Reform, and the death of the Tory Party

[Bromptonaut]

As you allude to, and as I have said a few times upthread, the use of trusts is complex.
Therefore you would be a fool to not take professional / expert advice around the taxation position when undertaking the various transactions Rayner did, especially given that the conveyancers told her to do that.
And evenmoreso given you are deputy PM, and have been a savage attack dog against others who you have perceived to not have their tax affairs properly in order.
All this brings her judgement into question,

I agree. The key point was failing to follow up the pointer that she needed further advice. That's where the Ethics guy found she'd breached the code.

 

[CXRAndy]

She should not be allowed the payoff for leaving government.

She was found guilty of breaking the ministerial code

 

[spen666]

While that is true it's more complex than 'if you put property in trust for kids you still pay higher rate stamp duty'.

There are some types of trust, the beneficiary being a disabled child is one, where that is not the case. Rayner thought that was the case here.

Trusts, tax and Inland Revenue deeming clauses make it a corner of the law where you need a real expert.

Its probably a breach of Rayner's privacy for you to disclose her personal thoughts, especially as she has never made such claims in public.

However, thank you for sharing Rayner's personal thoughts with us

 

[Bromptonaut]

Its probably a breach of Rayner's privacy for you to disclose her personal thoughts, especially as she has never made such claims in public.

However, thank you for sharing Rayner's personal thoughts with us

You know exactly what I meant; it's a reasonable inference from Laurie Magnus's report.

I've enough experience of debating with you on here in the past that I'm not getting involved in silly spats.

 

[Shortfall]

Seems to me there's three different ways of interpreting this. The people like me who think she got what was coming to her for the way she viciously attacked her political rivals whilst in opposition and then got found out doing pretty much the same thing. Tory Scum! etc. Or those who like her and want to make excuses for her that they wouldn't extend to a Tory in the same position. They think she was desperately unlucky or maybe a bit naive and hope she can come back when the dust is settled. And thirdly (according to someone upthread) its purely because she's ginger and northern. Yes that'll be it!!! Of course that's the only reason.

 

[First Aspect]

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.

It's because she's working class. Same reason that Greg Wallace needs to play with himself all the time.

You should all be more understanding and less prejudiced.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Seems to me there's three different ways of interpreting this. The people like me who think she got what was coming to her for the way she viciously attacked her political rivals whilst in opposition and then got found out doing pretty much the same thing. Tory Scum! etc. Or those who like her and want to make excuses for her that they wouldn't extend to a Tory in the same position. They think she was desperately unlucky or maybe a bit naive and hope she can come back when the dust is settled. And thirdly (according to someone upthread) its purely because she's ginger and northern. Yes that'll be it!!! Of course that's the only reason.

I think she was an idiot for not clarifying her tax position. Nothing to do with her profile, anyone who is advised to seek specialist counsel on their tax affairs and ignores it, regardless of the reason, is making a pretty bloody daft decision. As she got caught out I have no problem with her fall from grace. Also, I am personally not bothered if she returns or not once the dust has settled, my major interest is to have a functioning govt that is actually improving the country.

My major issue is the hypocrisy shown on both sides, particularly from the media (mainly right wing). Rayner did wrong and has been punished but castigate your own prominent people when they have done wrong as well. We re now seeing that Johnson leveraged his position to take £240k from Maduro. Nothing illegal, but anyone being objective would see this as questionable from an ethical perspective.

I am tired of the modern political discourse of my side is better than your side. We should all accept when any politician transgresses and stop falling for a largely press generated division amongst ourselves.

 

[Psamathe]

While that is true it's more complex than 'if you put property in trust for kids you still pay higher rate stamp duty'.

There are some types of trust, the beneficiary being a disabled child is one, where that is not the case. Rayner thought that was the case here.

Trusts, tax and Inland Revenue deeming clauses make it a corner of the law where you need a real expert.

HMRC Rules:

Children​

Where a minor child would be treated as owning an interest in land because they are a beneficiary of a trust, the parents of that child (and, if the parents are not married to one another, the spouses or civil partners, if any, of those parents) are treated for the purposes of Condition C as owners of the interest [Para 12].

