Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[Psamathe]

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

Not making it more complex. The report highlights that what advice she did get included that she should seek expert tax advice and she chose not to. Hence she chose not to do what she was being advised to do.

With tax you need to take the trouble to check you are getting it right or face the consequences if you don't. Information pertaining to her circimstances is readily available on Gov. website and properly indexed by Google - so very easy to double check oneself.

 

[Rusty Nails]

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

There is a difference between taking an active decision not to take proper advice and not thinking through the necessity and consequences of taking or not taking that advice. Both result in the same inaction but the cause of that inaction is not the same.

If I pull out at a junction not thinking to look left or right, I have not made a decision to not look left or right I have just not thought about it and must be ready for the consequences. Rayner has suffered the consequences of her lack of thought.

We can all dream up the various possible motives for her actions/inactions till the cows come home but the only thing that really holds any weight is the Ministerial Code investigation and findings. Anything else is just political froth.

 

[briantrumpet]

Not making it more complex. The report highlights that what advice she did get included that she should seek expert tax advice and she chose not to. Hence she chose not to do what she was being advised to do.

With tax you need to take the trouble to check you are getting it right or face the consequences if you don't. Information pertaining to her circimstances is readily available on Gov. website and properly indexed by Google - so very easy to double check oneself.

There's a difference between being careless and deliberately ignoring. You're filling in a gap that the report doesn't imply or investigate, so you can conjecture as much as you like, and we'll be none the wiser. Though from the tone of the report, it doesn't suggest that Magnus thought she was guilty of a deliberate act. If you can quote any lines that suggest he did, feel free to do so.

 

[briantrumpet]

There is a difference between taking an active decision not to take proper advice and not thinking through the necessity and consequences of not taking that advice. Both result in the same inaction but the cause of that inaction is not the same.

If I pull out at a junction not thinking to look left or right, I have not made a decision to not look left or right I have just not thought about it and must be ready for the consequences. Rayner has suffered the consequences of her lack of thought.

We can all dream up the various possible motives for her actions/inactions till the cows come home but the only thing that really holds any weight is the Ministerial Code investigation and findings. Anything else is just political froth.

Haha, we wrote almost identical posts at the same time.

 

[icowden]

Are you privy to Rayners thought processes?

If she had wanted to properly avoid stamp duty she would have a top tier accountant and her cash in a tax haven. On balance of probabilities it's clear she wanted to buy her flat. That does seem to be correlated to the collapse of her marriage.

 

[Psamathe]

There's a difference between being careless and deliberately ignoring. You're filling in a gap that the report doesn't imply or investigate, so you can conjecture as much as you like, and we'll be none the wiser.

Where large sums of money are involved, where responsibilities for tax declarations are involved to me"carelessness" doesn't account for ignoring written advice.

Most people will appreciate that HMRC can be pretty relentless in pursuing individuals so "carelessness" is likely to have consequences (many financial institutions submit details of UK stuff to HMRC).

 

[briantrumpet]

Where large sums of money are involved, where responsibilities for tax declarations are involved to me"carelessness" doesn't account for ignoring written advice.

Most people will appreciate that HMRC can be pretty relentless in pursuing individuals so "carelessness" is likely to have consequences (many financial institutions submit details of UK stuff to HMRC).

And yet still people are careless. Ho hum. Humans, eh, what are they like?

 

[icowden]

Where large sums of money are involved, where responsibilities for tax declarations are involved to me"carelessness" doesn't account for ignoring written advice.

True. Buying a property for £800k doesn't really meet that criteria though, does it? That's a normal sort of property price for someone of Angela Rayner's age and income.

 

[spen666]

....

If I pull out at a junction not thinking to look left or right, I have not made a decision to not look left or right I have just not thought about it and must be ready for the consequences. Rayner has suffered the consequences of her lack of thought.

.....

The consequences for you in law would be the same. You have driven dangerously and would be dealt with for dangerous driving whether you chose not to look or never thought about it


not your best example to defend the guilty

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

Yes, well, my point was rather that criticising or defending, or even sympathising, with her, the ONLY person who knows for sure what Rayners motivation was is Rayner, as I said elsewhere (Starmer Vision thread, in response to the same poster)

I share your view of Farage.

However, he is very good at what he does.

Only Rayner knows the truth of what she did, but, to me it looks like she thought she had spotted a clever way to:

buy a flat in Hove,

Effectively return her share of the Ashton property, whilst releasing cash on its value

Dodge the second property stamp duty rate

She got rumbled.

 

[Shortfall]

Loving all the faux outrage that the only reason people are attacking her is because she's from a poor working class background and all of her critics are mysogynists and knuckle draggers. Funnily enough there's a thread on here running to 27 pages that is dedicated to hating on Nadine Dorries who also came from pretty humble beginnings and lived in a council house in Liverpool. If you want to see misogyny and barely concealed sexism it's all there in that thread. I don't have a dog in the fight and there are plenty of legitimate criticisms that I could level at Dorries, but some of those so vocal in their defence of Rayner are strangely quiet in the other thread. Just own it lads. She got caught bang to rights and she was a sh1t minister. It's ok to admit that you hoped for better and she let you down (along with rest of the cabinet).

 

[Rusty Nails]

The consequences for you in law would be the same. You have driven dangerously and would be dealt with for dangerous driving whether you chose not to look or never thought about it


not your best example to defend the guilty

There was no defence of the guilty.

She showed a lack of proper care or judgement in her house purchase and suffered the consequences.

The consequences in law would probably be irrelevant to me as I would be dead when a car hit me...m'lud.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Only Rayner knows the truth of what she did, but, to me it looks like she thought she had spotted a clever way to:

That's got her bang to rights then. Why is there any debate about it?

"It looks like she thought". Now I'm convinced.

Are you privy to Rayners thought processes then?

You may not be privy to Rayner's thought processes but you are doing a very good job of imagining them...in detail.

 

[briantrumpet]

Loving all the faux outrage that the only reason people are attacking her is because she's from a poor working class background and all of her critics are mysogynists and knuckle draggers. Funnily enough there's a thread on here running to 27 pages that is dedicated to hating on Nadine Dorries who also came from pretty humble beginnings and lived in a council house in Liverpool. If you want to see misogyny and barely concealed sexism it's all there in that thread. I don't have a dog in the fight and there are plenty of legitimate criticisms that I could level at Dorries, but some of those so vocal in their defence of Rayner are strangely quiet in the other thread. Just own it lads. She got caught bang to rights and she was a sh1t minister. It's ok to admit that you hoped for better and she let you down (along with rest of the cabinet).

I don't remember holding back on Johnson just because he's not a woman. Or any of the other hopeless Tory ministers come to that.

 

[secretsqirrel]

I’m loving the faux outrage from people who can’t accept that someone made a mistake, showed remorse and has accepted the consequences.

What else do you want? More public humiliation, prison, a stoning?

I and many others would disagree with the opinion that she was “sh1t minister”.