Raynor the tax dodger

[MNW67]

I expect Starmer is well happy, he has always wanted to get rid of her.

Exactly my thoughts.

She seems to have gone quietly.

 

[pete01]

Gone but not forgotten

 

[motorbiking]

I expect Starmer is well happy, he has always wanted to get rid of her.

Exactly my thoughts.

She seems to have gone quietly.

He may realise that it's better the devil you know.... a bit like the electorate

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Angela Rayner should also have declared she is living rent free in your head

And Trump has squatters' rights in yours.

 

[fillyboy]

I expect Starmer is well happy, he has always wanted to get rid of her.

My understanding is that Starmer was forced to give her a top job in order to placate the 'ard left.

 

[Notch7]

My understanding is that Starmer was forced to give her a top job in order to placate the 'ard left.

Was same with Blair and Prescott.

Unions mainly

Although Rayner is in my opinion not a very good politician, not in Prescotts league

 

[JP_]

The firm that sold her the house have said they had nothing at all to do with the payment of stamp duty they advised her to get her own tax advisors as they do with all their clients.

Not talking about estate agents - the conveyencers / solicitors arrange this usually.

This issue is around dependents, ie her disabled son, and the trust fund set up for him, which I guess includes a property. Something like that.
So it is probably technically her only property, so one tax rate applies, the one she was advised on and paid. But now maybe another legal person thinks otherwise.

Has an actual formal, legal conclusion even been made yet?

It is not a normal case, which is why she needed advice on how to deal with it, and it seems she got some bad advice. This happens more than people like to admit. I guess its her fault for having a disabled son, and trying to ensure he has a good future.

The only reason we don't hear about other (read, Tory) politicians getting into these difficulties is:

1. they can afford better legal advice, meaning, they cover it up better
2. the right wing press agree not to mention it
3. or if they have to mention it, it gets little airtime

 

[motorbiking]

Not talking about estate agents - the conveyencers / solicitors arrange this usually.

This issue is around dependents, ie her disabled son, and the trust fund set up for him, which I guess includes a property. Something like that.
So it is probably technically her only property, so one tax rate applies, the one she was advised on and paid. But now maybe another legal person thinks otherwise.

Has an actual formal, legal conclusion even been made yet?

It is not a normal case, which is why she needed advice on how to deal with it, and it seems she got some bad advice. This happens more than people like to admit. I guess its her fault for having a disabled son, and trying to ensure he has a good future.

The only reason we don't hear about other (read, Tory) politicians getting into these difficulties is:

1. they can afford better legal advice, meaning, they cover it up better
2. the right wing press agree not to mention it
3. or if they have to mention it, it gets little airtime

you're about 72 hours out of date.

She quit following an independent review, that concluded she had not followed advice and had therefore breached the ministerial code.

 

[JP_]

oh yeah.

 

[JP_]

Right, which politician is next up for a witch hunt?

 

[motorbiking]

The full details of the failings are here:

Angela Rayner quits: Full text of ethics adviser's verdict on tax affairs

Angela Rayner referred herself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards - who concluded she had breached the ministerial code. This is the adviser's full verdict.

news.sky.com

 

[pete01]

 

[carmanmemoranda]

My understanding is that Starmer was forced to give her a top job in order to placate the 'ard left.

And hopefully now with The Greens and Corbyn there can be a seperate party (parties) for the hard left, and let Labour be the middle ground party, which is so badly needed.

There is a growing hard left, and a hard right, not much in the middle. It's divisive politics at it's finest.

Any thoughts as to why it's developed like this? We never used to be so divided, even though there was always Labour or Tory supporters, and very few would cross over.

 

[motorbiking]

Starmer has declared war on the lefties with his reshuffle.

And hopefully now with The Greens and Corbyn there can be a seperate party (parties) for the hard left, and let Labour be the middle ground party, which is so badly needed.

There is a growing hard left, and a hard right, not much in the middle. It's divisive politics at it's finest.

Any thoughts as to why it's developed like this? We never used to be so divided, even though there was always Labour or Tory supporters, and very few would cross over.

because the power is wielded by the party. It seems the stronger the majority the more they fight among themselves.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Starmer has declared war on the lefties with his reshuffle.

I think the lefties started first.

because the power is wielded by the party. It seems the stronger the majority the more they fight among themselves.

That's just meaningless waffle. Are you saying the Tories are not arguing amongst themselves, and in many cases leaving the sinking ship