I don't know. What's your view on how she should deal with her current issues?
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I don't know. What's your view on how she should deal with her current issues?
CXRAndy
Legendary Member
Sunak was correct about labour crashing the economy
She has bought a day or so, she self reported to ethics committee. They are supposedly making a decision before the weekend
matticus
Guru
Well clearly you should! What with your strong views on her character. You've surprised me ...
Stevo 666
Über Member
FTFY
Yes very good. Could you answer my question now? Do you think she should resign? Should Starmer sack her? Should she wait for the results of the ethics enquiry or whatever it's called before making her decision?
Stevo 666
Über Member
Psamathe
Veteran
Another aspect to Ms Rayner's "misunderstanding" is that I don't see incorrect advice as a valid excuse. I've always thought that if I "sign the form" or authorise something I am fully responsible for it. I can take advice from any number of people/places but it's advice not "instruction". I'm the one giving the confirmation not the various advisory sources I might select.
pubrunner
New Member
I'd suggest, most people simply accept what their property solicitor tells them they owe - the average person would have just said it’s a second home and paid the extra SDLT - I don't have a second home, but I suspect that's what most of us would do.
Angela Rayner's financial affairs were ‘complicated’; they were only complicated because she was trying to reduce her tax liability.
Prior to the NHS settlement, the son lived in the family house, and was supported by the assets and earnings of his parents. After the settlement, he also benefitted from the cash received from the NHS settlement. That cash could have been invested to produce life-long income to cover care costs, when his parents are no longer around to provide for him.
AR has captured the settlement (at least in part) for herself, by deeming it to replace her financial obligations to her child. In effect, she’s saying that she no longer has to use ‘her money’ provide for her child, so she can use it instead to buy a nice flat in Brighton! What kind of mother buys a home 200 miles away from their child when she doesn’t need to, for work etc ?
She took out £160k of her son’s trust, in exchange for her share of the property up north, to buy a flat to make money from – which obviously benefits her greatly - not sure if there’s any benefit to her disabled child, by having £160k of what was liquid cash, now tied into illiquid property.
I know little of trusts, but wonder if there may be a change in her power of trustee, once her son turns 18 next year or are his disabilities too great for him to manage his own affairs once he comes of age ?
Making decisions as a trustee of her son’s award that have obvious benefits to herself, but apparently none for her son is highly questionable. IMO, the much bigger issue for her now, is defending the idea that taking £162.5K out of her son's trust is in his best interests – given that the property is in Brighton and her son lives east of Manchester.
Dorset Boy
Regular
I suspect it is a Disabled Persons Trust given the money came about as an NHS Compensation payment. so it would carry on whilst her son is alive and helps protect any means tested benfits he is entitled to. No doubt she will be a trustee along with the father. The purpose of the trust assets would be to support her son through adulthood due to reduced or no earning capacity.
As said above, making part of the former matrimonial home part of the trust does not appear to be of benefit to her son as there is no way to generate income or access the asset to benefit him or help with his needs. That said, if the amount of the NHS settlement in the public domain? If it was millions of pounds then the property value may be a small part of the overall trust value.
It does whiff of her seeing it as way to purchase a property in a constituency she may hope to represent given she currently sits in a marginal seat that could easily be lost to Reform. I suspect mortgages for MPs in marginals are not easy to come by given the risk of losing their job!
As said above, making part of the former matrimonial home part of the trust does not appear to be of benefit to her son as there is no way to generate income or access the asset to benefit him or help with his needs. That said, if the amount of the NHS settlement in the public domain? If it was millions of pounds then the property value may be a small part of the overall trust value.
It does whiff of her seeing it as way to purchase a property in a constituency she may hope to represent given she currently sits in a marginal seat that could easily be lost to Reform. I suspect mortgages for MPs in marginals are not easy to come by given the risk of losing their job!
the snail
Active Member
She's a woman, from a working class background, and a Labour politician, therefore she has no right to be affluent, or own property, and she should voluntarily give all her money to the treasury, wear sackcloth clothes and live in a cardboard box.
Dorset Boy
Regular
That's the story her supporters want to give who want this brushed under the carpet, but the reality is she was happy to throw shite at people on the other side of the house, backed the 'raising standards in public office' promise, and so has used up any goodwill other politicians may have had.
Be the attack dog if you wish, but expect people to hit back hard at you if you slip up.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
As someone who has never knowingly been fair to the Tory party, and someone who thought that things would only get better under Labour (the best of limited options) I have to agree that this does not look good for Labour or Rayner and they just have to accept the negative press… because they would have made exactly the same fuss and shouted for resignations if it had been a Tory minister involved.
It does nothing for her credibility as a minister or future candidate for leader if she couldn’t even take the time to ensure she had done everything ‘proper’ given the previous fuss over her purchase of her council house.
People who live in glass houses must be prepared for stones to be thrown and take the necessary precautions in advance.
It does nothing for her credibility as a minister or future candidate for leader if she couldn’t even take the time to ensure she had done everything ‘proper’ given the previous fuss over her purchase of her council house.
People who live in glass houses must be prepared for stones to be thrown and take the necessary precautions in advance.
CXRAndy
Legendary Member
The locals dont want her in Hove either
View: https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1963547326464618843?t=_-JxLU4tt-nJuzoonhXB7A&s=19
View: https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1963547326464618843?t=_-JxLU4tt-nJuzoonhXB7A&s=19
Psamathe
Veteran
You only partially quoted my post contorting the meaning.
Additionally, since I made than post a lot more information has been given bt Ms Payner.
But I reject that her working class background or that she is a Labour politician have anything to do with her paying tax as per tax laws/rules. They apply to everybody irrespective of background or employment or political party, etc. or at least they should.
I find it frustrating when people (incl. Starmer) start trying to make out that her background, etc. have anything to do with her tax liability. It's about tax liability and avoiding it so I do wish people wouldn't try and defend her by trying to turn the issue into something it isn't.
