Forum menu
Which would still appear to be true, since she resigned and a load of Tories did not?
Zahawi was fired I think.
What did he do??
Failed to declare an HMRC investigation and fine.
It was only £5 million. Attempts to cover it up was his downfall. An abuse of his position while a minister.
[ so much false equivalence this week … what he did that led to her calling him out was nothing at all like the behaviour that has resulted in her losing her posts ]
Starmer is safer in his position now. There is far less chance of a leadership contest with Rayner out of the way. He’s probably (even) less likely to be PM after the election with her gone though, few current Labour MPs can cut through the media bullshit like she can when it comes to campaigning. She’s a genuine loss for the party, and those it should serve.
Starmer is safer in his position now. There is far less chance of a leadership contest with Rayner out of the way. He’s probably (even) less likely to be PM after the election with her gone though, few current Labour MPs can cut through the media bullshit like she can when it comes to campaigning. She’s a genuine loss for the party, and those it should serve.
I’m not so sure she’s out of his hair, she is still an MP (isn’t she?)
I half doubt she ever really wanted the top job, but as several backbenchers have demonstrated, party members without a cabinet position to protect can talk a bit more freely, especially when they don’t think their reelection prospects are that great at the next GE.
Rayner can concentrate on her constituency, and she can probably have more control over her own comms now, many have said that Starmer’s government is increasingly run by a small loyal group within No10. at the exclusion of much of the wider Labour Party. Maybe it’s a good thing in some ways for her to be out of that clique (but still in Labour)…
Zahawi was fired I think.
So didn’t have the decency to resign then, and was only sacked after Sunak consulted an “ethics advisor” IIRC. Telling that the Tories need such a supporting role really isn’t it…
Historical Tory sleaze and corruption puts a £40k mistake (since repaid?) in the shadows. I’m under no illusions this was a hatchet job carried out because Rayner was arguably more of a threat to the Right that SKS will ever be.
Starmer is safer in his position now. There is far less chance of a leadership contest with Rayner out of the way
There is no way I would describe Starmer's position safer in any respect. Unless the budget does something astonishingly good he will not survive to 2029.
There was never really any threat from Rayner anyway. She's hugely overrated in actually delivering anything.
so much false equivalence this week
It's been said many times - it's much worse for a Labour MP to cock up. Not equivalent - worse.
I half doubt she ever really wanted the top job
I agree. But with her in the deputy position (and any replacement leader not having the power to replace her) the Party could more readily risk a leadership battle with her offering some degree of stability while it’s ongoing, and after. It all looks even riskier to try and replace Starmer now. He’s safer than before.
Before it’s old news, here’s the letter by the Independent Advisor on Ministeral Standards:
"her outgoings must be considerable with another house even sharing it with her husband."
But it isn't their house. It belongs either all or 3/4 to the trust they set up to give the house to their son.
I would not be surprised if the running costs of the house are quite properly coming out the trust.
I heard that the house was considered to be hers since although in trust the beneficiary was her child. He was 17
Had she waited a until he was an 18 there whole fiasco could have been avoided and she would have saved £40k. Delaying buying a home for up to a year while she has the free govt pad in London seems like no great hardship if it saves £40k.
If true this makes it more likely to be stupidity rather than a deliberate attempt to evade the correct stamp duty.
Given her previous house problems it seems crazy not to have taken expert advice when she was involved in a trust.
Personally I think it is ridiculous that 10% stamp duty is charged on second homes at thus price anyway. I have never owned nor intend to own one.
So didn’t have the decency to resign then,
Obviously.
The Labour electric car grant subsidy is now in full force.
The top tier is £3750. (650million is allocated to this fund.)
(This was 5k under the Tories for quite a while and I personally took advantage of this.)
I'm glad something like this is back. The Ford Puma is one the best deals with this in mind I reckon.
Just need stuff like this but on steroids.
(As always political will - not lack of money drives choices like this.)
I'm seeing very little publicity with this too - something they could talk about for once that isn't just bitter politics.
https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/9217/electric-car-grant
Of course this sort of thing will mostly work for people on decent incomes - let's be clear. But it's something like the stuff Labour should be doing.
Personally I think it is ridiculous that 10% stamp duty is charged on second homes at thus price anyway. I have never owned nor intend to own one.
Confused. Do you think there should be no stamp duty on second homes or more stamp duty? If you ask me it should be much higher, something like 30-50%. There'd be a lot more available housing for young people and locals in rural areas if it was much more expensive to own second homes.
Oh for sure I'm not saying she should get a free pass...
