the mistake and to refer herself to HMRC in order to ensure that she pays the correct amount."
This is the killer line,
'however, that her unfortunate failure to settle herSDLT liability at the correct level, coupled with the fact that this was established only following intensive public scrutiny, leads me to advise you that, in relation to this matter, she cannot be considered to have met the “highest possible standards of proper conduct” as envisaged by the Code. "
She will have been contacted by the Telegraph 2-3 weeks ago about this. The first week she flatly denied anything, rather than immediately get legal advice and pay up. It then went into drip drip drip mode of "intensive public scrutiny".
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
The electoral roll is publicly available.
No, it isn't; or at least you can be taken off the public roll.
Thank you - I see those count as permitted activities. Interes
"campaigning activities (for example, candidates and political parties sending election communications to voters, surveying opinions or fundraising) ... checking applications for loans or credit"
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
The electoral roll is publicly available.
No, it isn't; or at least you can be taken off the public roll.
Most people are on the Open Register, unless they specifically ask to be taken off.
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"
Well, there's an interesting fine line that has always existed. When I worked for Goldman Sachs, I regularly traveled to the US for work. Sometimes I'd be in the Goldman Sachs office in New York for a week at a time on a project. I didn't have a visa, I was employed by Goldman Sachs in London. I'd told immigration that I was there for work.
Was that OK? Or should I have gotten a work visa for that temporary assignment?
Generally speaking, this stuff is done by 'sniff test'.
It's entirely possible that Hyundai was pushing the boundaries here. South Koreans without visas, in the US for sustained periods, working for the company. (It is equally worth remembering, though, that the US wants TSMC and others to build fabrication plants in the US. If there's going to be a requirement for every Taiwanese manager coming over to go through the visa process - especially given the current delays in the system - then those plants aren't going to get built in a hurry.)
Presumably Hyundai themselves have their staff on appropriate visas, perhaps a few overstayers on visit visas working to set up the plant.
More likely to be ancially staff such as security, cleaners, caterers, building trades etc who aren’t going to be getting visas and aren’t employed directly, but the customer wanted Koreans.
Well, anyone needing to live in the US with a bank account will have a visa. But what if you are the Hyundai expert on the use of a particular Kuka machine as part of the production line? You'll want to oversee it's installation, but you're not being transferred to the US, you're there for a few weeks.
But what if that few weeks becomes a month because of delays?
But you're right: we don't really know yet exactly what has happened. It could be cleaning (or catering) staff. it could be line workers without visas from Central America. It could be Spanish speaking Americans without proper documentation on them.
Doesn't really matter, though.
The fact that ICE is making a priority of arresting workers in a new build factory representing billions in foreign investment, on a day when abysmal manufacturing jobs numbers are released, and when the president was elected on the promise of deporting rapists and murderers, the "worst of the worst", graphically illustrates the incoherence of the current administration.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
Also, I have never taken myself off the register when I have moved house, simply failed to register next year - the new householder should complete the return
Sure, but you'rer supposed to register when you move, so there's an interim period depending on the new householder. I don't think there is a cancellation form, though I've in the past cancelled a deceased relative's name to reduce junk mail.
Lutnick says the jobs numbers "will get better because you'll take out the people who are just trying to create noise against the president ... this is gonna be the greatest growth economy six months from now, a year from today" https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963942918898561126
They'd better get someone seriously creative onto those tractor stats.
Angela Rayner never forgiven Starmer for his attempt to axe her from his team prior to the election. As the former Deputy Prime Minister, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried. And when the moment is right, and Starmer is at his most vulnerable, she will disinter them in spectacular fashion.
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 don't believe that at all. The key error was failing to pay £40k in tax owed.
I think she could have ridden it out though, if hands up straight away, paid it, then said my personal situation is really complicated, it seems there has been a mistake, teary interview with Beth Rigby. Instead, straight away it was no, nothing to see, then well I am getting new legal advice, but I took loads of legal advice to begin with and they said it was all above board....I think it was over a week later, referred herself to standards.
There was a court order that prevented her talking about part of the issue that she had to get lifted, however.
Irrelevant. The court order was over the payment by the NHS to the trust, which initially was claiming this secret info meant she was ok with her tax affairs. Nothing stopping her first paying the extra amount due straight away, then getting the restrictions lifted, finally the teary interview with friendly journalist like Beth Rigby. I think that would have played out much better for her.
