Forum menu
I thought Rayner had an appeal that Starmer didn’t so will be bad to lose here but I think she will go as it seems pretty clear that she did not actually live at her primary residence
I dunno, the Labour front bench has defended her quite strongly which I'm not sure they'd do if she's guilty.
According to the neighbours of the houses next door to her primary residence they have never seen her at all in that period which is odd isn;t it unless she only returns to her house after dark and leaves before daylight and goes out dressed in black.
I haven't followed it that closely, but would be surprised if Labour were wasting political capital on this. It's the perfect opportunity for Starmer to sack her, don't forget he's tried to before.
It’s the perfect opportunity for Starmer to sack her
Why would he do that? Firstly she was elected as deputy leader so he can't sack her from that position, but he can remove her shadow cabinet responsibilities, but even then that would be stupid. Starmer's entire campaign is that the tories are riven with factions and can't govern effectively while labour are united and ready to take over. If he doesn't stand by Rayner it'll cause a rift in the party which will blow up his campaign. He's not spent the last 12 months tiptoeing on eggshells just to lob a hand grenade into the campaign right at the end.
Also - are tax affairs normally opened up after 6 years?
Not as far as I understand them.
Rayner has been smart enough to state she’d quit if she’s found to have broken the law, which I doubt is a possibility, the tories have opened up a can of worms with this, which won’t help them in the upcoming election if it’s dirt and smear campaigns being unleashed
Why would he do that?
Same reason as last time, I expect.
I thought the cut off was 7 years
It's defo six years for most tax inspections but then deliberate evasion could be 20 years but that's not we're talking about here I guess.
Just not seen an answer to this given how far back we are talking.
Just not seen an answer to this given how far back we are talking.
It's being investigated for electoral fraud, not tax evasion, aiui.
It’s being investigated for electoral fraud,
An experty type says that with election fraud it times out after 1 year so she is highly unlikely to be prosecuted. That's what he said in an interview on the news anyway.
This is the way the Tories are going to fight the election though and Labour know it. They will be digging for dirt as it allowed them to plant the "see, we are all the same" seed in people's minds. The thing is, everyone expects the Tories to be tax dodging pervs so they are teflon to it to a degree and just need to paint labour as being the same. Voter suppression in action, the British way.
They are not the same of course.
It’s being investigated for electoral fraud, not tax evasion, aiui.
Ah. I'm not really up to speed on this one at all.
its all the same as with the beergate bollox that was exactly 2 yeats ago just before the 2022 locals, Dan Hodges went on about it relentlessly in the daily mail, Tory MPs leapt on it and pushed the police to investigate
was a waste of time & resources, but threw a bit of mud at starmer, melted away to nothing , as this will
Rayner is a working class woman & the Tories are scared of her
I heard her in an interview on this and she was very evasive. She has legal advice that she didn't break any laws but won't publish it because it has certain details in it that she doesn't want made public, unless she's forced to but then she wants everyone to publish their tax affairs.
The interviewer kept trying to pin her back to just publishing the legal advice, redacted if necessary and every time she widened it to the full tax account picture, so she could then refuse unless everyone does. Came across very badly.
Two thoughts came to mind. Either something to hide, or deliberately laying a trap.
kimbers
Full Member
its all the same as with the beergate bollox that was exactly 2 yeats ago just before the 2022 locals, Dan Hodges went on about it relentlessly in the daily mail, Tory MPs leapt on it and pushed the police to investigatewas a waste of time & resources, but threw a bit of mud at starmer, melted away to nothing , as this will
Rayner is a working class woman & the Tories are scared of her
I have to agree, once the locals are over this will be largely forgotten, the news cycle will be consumed with Tory blood letting once again.
Even so, Labour have to be whiter than white and absolutely prepared for similar attacks leading upto the GE. The Tories have had a team going over the whole of Starmer's adult life(this was reported months ago), particularly during his time in the DPP.
This is going to be a truly nasty fight as the Tories have bugger all to lose now. Labour have to be prepared for the fight and be as prepared to fight dirty too, if necessary.
Again, Sunak has "billionaire tax dodging family" written all over him but that's baked in. The sad fact is Starmer and Labour will be shouted down if there is even a scent of scandal, cheered on by the RW press.
Id like to think Labour are ready for this but they haven't handled Rayner's issue as well as they could and I hope they learn from it.