Thing is, if a tory minister did this they would just laugh it off and the story would be buried by the next incoming scandal, and generally drowned out in the noise and be forgotten about in a few days
As has been said, Labour are held to higher standards. They should know this and act accordingly. That they don't is on them.
But it isn't their house. It belongs either all or 3/4 to the trust they set up to give the house to their son.
I would not be surprised if the running costs of the house are quite properly coming out the trust.
And where does that money come from? The trust won't generate any income - it's down to the parents to fund the upkeep of the house.
Trusts are Dick thing to do often by Dicks who moan about social security scroungers but then become social security scroungers themselves because the money they've stuck in trust can't be got at to pay for their end of life care so they end up scrounging off the state. An example being my ex-neighbour in Brum and self-proclaimed money wizzard who has ended up sponging off the state while his money sits in a trust.
Trusts are Dick thing to do
Well, apart from where the trust is supposed to look after the needs of someone who isn't capable of looking after the money themselves. Even a cursory look at where the money came from, and who it is supposed to benefit, suggests a trust was/is needed in this case. Plenty of people use trusts to "hide" assets of course, especially when it comes to land, but there are legitimate cases where trusts are required. This looks like one of those cases to me.
Is the legal framework used to set up the trust only available for the specific purpose of the financial support of "someone who isn't capable of looking after the money themselves" or is it a legal framework to avoid paying tax. If it is only available for the 1st scenario then I don't see any problems and think it is fair enough, if it is the later then the child's disability is just a red herring for the tax arrangements.
I refuse to believe that Rayner isn't fiancially, physically and mentally capable of assuring her child's future without resorting to a tax dodging financial structure. If there wasn't a tax advantage people wouldn't do it. The trust is just one of the many financial strutures used by the rich to avoid paying tax of one kind or another.
Anyhow she's gone, and rightly so.
I refuse to believe that Rayner isn't fiancially, physically and mentally capable of assuring her child's future without resorting to a tax dodging financial structure.
And if she died in a car crash tomorrow?
Trusts are not just for "tax planning", even if they are often used solely for that purpose.
And if she died in a car crash tomorrow?
I'm guessing she's got ample life insurance and a will that takes her son's needs into account.
Is the legal framework used to set up the trust only available for the specific purpose of the financial support of "someone who isn't capable of looking after the money themselves" or is it a legal framework to avoid paying tax.
It can also be a means to ensure that her ex doesn't pass the whole property to a new partner, bypassing their son.
Until we're clear on the detail we won't know, but she needed to be very clear on the implications and obviously wasn't. It didn't help her case that the pre-purchase legal advice wasn't published
Well, apart from where the trust is supposed to look after the needs of someone who isn't capable of looking after the money themselves.
For sure, if only Rayner hadn't wanted to deprive others that are struggling with disability too that weren't lucky enough to have access to a trust.
Rayner refuses to rule out punishing Labour MPs who rebel over welfare cuts
Deputy PM defends government plan predicted to result in 1.2m people with disabilities losing thousands
So much dross being put forward in sympathy of her in this context.
I refuse to believe that Rayner
You can arrogantly proclaim your ignorance as much as you want, it just makes you ignorant.
So much dross being put forward in sympathy of her in this context.
Yep, she was happy to go along with and defend all the horrible crap that Starmer and his government was coming out with which makes her as bad as he is and as we all know he is ****ing awful.
If the disabled son is not capable of fully managing his own financial affairs (which seems quite likely) then a trust is the obvious approach to take, it's nothing to do with tax dodging, it's just the standard mechanism by which assets are routinely held and managed on behalf of someone who's not able to do it themselves.
People commenting who aren't even vaguely aware that this is entirely normal and appropriate practice when dealing with minors and/or mentally impaired people really ought to consider that they are just too ignorant to be able to make any meaningful judgement on the rights and wrongs of the matter.
I am fully aware that it's a normal practice, so normal a neighbour and soon to be ex family member's familily have used them to avoid tax with the pretext of protecting "weak" family members. In one case the person being "protected" (surviving spouse) was completely screwed over by the self-serving trustees who had her living in artificial poverty while assett stripping her. She was unable to sell her valuable unsuitable home for something more appropriate. The main loser in both cases has been the tax man.
Added with no comment
My comment is that she evaded tax and failed to take advice, which she was advised to do.
Sorry is Jeremy Hunt in government?
Current Labour haven't exactly had the hardest time given their dreadful first year.
I mean ... Current state of media reporting.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1964387067171131766?t=Sj5DueUH9tOB2tMCi3UjCA&s=19
Zack Polanski told women that he could make their breasts larger by Hypnotism. If the worst he gets is comments about his teeth, he's up on the deal.