The "complication" is in relation to children Children subject to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or the Mental Capacity Act [Northern Ireland] 2016 which is also covered on the same web page
(I did the few seconds Google)

If somebody believes they are covered by a special case they need to take expert advice which her advisers told he to do.

If you have ever been summoned by HMRC (no idea how many are), given a date and time and called into their offices (I had to drive all the way to Wiltshire), told to bring all your paperwork ... not fun and when you are found to be right no travel expenses, nothing. You avoid it.

 

[icowden]

Seems to me there's three different ways of interpreting this. The people like me who think she got what was coming to her for the way she viciously attacked her political rivals whilst in opposition and then got found out doing pretty much the same thing. Tory Scum! etc. Or those who like her and want to make excuses for her that they wouldn't extend to a Tory in the same position. They think she was desperately unlucky or maybe a bit naive and hope she can come back when the dust is settled. And thirdly (according to someone upthread) its purely because she's ginger and northern. Yes that'll be it!!! Of course that's the only reason.

Whereas to me the ways of interpreting it are:
1) People like you who seem to have difficulty differentiating between a mistake and deliberate wrongdoing but actively dislike her for being working class and outspoken, refuse to even consider the possibility of a mistake, and therefore want her to be burned at the stake as a witch.
2) People who think it is a shame to lose a politician with some honesty and integrity from the front benches even if they don't like her party politics very much.

 

[spen666]

You know exactly what I meant; it's a reasonable inference from Laurie Magnus's report.

I've enough experience of debating with you on here in the past that I'm not getting involved in silly spats.

Ah, its an inference - strangely you never said that before. You posted authoritavely it was what Raytner actually thought.

Now you are giving a very watered down version - where you admit its your and your alone's spin on the finding that Rayner breached the ministerial code.

if it was an inference why not say that instead to making false claims about what she actually thought



Sometimes, the truth hurts

 

[spen666]

.....
2) People who think it is a shame to lose a politician with some honesty and integrity from the front benches even if they don't like her party politics very much.

Where was the honesty and integrity in failing to pay her due taxes, despite being told in writing to seek specialist tax advice on the issue
Remember this is the same politician who ranted and raved whilst in opposition about then government ministers not paying the tax due ----and as soon as she gets in power she does exactly the same as she (rightly) attacked others for.

Honest and integrity are not words that apply to her over this

 

[Bromptonaut]

Ah, its an inference - strangely you never said that before. You posted authoritavely it was what Raytner actually thought.

Now you are giving a very watered down version - where you admit its your and your alone's spin on the finding that Rayner breached the ministerial code.

if it was an inference why not say that instead to making false claims about what she actually thought



Sometimes, the truth hurts

Whatever. It's pointless engaging with that level of argument.

I've said what I think and it can stand or fall with forumers other than yourself.

 

[Shortfall]

Whereas to me the ways of interpreting it are:
1) People like you who seem to have difficulty differentiating between a mistake and deliberate wrongdoing but actively dislike her for being working class and outspoken, refuse to even consider the possibility of a mistake, and therefore want her to be burned at the stake as a witch.
2) People who think it is a shame to lose a politician with some honesty and integrity from the front benches even if they don't like her party politics very much.

Are you assuming I'm not working class myself? I don't want her burned at the stake, I just want her to hold herself to the standards she set for her rivals when she was in opposition. If you want to accuse me of enjoying the downfall of a political figure I rather dislike who pursued policies and an agenda I thought were bad for the country then I plead guilty as charged. I think it's fairly common among people in debating forums though.

 

[Xipe Totec]

Mr Farage’s deputy Richard Tice had earlier said the party leader’s tax affairs are “irrelevant” to voters.

And they are. Unless the incessant trumpeting, shrieking, bellowing & howling of the right-wing mass media say otherwise.

 

[Stevo 666]

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.

Based on opinion polls there seems to be no shortage of Reform supporters - I guess there may be an element of people hesitating when they get to the ballot box, but my guess is that the political landscape has shifted enough for that not to be big problem for them. That's assuming they don't screw up in the meantime.