As an aside, I still think there might be blood spilt in the run up to the GE, I hope I'm wrong but there is a lot of anger being deliberately stired up out there.☹️
Perhaps it’s just my trust of who’s been in the background advising Starmers “new-new Labour” but I imagine they wouldn’t lose much sleep of turfing her out and installing someone more amenable to their way of thinking, or if I leave my conspiracy hat on for a longer period then perhaps it’s Labour “in” crowd who’ve been leaking to the press.
Either way I don’t trust Labour one little bit.
Look at which tory is pushing this - it's binners mate, james daly MP for Bury North.
Majority of 105; completely invisible to his constituents; blocks anyone who posts anything other than sycophantic posts to his social media.
He is a horse's arse.
This whole thing is a tory confected nothingburger.
IF there was a case - too late to prosecute under election law and too late to pursue for unpaid CGT so...WTF is the point - other than low level shit stirring?
It has only received any publicity because Rayner can't afford or chooses not to use a libel lawyer; compare & contrast with zahawi who immediately resorted to libel lawyers and empty threats when his financial chicanery was about to be exposed.
This is scummy behaviour by a scummy MP who is part of a scummy government who, in fact, are incapable of governing.
IF there was a case – too late to prosecute under election law and too late to pursue for unpaid CGT so…WTF is the point – other than low level shit stirring?
So the police are okay wasting time on it knowing that and then the CPS will throw it out due to being too late anyway?
Yeah, they're a bit annoyed that Rayner isn't as easy to goad into a reaction anymore, she's learning diplomacy and has grown as a politician over the last few years, so would be sad to lose her, but again, this is just the tories trying to undermine her, nothing more.
Missing Miliband has surfaced on Radio4. On now.
You can see why he has been hiding... anything good he had to say was drowned out by talk of how reduced Labour's plans are from what they were (and the interviewer [ Justin Webb? ] was right to take it that way).
Missing Miliband has surfaced on Radio4. On now
Was on LBC too
Sounded like the youngest of three kids at Christmas trying to justify the disappointment of his presents.
WTF is the point – other than low level shit stirring?
She can't be prosecuted so she can't be found not guilty
It implicates Keir Starmer because he said that he'd sack anyone that breaks the rules. That's two serious cases that he now has to deal with, it won't go away
snip...compare & contrast with zahawi...
Dan Neidle, who took Nadhim Zahawi and others on, thinks that Angela Rayner has a case to answer https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/04/i-looked-into-angela-rayners-tax-affairs-heres-what-i-found
Did anyone catch Starmer being interviewed by Gary Gibbon on C4?, Gary may as well as walked up to him, kicked in the nuts and walked away. 😉
I've not seen Starmer much recently - he was along with Streeting outside the hospital my mum was in the other day.
I'd have had a word with Streeting and shown him all the broken heart/blood pressure machines we kept seeing - but I had other stuff on.
'Reform' some new machines into existence Streeting?
A worthwhile watch:
Alexei Sayle on Starmer - and if he'd run against him (youtube.com)
Labour is now "the true party" of English patriotism.
What will patriotic English Daily Telegraph readers do?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/20/labour-is-now-the-true-party-of-english-patriotism/
Labour is now “the true party” of English patriotism.
What will patriotic English Daily Telegraph readers do?
It's behind a pay wall, but starmer has shown his true colours for agreeing with the conservatives in denying the right of british young folk to live, study an work in the EU.
He's no better than Nigel Farrage, to be honest. He can stick his cross of St. george right up his 'patriotic' bum hole.
It's not behind a paywall for me but try this:
Ahh thanks for that.. just from a quick skim...what a * **
It’s also about serving the country we love.
Hmmm
weakened the union
Which Union, The UK or the EU? Sir Keir is doing a grand Job of weakening the UK
That is why I have no time for those who flinch at displaying our flag. Because the cross of St George belongs to every person who loves this country
His flag, maybe, My flag is blue with yellow stars on it, or at a push, a red dragon.
Ultimately, it’s about respect.
Oh, the irony.
but starmer has shown his true colours for agreeing with the conservatives in denying the right of british young folk to live, study an work in the EU.