Instead, it went, I have done nothing wrong, are you sure, yes, it appears you have done something wrong, can't talk legal restrictions, here is more evidence, well I got loads of legal advice that told me it was ok, are you sure, yes, I will get new advice, teary interview, proper legal expert you done wrong, extra tax paid, then finally referred to standards who found she didn't get proper legal advice as she claimed.
That's a somewhat loaded re-telling of events. We're talking days, not weeks or months. She didn't says "loads of legal advice". I don't see how you expect someone to pay the extra amount until they know what the extra amount actually is, which requires waiting for legal advice.
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
She claimed she took the advice after consulting 3 different legal opinions. Which appears to be a lie.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
Which you re-worded to "loads". I've not seen anything showing it was a lie - where was that?
God you are insufferable sometimes. We aren't peer reviewing academic papers here.
As for the lie about legal advice. If she had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.
So, there's no evidence that it's a lie. You have drawn that inference.
What she didn't do is seek adequate legal advice in which she fully informed the advisor of her situation.
I really don't know why you are insisting on this line that it's the cover-up that got her. No, it's not paying ~£40k in tax that got her.
Come on now....your career is on the line, you have been referred to standards investigation. You have claimed in interviews you took 3 separate legal opinions. The standards investigator first question will be can you show me all the legal advice you received. As noted in the report, the only evidence provided was two documents from conveyor firm stating your tax affairs are complicated, we aren't tax advisors, you need to get some. That is clear evidence she doesn't have the sort of legal advice that she claimed she had been given.
When it comes to legal advice, it is never word of mouth, it is all in writing.
What I saying is I think Rayner / Starmer wanted to ride this out and I think they might have been able to do if the order of events had been slightly different. Again, the report makes a point of how it was bad that she didn't address this issue as soon as it was raised.
"I should acknowledge that Ms Rayner has provided her full and open cooperation in assisting me with my inquiries."
And:
"It is the realisation of this error that prompted Ms Rayner, shortly after having received the final tax law advice, to refer the matter to me on Wednesday 3 September."
Note the use of the word "shortly".
And:
"On realisation of this error, she has sought quickly to correct the mistake and to refer herself to HMRC in order to ensure that she pays the correct amount."
This is the killer line,
'however, that her unfortunate failure to settle herSDLT liability at the correct level, coupled with the fact that this was established only following intensive public scrutiny, leads me to advise you that, in relation to this matter, she cannot be considered to have met the “highest possible standards of proper conduct” as envisaged by the Code. "
She will have been contacted by the Telegraph 2-3 weeks ago about this. The first week she flatly denied anything, rather than immediately get legal advice and pay up. It then went into drip drip drip mode of "intensive public scrutiny".
So, the key bit there is "only following intensive public scrutiny". Again, I think you are reading things into those words that aren't clearly there if you think that is complaining "that she didn't address this issue as soon as it was raised". I say that because the letter elsewhere uses words like "shortly" and "quickly".
As I understand it, the point being made there is that this isn't a case where Rayner realised her own error and reported herself. Rather, the error came to light because of "public scrutiny". It's not a criticism of the timing. It's a criticism that she had to be told there was a problem.
Again, the key criticism in all the coverage of Rayner, from commentators and rival politicians, is that she didn't pay the right amount of tax. They're not obsessing about her taking a few days to respond to the matter. It's not the supposed cover-up. It's the error in tax.
Rayner's successor as Deputy Leader will not be Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey or any of the other 'hard left' possibilities. The party has changed too much.
If she was to run for it, I'd put money on Bridget Phillipson being elected. A natural successor to Ange.
Was it Bridget who said last week that the rights of asylum seekers trump those of people from Epping?
The right of asylum seekers not to be dumped on the streets trumps the right of the people of Epping to abdicate from our national obligation to take in and process asylum seekers.
Not such a stirring soundbite but a little more accurate.
But it's okay for British people to be homeless? I don't see this same absolute obligation to house them.
U.S. jobs growth is worse than expected, according to the first federal report since President Donald Trump dramatically fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner Erika McEntarfer last month.
The U.S added just 22,000 jobs in August, worse than economists predicted, as the jobs market continues to cool amid Trump’s trade war, according to the latest employment figures from the agency.
Unemployment increased to 4.3 percent, the highest since 2021, according to Bloomberg.
Angela Rayner never forgiven Starmer for his attempt to axe her from his team prior to the election. As the former Deputy Prime Minister, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried. And when the moment is right, and Starmer is at his most vulnerable, she will disinter them in spectacular fashion.
