Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[spen666]

One small detail is that this didn't happen. Rayner was not trying to be "tax efficient" or to avoid tax. She was trying to deal with her Son's trust and purchase a property. Like most of us would do, she went with what the conveyancers said and didn't really look at the boiler plate about seeking professional tax advice yada yada yada.

If Starmer had any cohones he would be pointing out the abuse of tax laws by Farage, Ashcroft, Rees-Smugg, Sunak et al. Patriots all.

Rayners crime seems to have been not being rich enough to avoid tax properly.

Meanwhile those in the real world, realise
1. Rayner was seeking to avoid tax. She had no NEED to buy the property in Brighton, She had her share of the home in Ashton, which had provided a home for her son. Rayner CHOSE to buy a new property in Hove - and no reason why she should not have made that choice. It was not about providing a home for her son. That child will not live in Hove, so to try to use her son's disability as an excuse for her choosing to but a home some 250 or so miles away from where her child lives is not true

2. So according to you Rayner relied on her Conveyancer's but didn't read their boiler plate? Make your mind up. You also seem to somehow skip over the fact that said conveyancers did not, and could not provide her with tax advice, and advised her that in her situation she should seek specialist tax advice. That is not boiler plate. That is specific advice to Rayner in her complkex and unusal situation

3. You also seem to have developed a bad case of amnesia about Rayner's rotweiller type attacks on anyone in the previous Tory regime who hadn't for whatever reason paid their full tax dues.

4. What you allege Farage etc have done is not tax evasion, but legally legitimate tax planning. You may not like it and may question the morality of it, but its not illegal unlike others.

However you try to spin it, Rayner got caught out playing hard and loose with the legislation and broke the ministerial code. She broke the rules, she got punished

 

[AuroraSaab]

She did. She was told that she was due to pay x in Stamp duty. She paid it. It was only on review by some very expensive tax experts that it has been established that the second home rate should have been used.

The company who did the conveyancing say they calculated the stamp duty using an online calculator (which is on every mortgage lender site as well as the government's own) based on the information Rayner gave. She withheld relevant information. Hardly their fault when they didn't have the full info.

 

[icowden]

She withheld relevant information.

Any evidence of this?

 

[Dorset Boy]

Any evidence of this?

Because had she given full information, then the tax calculation would have been different. Or the conveyancers would have not calculated the liability and told her to get that done by a relevant tax expert, just as they actually told her to get it checked.

 

[icowden]

Rayner was seeking to avoid tax. She had no NEED to buy the property in Brighton, She had her share of the home in Ashton, which had provided a home for her son. Rayner CHOSE to buy a new property in Hove - and no reason why she should not have made that choice. It was not about providing a home for her son. That child will not live in Hove, so to try to use her son's disability as an excuse for her choosing to but a home some 250 or so miles away from where her child lives is not true

Complete nonsense. She was seeking to purchase a property in Hove. We don't know exactly why, but we do know that she separated from her husband and that they both use the house to provide stability for the children. The Ashton house was put into a Trust with the main beneficiaries being the children. She was told that she no longer counted as the owner of the property and thus the Hove flat became her main house.

2. So according to you Rayner relied on her Conveyancer's but didn't read their boiler plate?

No - didn't act on what I assumed to be boiler plate text about seeking specialist tax advice. Many people don't bother

3. You also seem to have developed a bad case of amnesia about Rayner's rotweiller type attacks on anyone in the previous Tory regime who hadn't for whatever reason paid their full tax dues.

Someone buying a flat in Hove and not paying £40k in stamp duty is hardly in the same category as Tory politicians avoiding paying millions in tax. Lord Ashcroft has dodged millions. Rees-Smugg and his like directly profited from impoverishing the country. So, no- no amnesia.

4. What you allege Farage etc have done is not tax evasion, but legally legitimate tax planning. You may not like it and may question the morality of it, but its not illegal unlike others.

Well hooray for the "legally legitimate tax planning" that only the extremely wealth can afford. Isn't it great that these people don't lead a party centred on patriotism. It would look really hypocritical to be expecting everyone to kick out the migrants and hang flags everywhere if your cash was in the Isle of Man so you avoid paying tax and don't have to pay inheritance tax. And I'm sure he wouldn't want to have anything to do with serial tax dodgers like Donald Trump or accept funding from companies like Tax Haven Ltd.

Oh hang on...

However you try to spin it, Rayner got caught out playing hard and loose with the legislation and broke the ministerial code. She broke the rules, she got punished

No - she made a mistake, was honest about it and accepted the resulting punishment. Sadly this just enables the baying snobs that can't bear the idea of a working class mother who left school at 16 being a senior Politician

 

[Psamathe]

She was told that she no longer counted as the owner of the property and thus the Hove flat became her main house.