I'm not in the habit of defending Starmer but he really had no choice. He's spent 4 years (successfully) trying to remove the threat of brexit losing labour another election so wasn't about to blow it all up at last minute. The EU were bloody stupid to make that offer now rather than waiting til Labour are in power, and they knew what the response would be so I can only conclude there were other motivations behind it.
The more I read about Starmer the less I like him. Now he's turned into a rabid flagshagger has he? I'm going to find it very difficult to vote Labour, even though they now appear to have an outside chance of beating the Tories in Carlisle. It's very upsetting.
Have to agree with both of Dash's points, both on the EU's timing dooming their own proposal, and on Starmer. Not the hooligan stuff though... I know this is a cycling forum, but football culture is its own thing... without needing the hooligan element that nearly everyone rejects and sidelines. Labelling a football fan with the hooligan term is just lazy.
Labelling a football fan with the hooligan term is just lazy.
Anyone who is into football and wears stone island gear in public knows exactly what they're doing.
I remember people being turned away at the door for wearing Stone Island... but things have moved on since those bad old days.
There's some blinkered intolerant folk on this forum. Knee jerk bigotry isn't big, clever or limited to the right wing.
No idea why thst surprises me after all these years.
There’s some blinkered intolerant folk on this forum. Knee jerk bigotry isn’t big, clever or limited to the right wing.
Yep, always has been on this thread, Starmer is now basically a member of the English Defence League for giving a positive press article on England and St George on the week when St George's Day is on, why can't he be really negative about it in an election year 🤣
I think it's far far more troubling that people on here give Starmer a clean bill of health every time he regresses ever more rightwards.
Sorry that we ever wanted a party to push back on Conservative policy, values and attitude.
The Conservatives don’t own the Cross of St George, and right wingers shouldn’t be allowed to claim it for their own political means. Removing the idea in the minds of voters that Labour are both anti-British and anti-English has been a long slow process… Starmer isn’t going to drop that ball now we’ve finally got to an election year.
"I have no time for those who flinch at our flag. The cross of St George belongs to all who love this country"
If those exact same words had been written in an article for the Daily Telegraph by Liz Truss, and posted on the Liz Truss thread, she would have been mocked and ridiculed for scraping the bottom of the populist barrel and draping herself in the English flag.
However coming from Keir Starmer they suddenly and magically become words which express his righteous commitment to England, and voters need to hear them.
I would be more impressed with Keir Starmer's commitment to England if he spent more time arguing the case for English regional parliaments.
Waving the flag of St George proves very little of useful value imo. Although I won't deny that it is likely to impress a lot of Daily Telegraph readers, who these days appear to be more right-wing than the Daily Mail.
ernie, can't you have a word with him? That line of his is ****ing cringe, a little bit of me dies when he comes out with shit like that.
Political parties are a total farce.
It's no longer about fixing things.
For instance BoE is pursuing policy in the name of the current government to actively create more unemployed because higher unemployment is linked to lower inflation (yes it's idiotic and not supported by much - but this is what they believe.)
*And* at the same time Sunak is having his own little Tory war on the unemployed - to reduce unemployment.
So which is it - create unemployment to control inflation or get everyone back to work?
You absolute cross purpose dick-heads.
Removing the idea in the minds of voters that Labour are both anti-British and anti-English has been a long slow process
Some voters. Generally those who are fooled by the foreign owned right wing rags that wrapping yourself in a flag whilst selling the country off cheap and crippling our economy is patriotic.
Others who are actually patriotic might be concerned about the way he is aping those tories who hate the UK and just see it as something to trash for personal gain whilst waving a flag around.
"Long time Arsenal season ticket holder with a penchant for football hooligan culture so no suprise he’s directed his party to get the flags out for St George’s Day."
This is by far the most silly conspiracy theory ever - that Kier Starmer is courting the fascist vote because he (checks notes) buys an expensive season ticket for the most arse-acheingly North London bourgeois football club on the planet.
It is a bit extreme to describe Daily Telegraph readers as "fascists" but you do realise that the article which Keir Starmer allegedly wrote was designed to court them, don't you?
I say allegedly btw because I suspect that little of what Starmer says he actually personally believes. Undoubtedly most of it is decided by Morgan McSweeney. Starmer is the lawyer who puts forward his clients case, his personal opinions are irrelevant. Which is why he is able to change them with so much apparent ease - there is no real commitment to anything.
dazh
Full MemberI’m not in the habit of defending Starmer but he really had no choice. He’s spent 4 years (successfully) trying to remove the threat of brexit losing labour another election so wasn’t about to blow it all up at last minute.
