Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[spen666]

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.

Your claim may have credit if she had resigned the moment the allegations came out. She didn't, she clung to her position and only resigned when she knew she was about to be sacked

To jump before you are pushed is not doing the honourable thing

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?

Its neither the end of the left in the party or at all. She is but one person, she alone is not the left of the party. There are many others who will carry on her struggle, including Rayner herself.

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.

 

[Dorset Boy]

@icowden - did you miss the 30 year gilt rate hitting a 27 year high last week?
That's a sign of massive lack of confidence from the bond markets in the Government and we have seen a significant increase in government borrowing costs over the last 14 months.
So whilst the BoE base rate may not have increased, the cost of borrowing for the government has.

Part of the government's unpopularity comes from political arroagnce / stupidity:
eg: Family Farm Tax - sledgehammer tactic that pissed of tens of thousands, all it needed was to change the rules for land owned as an investment (ie rented out), and not changed for those who run farms. Job done, easy backtrack.
eg Winter fuel Allowance - removing it at a stupidly low level, and having to backtrack.
eg Refusing to increase Income or corporation Tax, they had the opportunity with trump's tariff stuff to reverse that.
eg Hiking NI on the low paid, and then wondering why the economy is struggling to grow

 

[icowden]

Your claim may have credit if she had resigned the moment the allegations came out. She didn't, she clung to her position and only resigned when she knew she was about to be sacked

Why do you keep making things up? Starmer had no intention of sacking her. Once the had the official advice, she chose to step down from her roles. She was waiting for the official advice.

To jump before you are pushed is not doing the honourable thing

I guess you are a Boris fan then.

 

[spen666]

Why do you keep making things up? Starmer had no intention of sacking her.

Really? You are living in a fantasy world. You make things up to suit your fantasy world.

There is no question that Starmer would have sacked her if she did not resign.

Once the had the official advice, she chose to step down from her roles. She was waiting for the official advice.


I guess you are a Boris fan then.

Guess all you like, but like with most things you post, you are 100% wrong.

 

[Rusty Nails]

To jump before you are pushed is not doing the honourable thing

Are you saying Thatcher was not honourable?

Politicians have a long and ignoble history of not jumping until they are pushed.

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

Are you privy to Rayners thought processes then?

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

Are you privy to Rayners thought processes?

It would appear not

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.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Are you privy to Rayners thought processes then?

Why not? Those criticising her for deliberate tax evasion and greed seem to be.

In my opinion, although not privy to her thought processes, it seems as if she was guilty of not putting enough thought processing into the Stamp Duty aspects of her house purchase. Which meant she had to go.

 

[Pross]

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.

He was forced to backtrack on the 'stopping the boats within 2 weeks' claim last week when some journalists finally grew a pair and challenged him. Let's hope they keep doing that now instead of just publishing his nonsense unchecked.

 

[Rusty Nails]

He was forced to backtrack on the 'stopping the boats within 2 weeks' claim last week when some journalists finally grew a pair and challenged him. Let's hope they keep doing that now instead of just publishing his nonsense unchecked.

One thing that Farage excels at, like that orange clown across the pond he so admires, is making controversial headlines and putting himself firmly in them.

 

[briantrumpet]

Why not? Those criticising her for deliberate tax evasion and greed seem to be.

In my opinion, although not privy to her thought processes, it seems as if she was guilty of not putting enough thought processing into the Stamp Duty aspects of her house purchase. Which meant she had to go.

Which is basically what the ministerial standards report said, and the rabid critics seem to be ignoring.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Which is basically what the ministerial standards report said, and the rabid critics seem to be ignoring.

Because it doesn't fit in with their prejudices..."lefties bad, righties good"

 

[Psamathe]

Why not? Those criticising her for deliberate tax evasion and greed seem to be.

In my opinion, although not privy to her thought processes, it seems as if she was guilty of not putting enough thought processing into the Stamp Duty aspects of her house purchase. Which meant she had to go.

Which is basically what the ministerial standards report said, and the rabid critics seem to be ignoring.

I think it's more complex than that. One cannot guess her motives but she decided not to take proper advice. She decided to ignore advice that she took proper tax advice because conveniently she had the answer that suited her (lower rate). ie the report says

[*]that advice was qualified by the acknowledgement that it did not constitute expert tax advice and was accompanied by a suggestion, or in one case a recommendation, that specific tax advice be obtained

The report/letter points out that she was told to take expert tax advice and that she hadn't been given that. It doesn't take a lot of thought to read something saying "take expert advice", particularly when large sums of money are involved.

eg ask somebody "should do <x> or <y> and they say <x> but I'm no expert and you should check with an expert" then their actual advice is to check with an expert, particularly is there are potential significant consequences.

 

[Psamathe]

Why do you keep making things up? Starmer had no intention of sacking her. Once the had the official advice, she chose to step down from her roles. She was waiting for the official advice.

Shortly after getting into power Starmer did beef-up the Ministerial Code and processes around it and did say (to reporters)

“That is the standards I expect of them. As I’ve said throughout, people falling short of the required standards will face consequences, as you would expect,” the prime minister said.

Although he didn't say what those consequences would be.

In Rayner's case she got the official advice sometime before and was waiting on the results of the Ministerial Code investigation and only then did she resign.

 

[briantrumpet]

I think it's more complex than that. One cannot guess her motives but she decided not to take proper advice. She decided to ignore advice that she took proper tax advice because conveniently she had the answer that suited her (lower rate). ie the report says


The report/letter points out that she was told to take expert tax advice and that she hadn't been given that. It doesn't take a lot of thought to read something saying "take expert advice", particularly when large sums of money are involved.

eg ask somebody "should do <x> or <y> and they say <x> but I'm no expert and you should check with an expert" then their actual advice is to check with an expert, particularly is there are potential significant consequences.

I merely quote the report. You can make it more complex if you want to, but the report seems clear enough by itself.