The issue is about who told her. eg X/Twitter is full of experts but would you listen to them? Or maybe somebody tells you something they say isn't expert tax advice and that you should seek proper advice would you follow that when large sums are involved? If you follow being told something where the tells says "I'm not not expert" accompanied by "you should seek specific advice" then you are asking for trouble as you are not taking appropriate advice.

Thus the actual rules are published on the internet to all and are explicit and very clear and even Google will point you there.

 

[Psamathe]

No - she made a mistake, was honest about it and accepted the resulting punishment. Sadly this just enables the baying snobs that can't bear the idea of a working class mother who left school at 16 being a senior Politician

That she is from a working class background is irrelevant. That she is a woman is irrelevant, etc. She is subject to the same set of rules as everybody else.

It is her job to get it right, just as it is for everybody else. Dismissing written information as "boilerplate" doesn't mean it isn't important. She was told in writing and she ignored it.

Different jobs place different constraints of employees. I've done jobs that have constraints that didn't apply to others. She didn't meet the constraints of her job so she chose to resign.

nb I fill in my tax return, it's my responsibility and I get blamed if it's wrong. In the past looking at data provided by experts (without letout clauses) I've felt it wrong, questioned it and they've retracted it (retracted from me and having to "un-notify HMRC as well).

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

No - she made a mistake, was honest about it and accepted the resulting punishment. Sadly this just enables the baying snobs that can't bear the idea of a working class mother who left school at 16 being a senior Politician

As many of these threads converge and are covering similar issues, I think this is worth highlighting. Angela Rayner actually did the honorable thing and handed in her resignation once the judgement that she broke the MC had been delivered. The public at large have been banging on for years about Politicians holding themselves to account in light of indiscretions and she has eventually done so. Compare her to Zahawi who had seven major breaches of the MC and forced Sunak to sack him rather than resign and then offered no apology for his indiscretions.

I don't have any doubt the right wing press have been after Rayner for years as they saw her as a real threat. There has also been IMO a nasty subtext of elitism and misogyny as they cannot stand a working class woman standing up to them, so the opportunity to 'put her in her place' has been high on their agenda for some time.

The interesting part is whether this benefits Reform (forget the Tory's for the moment as they are currently dead in the water). With Rayner gone is that the end of the wider left in the party? Early indications are that the Starmer reshuffle will just harden his approach on chasing Reform votes. A year ago the idea of a future Reform govt. seemed pretty far fetched, I am starting to be worryingly veering towards this no longer being an impossibility as I have given up hope of Starmer seeing sense as actually governing as the Labour party.

 

[Psamathe]

A year ago the idea of a future Reform govt. seemed pretty far fetched, I am starting to be worryingly veering towards this no longer being an impossibility as I have given up hope of Starmer seeing sense as actually governing as the Labour party.

I find it very difficult to form and maintain a vew re the risk of Reform getting to significant power. One minute I feel they lack such credibility no electorate could be that stupid ... but then I remember Brexit and Trunp v2, etc.

General Election is a long way off and Labour can resolve the immigration figures easily (asylum seeker numbers are low so stop legal immigration and numbers plummet - damaging to UK economy but it would remove Reform's main support). One can be sure in 3½ years the economy won't be like it is now (either better or worse), NHS waiting lists might reemerge to prominence.

Given how quickly things can change and that the electorate seems to have a very short memory difficult to assess.

That said I also think people who commit tend to find it difficult to change eg reject negative data, don't like admitting to themselves it was a bad choice, etc. So Starmer's losses now might be difficult to recover. Labour are starting to express dissatisfaction Senior Labour figures tell Keir Starmer to stop making mistakes

But perpetually watching a smug Faragę going through the motions of "Look at me" on the BBC is vomit inducing.

 

[Stevo 666]

I find it very difficult to form and maintain a vew re the risk of Reform getting to significant power. One minute I feel they lack such credibility no electorate could be that stupid ... but then I remember Brexit and Trunp v2, etc.

General Election is a long way off and Labour can resolve the immigration figures easily (asylum seeker numbers are low so stop legal immigration and numbers plummet - damaging to UK economy but it would remove Reform's main support). One can be sure in 3½ years the economy won't be like it is now (either better or worse), NHS waiting lists might reemerge to prominence.

Given how quickly things can change and that the electorate seems to have a very short memory difficult to assess.

That said I also think people who commit tend to find it difficult to change eg reject negative data, don't like admitting to themselves it was a bad choice, etc. So Starmer's losses now might be difficult to recover. Labour are starting to express dissatisfaction Senior Labour figures tell Keir Starmer to stop making mistakes

But perpetually watching a smug Faragę going through the motions of "Look at me" on the BBC is vomit inducing.