Absolute rubbish imo. At the very worst, it'd have been a minor negative story for a party that is 20 points up
But realistically it's a missed opportunity. The tory official line on this is just a straight up lie, they made it about "free movement", but it's just not. It's visa based, it's time limited, you can apply financial and health insurance restrictions. It's about opportunity despite not having free movement. If Labour can't take a pointless and easy to refute tory lie about something that'd be good for british kids and make a win out of it, what are they even for?
Their actual response on it is pretty much incomprehensible, they waffle on about vets and opportunities for business and none of it's remotely relevant, they never attempt to say why they're against it. It just makes it look like they don't even understand the offer they're rejecting
The race to increase military spending is on and now the Tories have gone one better than Sir Keir Starmer with a commitment to not only match his 2.5% of GDP but pledging that they will increase military spending straight away.
Labour has said it would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP "as soon as resources allow" if it wins the election.
Downing Street said UK defence spending would increase "immediately and rise linearly" to hit £87bn by the end of the decade.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68880171
So everyone agrees it is very important that there should a huge increase in UK military spending the only question is how quickly this should happen.
It reminds me of the 2010 general election campaign when Labour agreed with the Tories that getting rid of the budget deficit was very important but that they would take twice as long as the Tories to do it.
Convinced by the Tories and Labour that clearing the deficit was very important indeed voters backed, unsurprisingly, the side which claimed they would do it in half the time.
Whenever Labour decide to sing from the same hymn sheets as the Tories voters seem to be more impressed with the Tories.
So everyone agrees it is very important that there should a huge increase in UK military spending the only question is how quickly this should happen.
My bold, not the only question. On what? Should also be a very clear question. Spunking cash on a bunch of ineffective shite to prop up an ailing and quite frankly unimaginative UK defence industry is not the best bang for buck.
My bold, not the only question. On what? Should also be a very clear question.
Big shiny things of course.
Maybe a couple more aircraft carriers or we could possibly ask the yanks if they would sell us some B-21s.
The dreadnought subs and new missiles sort of count but they cant really be shown off as easily.
My bold, not the only question. On what?
Lasers, rail guns and more display teams for the raf
Always plenty of money for the military.
What about the wrecked public finances?
Ah I see. Because that's what Labour's junior team are peddling in every interview when it comes to the climate, NHS and infrastructure.
There's no holes in the argument because there's no argument.
Labour has said it would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP “as soon as resources allow” if it wins the election.
Downing Street said UK defence spending would increase “immediately and rise linearly” to hit £87bn by the end of the decade.
Those announcement are of nothing substantial. Man-maths based on GDP yesterday with a projection in 6 years time, we were already on 2.3% in 2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-defence-expenditure-2022/finance-and-economics-annual-statistical-bulletin-international-defence-2022
Inflation by 2030 will suck ££££bn up (my man-maths, anyone maths-minded care to tidy that up?)
It's probably not enough. We should be preparing to help defend a fellow NATO country without the help of the USA... that's no longer just the stuff of dystopian novels.
Of course it's not enough, in the coming general election campaign expect both the Tories and Labour to argue that only they are taking the problem seriously enough.
It’s probably not enough.
Where's the money coming from though? How can we afford it? Serious question.
Ask the Tories.
Where’s the money coming from though?
National conscription for the unemployed and long term sick should help reduce the budget.
We can always afford whatever is available to purchase unless it's for the improvement of our state services then apparently has to be funded by the private sector.
Charlatans.
Look at the USA - just signed off on 81bn. No dramas.
Those announcement are of nothing substantial. Man-maths based on GDP yesterday with a projection in 6 years time, we were already on 2.3% in 2021
Other than apparent the state of the public finances according to Tory press release mouth piece Reeves.
These ****ers want it both ways.
Seems like an opportune moment to drag out Tony Benn..
Only one issue Daz - Centrists queue up to support money for war - the same arguments about lack of money evaporate.
Tory narrative leading the way.
Centrists queue up to support money for war – the same arguments about lack of money evaporate.