Zack Polanski told women that he could make their breasts larger by Hypnotism. If the worst he gets is comments about his teeth, he's up on the deal.
I thought he was going to use hypnotherapy to make women accepting of their breast size rather than choose surgery?
Zack Polanskitold women that he could make their breasts larger by Hypnotism. If the worst he gets is comments about his teeth, he's up on the deal.
Hmm don't know which is worse - Angela Rayner supporting disability cuts and turning out to be a total political let-down who joined the ranks of the 'what's in it for me' club or a man who is taking the battle to Nigel Farage ...
I thought he was going to use hypnotherapy to make women accepting of their breast size rather than choose surgery?
Yes of course, but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good headline.
I thought he was going to use hypnotherapy to make women accepting of their breast size rather than choose surgery?
which just goes to show I suppose, that if one is desperate, you'll try to convince yourself of anything...Ask yourself, if that's the case, and not as has been reported that he did in fact claim to be able to 'enhance' them, why he felt the need to apologise at the time, and again now when the story resurfaced?
He's already started to stray from his brief, Suggesting that the UK should leave NATO. I suspect that his plan to attract new members from the Labour left may have already been holed beneath the waterline now that Party McPartyFace has been launched. At least he's not your average run of the mill bland politician wannabe though, although given how 'nasty' (by the Greens bland standards) this leadership contest has been, some of the membership of the Greens are less than happy about him. So it'll be interesting at least
or a man who is taking the battle to Nigel Farage
You can say any old shit if the party you lead has no hope of ever being in a position to having to do anything or back your words up.
You can say any old shit if the party you lead has no hope of ever being in a position to having to do anything or back your words up.
Yep, it certainly seems to have caught Starmer out. He dealt with it by simply throwing away all the stuff he said before being in power and it certainly seems to be working out well for him.
Edukator, the fact that some bad people do X doesn't mean that everyone who does X is bad.
There are huge numbers of irresponsible parents who haven't done anything to prepare for the possibility of their untimely demise, not even bothering to write a will (several have admitted as much on this forum) and just expecting random relatives or social services to step in and pick up the pieces, so criticising someone who has actually taken sensible steps to protect their disabled child seems very poorly judged.
which just goes to show I suppose, that if one is desperate, you'll try to convince yourself of anything...Ask yourself, if that's the case, and not as has been reported that he did in fact claim to be able to 'enhance' them, why he felt the need to apologise at the time, and again now when the story resurfaced?
Feel free to post any links to back up your claims.
Bonus points if it's not the Sun article that all this was based on. But then I guess if you are desperate enough you'll go to any 'source' that backs up your point of view.
Edukator, the fact that some bad people do X doesn't mean that everyone who does X is bad.
I don't think I've made any comment on links to X in months and not on the last few pages. I don't use it or click links but haven't slagged of users in a while.
Social services end up picking up the pieces when people have transfered their wealth to a trust to avoid inheritance tax and then end up with care costs that exceed the wealth they left in their own name.
You might think it's poorly judged (but then you think and state prety much everything I write on this form is poorly judged and regularly take a pop at me - you have a problem with me 🙂 ), I think the whole trust system stinks and feel free to criticise people who in this case use it dishonestly. She's gone, I quite liked her but this trust episode shows me she just another dishonest politician with no morals and it's good riddance to bad rubbish.
I think he meant X as "some behaviour" rather that X as twitter.
Well spotted MSP. 🙂
I venture there's more use of trusts for tax avoidance than any other reason, a view supported by trends in trusts being set up:
But she didn't use the trust dishonestly, the trust was fine, it was the purchase of another house where she didn't pay appropriate stamp duty because (according to SDLT rules) she was deemed to still be owning the property that was in the trust.
I don't have a pop at people, I have a pop at their comments. I don't really remember who has said what when but I suppose if you say a lot of silly things you might think I'm picking on you.
TBH while I think it's right that she's gone I'd be surprised if it was deliberate dishonesty, firstly because it's not exactly a huge sum to throw away your career over and secondly because it's really not that implausible that having sold her old house to the trust, she genuinely thought she no longer owned it. In most contexts, she'd be right to think that, it is just the SDLT rules that deem her still to be a beneficial owner due to the use she makes of it.
If she actually wanted to save the tax legitimately she could have sold the house other than to the trust, bought her new property, and then had the trust buy a property for her son. Same loss to the taxpayer, slightly more convoluted process, but probably worth it for £40k.
Putting the house in trust to ensure the future of her disabled son is a responsible act that should be applauded rather than sniped about. Lots of people are not so thoughtful about the futures of their dependents.