IMO there are 2 issues which will be critical to Labours chances at the next GE - immigration and the economy. Granted it is 2029 before an election has to be held but given what Labour have done on those two issues in less than 15 months, I reckon they're a bit screwed.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

I find it very difficult to form and maintain a vew re the risk of Reform getting to significant power. One minute I feel they lack such credibility no electorate could be that stupid ... but then I remember Brexit and Trunp v2, etc.

General Election is a long way off and Labour can resolve the immigration figures easily (asylum seeker numbers are low so stop legal immigration and numbers plummet - damaging to UK economy but it would remove Reform's main support). One can be sure in 3½ years the economy won't be like it is now (either better or worse), NHS waiting lists might reemerge to prominence.

Given how quickly things can change and that the electorate seems to have a very short memory difficult to assess.

That said I also think people who commit tend to find it difficult to change eg reject negative data, don't like admitting to themselves it was a bad choice, etc. So Starmer's losses now might be difficult to recover. Labour are starting to express dissatisfaction Senior Labour figures tell Keir Starmer to stop making mistakes

But perpetually watching a smug Faragę going through the motions of "Look at me" on the BBC is vomit inducing.

I think this highlights the two key parts of eventually stopping Reform. Firstly improve people's lives through better living standards and they quickly stop looking for alternatives at the extreme end to vote for. This is still well within Labour's reach, as you say, given 3 or more years. Secondly, we need mainstream media to just stop giving Farage a free ride, question everything he claims about Reform's policies and make him give actual answers to difficult questions. I know the latter is unlikely, they never have done this and I don't seem them starting anytime soon.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

IMO there are 2 issues which will be critical to Labours chances at the next GE - immigration and the economy. Granted it is 2029 before an election has to be held but given what Labour have done on those two issues in less than 15 months, I reckon they're a bit screwed.

I wouldn't disagree with this. I think the position and relative strength of Reform and the Tory's comes into the equation. If the latter are still in disarray and Reform are not seen as a credible party by enough voters then Labour can still get away with underperforming.

 

[Psamathe]

IMO there are 2 issues which will be critical to Labours chances at the next GE - immigration and the economy. Granted it is 2029 before an election has to be held but given what Labour have done on those two issues in less than 15 months, I reckon they're a bit screwed.

I wonder/guess if other aspects could overtake in public priorities. Cost of living food inflation running at 3.8% at the moment (R4 this morning) which is going to be disproportionately impacting Labout votes (and might push more towards the Fruit & Nut Party).

Wasn't long ago that NHS Waiting Lists were a crucial factor. And NHS might prove an Achilles Heel for Farangé given his past policy of moving to an insurance based system (and getting is current policy is predictably quite impossible). And giving a platform for RFK based vaccine deniers at Party Conferences.

All it takes is a couple of months bad figures that the press notice.

I agree that as things stand and all current prospects Starmer is going to lose big time; but in 2 years if we are still at "as things stand and all current prospects" Starmer might be facing leadership challenges.

 

[icowden]

IMO there are 2 issues which will be critical to Labours chances at the next GE - immigration and the economy. Granted it is 2029 before an election has to be held but given what Labour have done on those two issues in less than 15 months, I reckon they're a bit screwed.

Well, net migration has reduced by 50% (Reminder: it was an insane right wing government that ushered in the highest net migration on record). Small boat crossings (a reminder that these are a tiny percentage of net migration) have increased but Starmer has done a deal with the French to try and reduce the crossings. They have scrapped the waste of money that was the Rwanda scheme, hired more staff to tackle the asylum backlog (although appeals backlog has increased) are trying to end or reduce the use of asylum hotels. Skilled worker visas have reduced.

On the economy GDP has increased by 0.5%, minimum wage has increased. So no great shakes but they haven't caused interest rates to shoot up or crashed the economy - so doing better than their predecessors.

Of course to listen to Farage or BadEnoch (why would you do that?) you'd think that Labour had achieved the sum of nothing and were the worst government in history.

At best they have failed to achieve a lot that draws attention. They haven't really done the things you'd expect a Labour government to do, and for a large part are stuck in a willy waving competition with Reform.

 

[matticus]

Have their been any similar claims against Rayner? Let's see:
May 2024
"Police in Manchester looked into whether Ms Rayner paid the correct tax on a house sale, and if she was registered to vote at the right address.

But she was not found to have committed a criminal offence.

The row sparked weeks of unhelpful headlines for the MP, who promised to step down if she was found to have broken the law.

How did this begin?
Questions about Ms Rayner's living arrangements were sparked by claims in an unauthorised biography of her, written by Tory peer Lord Ashcroft, which was published in March." bbc.com

Reader, she was not found to have broken the law.