Well quite. Benn hits the nail on the head. Irrespective of the financial and monetary shenanigans involved in 'finding the money', the fact is when it comes to war the money can always be found, yet not it seems if it's for non-violent purposes. If ever there was an argument against the concept of nation states this is it.
A bunch of these previous "military spending increases" have been mostly about reshuffling. Lots of veteran healthcare and support that was previously under welfare became military, frinstance. (this is a very US trick).
TBH I'm not necessarily against it, if it's well spent, rather than on vanity projects and white elephants and privatisation and projects that would never have started if they'd been honest about the cost but of course all of military procurement is basically engineered around making the costs up until it's too late to stop, and changing the project scope endlessly so that it's almost impossible to be on time and on budget. We could do a lot more with reducing dysfunction than with adding money.
Seems like an opportune moment to drag out Tony Benn.
Pity it will be on deaf ears for Starmer.
Labour pledges to nationalise the railways in 5 years.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.
I've lost track. Is this a new pledge to be rolled back on later or an un-roll back of a previous pledge (to be re-rolled back on later)?
Why would Keir Starmer receive a "lefty onslaught" for doing the right thing? Did he receive a lefty onslaught when he made the £28bn green pledge? No, not at all, in fact as I remember it the pledge was widely supported by the left.
Obviously if it turns out to be another pledge on which he performs a U-turn, which I think everyone can agree is very likely, I would expect him to be criticised - would that be a bad thing?
I found this comment in your link surprising:
The word "nationalisation" doesn't appear in Labour's plan, but that is what it in effect amounts to.
Why would Labour not use honest language which everyone clearly understands, especially as there is overwhelming evidence that rail nationalisation has clear public support, even among Tory voters?
Btw what the article doesn't point out is that the majority of UK rail services are already nationalised:
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.
And let me guess when people respond to your passive aggressive stance you will then whine.
As policies go whilst an improvement on the tories approach, where although effectively nationalised we still have private companies in the mix just to pretend it isnt, it isnt exactly great or radical is it?
The obvious gap is with the Roscos which have been the main profit centre in recent years. Unless of course the contracts are going to be changed with them so they actually take the risk rather than the taxpayer.
An interesting critique here from the Guardian's transport correspondent, I have no idea whether he is a lefty (I have always assumed that the Guardian was the centrists bible) but he does seem to have a grip on his brief.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy
Like most centrists your obsession with 'lefties' borders on the unhinged. I suggest you point your cynicism in the other direction, it will be much more constructive and cathartic.
As for the policy, considering Starmer is only going to extend what the tories have already started it's very easy for him. I'm less interested in who runs the railways and more interested in whether prices are going to come down to something that looks like they are in Europe. When I can get a return ticket to London from Manchester for less than 50 quid I'll be the first to congratulate them on a job well done.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.
Frustrated Centrist sticks a headline up and expects no criticism 'cos it's got some lefty words in it.
“Labour pledges to nationalise the railways in 5 years.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.”
TBH, it’s a shallow pledge that will do little, but will placate those who think the Private Sector TOCs are making a fortune from the railways (they aren’t!). The headline figure is that it will save around £125 million a year. But it wont. There will still need to be Management running the Companies, so they will need to be paid out of the £125m saved, hence the savings will be far lower, if any at all.
All of the TOCs are currently ran by the DfT, so are already ordered what to do by the Government, the only private sector involvment is the Government pay the TOCs to run the Companies, rather than doing it themselves, hence some of the backroom staff are the only ones who will be slightly worried by this announcement, everything else will continue exactly as it was before, but with, hopefully, a slightly less subsidy to run the railways. In the grand scheme of things its a tiny drop in the ocean, when the railways cost the taxpayer around £11bn a year, £125m is nothing.
How to reduce rail costs? It needs total reform. Get rid of the DfT involvment, they are near to useless with their decisions. Get proper railway Staff running things. Stop outsourcing repairs and replacements - a massive industry has built up around railway infrastructure since the original privatisation at a cost far in excess of what the old BR would do it for (note the Railway is NOT privatised now, it is ran by the DfT, who employ private Companies to do some work).
When I can get a return ticket to London from Manchester for less than 50 quid I’ll be the first to congratulate them on a job well done.
Cheapest is £39 and average is £49 travelling tomorrow
My son daughter regularly come down from Newcastle to Manchester for £13.00.