Rayner isn’t going to trash Starmer and help the opposition.
The events of this week have already helped trash Starmer, helped the opposition, and damaged the delicate reputation of her party.
Rayner was foolish but in terms of the longer term picture hard to say until the new deputy leader has been elected and if that sets up a bigger clash with Starmer from the left .
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"
Well, there's an interesting fine line that has always existed. When I worked for Goldman Sachs, I regularly traveled to the US for work. Sometimes I'd be in the Goldman Sachs office in New York for a week at a time on a project. I didn't have a visa, I was employed by Goldman Sachs in London. I'd told immigration that I was there for work.
Was that OK? Or should I have gotten a work visa for that temporary assignment?
Generally speaking, this stuff is done by 'sniff test'.
It's entirely possible that Hyundai was pushing the boundaries here. South Koreans without visas, in the US for sustained periods, working for the company. (It is equally worth remembering, though, that the US wants TSMC and others to build fabrication plants in the US. If there's going to be a requirement for every Taiwanese manager coming over to go through the visa process - especially given the current delays in the system - then those plants aren't going to get built in a hurry.)
Presumably Hyundai themselves have their staff on appropriate visas, perhaps a few overstayers on visit visas working to set up the plant.
More likely to be ancially staff such as security, cleaners, caterers, building trades etc who aren’t going to be getting visas and aren’t employed directly, but the customer wanted Koreans.
Well, anyone needing to live in the US with a bank account will have a visa. But what if you are the Hyundai expert on the use of a particular Kuka machine as part of the production line? You'll want to oversee it's installation, but you're not being transferred to the US, you're there for a few weeks.
But what if that few weeks becomes a month because of delays?
But you're right: we don't really know yet exactly what has happened. It could be cleaning (or catering) staff. it could be line workers without visas from Central America. It could be Spanish speaking Americans without proper documentation on them.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who went somewhere for a one-month project and was still there six months later, it happens all the time.
At some point it does become a problem though, plenty of people in my part of the world take a day trip to neighbouring Oman on a “visa run” purely to renew a UAE visit visa which used to be 30 days (now 60), because there’s fines for overstaying (c.£20/day) and you know you will eventually be caught.
Any business in the US at the moment should know that the federal government is clamping down on illegal immigration, and everyone on site should have their papers in order. Presumably someone tipped-off the Feds about illegals working there.
Angela Rayner never forgiven Starmer for his attempt to axe her from his team prior to the election. As the former Deputy Prime Minister, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried. And when the moment is right, and Starmer is at his most vulnerable, she will disinter them in spectacular fashion.
Rayner isn’t going to trash Starmer and help the opposition.
Yes, this 'knows where the bodies are buried stuff' is always massively overblown. We all waited with bated breath for similar stuff from Dom Cummings that never materialized.
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"
Well, there's an interesting fine line that has always existed. When I worked for Goldman Sachs, I regularly traveled to the US for work. Sometimes I'd be in the Goldman Sachs office in New York for a week at a time on a project. I didn't have a visa, I was employed by Goldman Sachs in London. I'd told immigration that I was there for work.
Was that OK? Or should I have gotten a work visa for that temporary assignment?
Generally speaking, this stuff is done by 'sniff test'.
It's entirely possible that Hyundai was pushing the boundaries here. South Koreans without visas, in the US for sustained periods, working for the company. (It is equally worth remembering, though, that the US wants TSMC and others to build fabrication plants in the US. If there's going to be a requirement for every Taiwanese manager coming over to go through the visa process - especially given the current delays in the system - then those plants aren't going to get built in a hurry.)
Presumably Hyundai themselves have their staff on appropriate visas, perhaps a few overstayers on visit visas working to set up the plant.
More likely to be ancially staff such as security, cleaners, caterers, building trades etc who aren’t going to be getting visas and aren’t employed directly, but the customer wanted Koreans.
Well, anyone needing to live in the US with a bank account will have a visa. But what if you are the Hyundai expert on the use of a particular Kuka machine as part of the production line? You'll want to oversee it's installation, but you're not being transferred to the US, you're there for a few weeks.
But what if that few weeks becomes a month because of delays?
But you're right: we don't really know yet exactly what has happened. It could be cleaning (or catering) staff. it could be line workers without visas from Central America. It could be Spanish speaking Americans without proper documentation on them.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
The electoral roll is publicly available.
No, it isn't; or at least you can be taken off the public roll.
Most people are on the Open Register, unless they specifically ask to be taken off.
I think the awareness that the Open Register can be used by third parties is more common knowledge now, and more people are on the closed register than in the past.
U.S. jobs growth is worse than expected, according to the first federal report since President Donald Trump dramatically fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner Erika McEntarfer last month.
The U.S added just 22,000 jobs in August, worse than economists predicted, as the jobs market continues to cool amid Trump’s trade war, according to the latest employment figures from the agency.
Unemployment increased to 4.3 percent, the highest since 2021, according to Bloomberg.
"South Koreans detained in ICE raid at Hyundai electric vehicle site in Georgia"
Well, there's an interesting fine line that has always existed. When I worked for Goldman Sachs, I regularly traveled to the US for work. Sometimes I'd be in the Goldman Sachs office in New York for a week at a time on a project. I didn't have a visa, I was employed by Goldman Sachs in London. I'd told immigration that I was there for work.
Was that OK? Or should I have gotten a work visa for that temporary assignment?
Generally speaking, this stuff is done by 'sniff test'.
It's entirely possible that Hyundai was pushing the boundaries here. South Koreans without visas, in the US for sustained periods, working for the company. (It is equally worth remembering, though, that the US wants TSMC and others to build fabrication plants in the US. If there's going to be a requirement for every Taiwanese manager coming over to go through the visa process - especially given the current delays in the system - then those plants aren't going to get built in a hurry.)
Presumably Hyundai themselves have their staff on appropriate visas, perhaps a few overstayers on visit visas working to set up the plant.
More likely to be ancially staff such as security, cleaners, caterers, building trades etc who aren’t going to be getting visas and aren’t employed directly, but the customer wanted Koreans.
I doubt it - I would go for @rcs1000 argument of important people who haven’t got visas because the visa process was too slow and they were needed urgently .
It’s the sort of thing where there would be an awkward conversation and that would be it
Angela Rayner never forgiven Starmer for his attempt to axe her from his team prior to the election. As the former Deputy Prime Minister, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried. And when the moment is right, and Starmer is at his most vulnerable, she will disinter them in spectacular fashion.
Rayner isn’t going to trash Starmer and help the opposition.
Yes, this 'knows where the bodies are buried stuff' is always massively overblown. We all waited with bated breath for similar stuff from Dom Cummings that never materialized.
They said the same about Rose West when Fred dumped her, she didn’t say anything and was left for others to go digging.
Another issue that has had less focus on with Rayner. She is registered to vote in 3 different places, two via post. That is a very bad look for a leading politician, that she is claiming now Brighton is her home, but not removing herself from her old address.
Have we have a system that doesn't disallow this I don't know. It is massively open to abuse.
Annual cycle for registry, remember: selling one house and moving to another would account for at least two.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
The electoral roll is publicly available.
No, it isn't; or at least you can be taken off the public roll.
Most people are on the Open Register, unless they specifically ask to be taken off.
I think the awareness that the Open Register can be used by third parties is more common knowledge now, and more people are on the closed register than in the past.
I don't know what other areas do but my local electoral registrar says up front - and twice over - on the annual renewal form that anyone can buy the open register to get your name and address, for "lots of purposes including direct marketing". And the change acts as a toggle, future years default to the closed registet.
But as discussed, credit scoring firms and - very significantly - political parties can still get to the closed register.
Comments
When I ask ChatGPT, it tells me: "Official title: When Thatcher formed her first Cabinet in 1979, Whitelaw was formally Deputy Prime Minister—it appeared in the published list of ministers."
The central problem is she didn't pay ~£40k in tax she should have, and she's responsible for that. A slightly quicker resolution of that question wouldn't have saved her.
But it also means we end up with some terribly designed cycle lanes, because amid all the flak there are some sensible and considered observations discarded with the rest.
The story was first broken 2 weeks ago. The first week she said nothing to see, go away. The investigation notes that she didn't act straight away and should have done. Wasn't until last weekend did she go and get any advice.
This page shows figures for the last 7 days for irregular migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK.
Date Migrants arrived Boats arrived Boats involved in uncontrolled landings Notes
29 August 2025 0 0 0
30 August 2025 0 0 0
31 August 2025 0 0 0
1 September 2025 0 0 0
2 September 2025 0 0 0
3 September 2025 0 0 0
4 September 2025 0 0 0
PPD Category Type Indicates the type of Price Paid transaction.
A = Standard Price Paid entry, includes single residential property sold for value.
B = Additional Price Paid entry including transfers under a power of sale/repossessions, buy-to-lets (where they can be identified by a Mortgage), transfers to non-private individuals and sales where the property type is classed as ‘Other’.
Note that category B does not separately identify the transaction types stated.
HM Land Registry has been collecting information on Category A transactions from January 1995. Category B transactions were identified from October 2013.
Stamp duty is not information the land registry has - but thanks for falling into the trap I laid to identify people claiming to know more than they actually do
The reason type B exists is to tell valuers that the data isn’t necessarily an open market transaction so the value should be treated with care
The Telegraph have done Farage and Reform a huge favour here, as usual. They've become their sort of press wing.
But I like you ☺️
Eek twin A bought her property in May last year - it was only in February this year that the data was correct in the land registry records
Not such a stirring soundbite but a little more accurate.
Well, once Sir Laurie Magnus ruled Rayner had breached the Ministerial code, she had to go. Many of us, in our professional lives, have had to abide by codes of conduct and rules concerning our propriety and in truth Ministers are no different. If Starmer wants a Cabinet who are beyond reproach in both their professional and personal lives, then he has no choice but to accept a resignation when a Minister fails to live up to those levels of conduct.
The other key take from all this is the truth memories are forever in politics whether it's the tweet you wish you hadn't written 15 years ago re-surfacing to make you look a hyprocrite today or the comment you made about your opponent in Opposition which they have never forgotten.
Revenge is a dish best served cold and some will have been dining out well on Rayner's demise today just as many cheered the fall of the Conservatives in July 2024 - that's a human nature thing however magnanimous we might wish we were or should be.
As for the lie about legal advice. If, as she claimed, had taken advice from 3 different lawyers, she would be able to provide the written evidence. She was unable to do so. The report notes that the conveyance firm on two instances told her they were not legal tax experts and she should seek such advice, which she did not.
What appears to be the truth is she has used two other legal firms to help her setup the trust and deal with her house in Ashton. However, both have publicly stated they were not asked nor knew about their new property / stamp duty liabilities.
Was that OK? Or should I have gotten a work visa for that temporary assignment?
Generally speaking, this stuff is done by 'sniff test'.
It's entirely possible that Hyundai was pushing the boundaries here. South Koreans without visas, in the US for sustained periods, working for the company. (It is equally worth remembering, though, that the US wants TSMC and others to build fabrication plants in the US. If there's going to be a requirement for every Taiwanese manager coming over to go through the visa process - especially given the current delays in the system - then those plants aren't going to get built in a hurry.)
What she didn't do is seek adequate legal advice in which she fully informed the advisor of her situation.
I really don't know why you are insisting on this line that it's the cover-up that got her. No, it's not paying ~£40k in tax that got her.
https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1963781182715261326
Someone who looks after trans and LGBT health in the Navy fired for... reasons.
More likely to be ancially staff such as security, cleaners, caterers, building trades etc who aren’t going to be getting visas and aren’t employed directly, but the customer wanted Koreans.
14. Housing authorities have a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent any eligible person (regardless of priority need status, intentionality and whether they have a local connection) who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless. This means either helping them to stay in their current accommodation or helping them to find a new place to live before they become actually homeless. The prevention duty continues for 56 days unless it is brought to an end by an event such as accommodation being secured for the person, or by their becoming homeless.
When it comes to legal advice, it is never word of mouth, it is all in writing.
What I saying is I think Rayner / Starmer wanted to ride this out and I think they might have been able to do if the order of events had been slightly different. Again, the report makes a point of how it was bad that she didn't address this issue as soon as it was raised.
Whoever takes over has a tough job.
Rayner was on course to miss Labour's 1.5 million home target by close to half a million homes.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1963921341754515628
The psychodrama of whether or not it was fair to Ange is, quite frankly, irrelevant to the governance of the UK.
And who is getting at information like that on the (presumably) closed register?
Angela Rayner never forgiven Starmer for his attempt to axe her from his team prior to the election. As the former Deputy Prime Minister, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried. And when the moment is right, and Starmer is at his most vulnerable, she will disinter them in spectacular fashion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15069393/DAN-HODGES-Angela-Rayners-resignation-political-catastrophe-Keir-Starmer-nightmare-truly-begun.html
The letter does say:
"I should acknowledge that Ms Rayner has provided her full and open cooperation in assisting me with my inquiries."
And:
"It is the realisation of this error that prompted Ms Rayner, shortly after having received the final tax law advice, to refer the matter to me on Wednesday 3 September."
Note the use of the word "shortly".
And:
"On realisation of this error, she has sought quickly to correct the mistake and to refer herself to HMRC in order to ensure that she pays the correct amount."
A number of cases about the quality of temporary accommodation for the homeless have been raised on Human Rights grounds. And rejected. For far worse places than the taken over hotels.
He can bloody sing the Welsh National anthem IN WELSH, carries a Paddington bear and drinks pints.
He`s more British than any of our worthless wet flannels.
https://x.com/CalumDouglas1/status/1963923312171532410
Rayner isn’t going to trash Starmer and help the opposition.
You can register to vote anonymously, but that's rare and you need cause: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/register-vote/register-vote-anonymously
But what if that few weeks becomes a month because of delays?
But you're right: we don't really know yet exactly what has happened. It could be cleaning (or catering) staff. it could be line workers without visas from Central America. It could be Spanish speaking Americans without proper documentation on them.
The *electoral register*, which ios what you presumably mean, is not publicly available. It is only used for elections (and presumably police etc.)
The *open register* is derived from it, and is what shit journalists and telemarketers pay good money for. You can tick a box to be removed from that. And many do. It'd be a security breach to have pols' private addresses on the open register, certainly for anyone at cabinet level.
'however, that her unfortunate failure to settle herSDLT liability at the correct level, coupled with the fact that this was established only following intensive public scrutiny, leads me to advise you that, in relation to this matter, she
cannot be considered to have met the “highest possible standards of proper conduct” as envisaged by the Code. "
She will have been contacted by the Telegraph 2-3 weeks ago about this. The first week she flatly denied anything, rather than immediately get legal advice and pay up. It then went into drip drip drip mode of "intensive public scrutiny".
"campaigning activities (for example, candidates and political parties sending election communications to voters, surveying opinions or fundraising)
...
checking applications for loans or credit" Bondegezou has already explained, but thank you
Who is Trump going to fire now ?
The fact that ICE is making a priority of arresting workers in a new build factory representing billions in foreign investment, on a day when abysmal manufacturing jobs numbers are released, and when the president was elected on the promise of deporting rapists and murderers, the "worst of the worst", graphically illustrates the incoherence of the current administration.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1963942918898561126
They'd better get someone seriously creative onto those tractor stats.
As I understand it, the point being made there is that this isn't a case where Rayner realised her own error and reported herself. Rather, the error came to light because of "public scrutiny". It's not a criticism of the timing. It's a criticism that she had to be told there was a problem.
Again, the key criticism in all the coverage of Rayner, from commentators and rival politicians, is that she didn't pay the right amount of tax. They're not obsessing about her taking a few days to respond to the matter. It's not the supposed cover-up. It's the error in tax.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25444707.ian-murray-sacked-scottish-secretary-keir-starmer-reshuffle/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=050925
Not now the only Slab MP, of course. But slightly ironic given his sartorial taste:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence/ian-murray-union-flag-jacket-photo-the-result-of-a-few-ciders-at-glastonbury-1375948
U.S. jobs growth is worse than expected, according to the first federal report since President Donald Trump dramatically fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner Erika McEntarfer last month.
The U.S added just 22,000 jobs in August, worse than economists predicted, as the jobs market continues to cool amid Trump’s trade war, according to the latest employment figures from the agency.
Unemployment increased to 4.3 percent, the highest since 2021, according to Bloomberg.
At some point it does become a problem though, plenty of people in my part of the world take a day trip to neighbouring Oman on a “visa run” purely to renew a UAE visit visa which used to be 30 days (now 60), because there’s fines for overstaying (c.£20/day) and you know you will eventually be caught.
Any business in the US at the moment should know that the federal government is clamping down on illegal immigration, and everyone on site should have their papers in order. Presumably someone tipped-off the Feds about illegals working there.
It’s the sort of thing where there would be an awkward conversation and that would be it
But as discussed, credit scoring firms and - very significantly - political parties can still get to the closed register.
@GuidoFawkes
RAYNER: Tories call for Rayner to be stripped of her ministerial severance payment after calculating that she is set to receive £16,876.
Well that's some of the tax bill paid!