MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
And like that, she's gone.
A shame. I have little hope that her replacement will be as effective, or can relate to people in social and ‘affordable’ housing in the same way. Whoever they are.
She believed that she relied on the legal advice she had received, but unfortunately did not heed the caution contained within it, which acknowledged that it did not constitute expert tax advice and which suggested that expert advice be sought.
Thats the quote from the ethics advisor
“I deeply regret my decision to not seek additional specialist tax advice”
From Raynor
So once again its the lies, partial truths and cover up that gets them. Yesterday she said she took advice from 2 experts
Sad.
Time for the media to have a close look at Farbage's tax history now eh?
Sad.
Time for the media to have a close look at Farbage's tax history now eh?
Nigel Farage is using a private company to reduce his tax bill on his GB News media appearances and other outside employment in a television star-style arrangement that has in recent years become frowned on by major broadcasters.
The Reform UK leader diverts money from his prime-time TV show into his company, which means that he paid only 25% corporation tax on profits, instead of 40% income tax, and could offset some expenses.
The Clacton MP, who is also paid a £94,000-a-year MP’s salary, has in the past criticised people who try to avoid tax as the “common enemy” and has previously come under fire for setting up a trust fund in an offshore tax haven.
He has also claimed that some tax avoidance schemes were acceptable. “Most forms of legal tax avoidance are OK, but clearly some are not,” he said in 2014, adding that nobody voluntarily paid anything to HMRC while defending reducing a tax bill within the law.
Farage claimed last year to have “bought a house” in his constituency, but the property is actually owned in the name of his partner, meaning he legally avoided higher-rate stamp duty on the purchase of an additional home – given that he already owns other properties.
The use of personal service companies is not illegal, but it has been criticised across the political spectrum as a way to reduce tax bills. Farage has declined to publish his tax returns for 2023/24.
Several broadcasters including the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have cracked down on the practice in recent years. HMRC has repeatedly tightened the rules around off-payroll working (IR35) to stop this kind of tax avoidance.
The parliamentary register of interests shows that Farage has made nearly £400,000 from GB News since August 2024, for about 190 hours’ work. This suggests he is being paid more than £2,000 an hour by the news channel.
All payments for his GB News work are paid directly to his company, Thorn in the Side Ltd, of which he is the director and only shareholder. He has other paid roles including as a brand ambassador for gold bullion firms, speaking on the international circuit, and a Daily Telegraph column.
The latest accounts show that as of 31 May 2024, the company had £1.7m in cash, up over £1m in a year. It also owns two investment properties.
She should've resigned as soon as the story emerged, her position was clearly untenable.
I am proud that in every decision I made, I did it for them. I would never have become deputy prime minister if not for the decisions taken by the last Labour government, giving me a council house to support me,
From Raynors statement. A council house she then bought at a discount and then sold at profit meaning that house is no longer available for others in her position. A house she bought using tory legislation to do so
gross hypocrisy
So once again its the lies, partial truths and cover up that gets them.
This - only the bare minimum was disclosed to the public and not necessarily in the correct time order.
Yesterday she said she took advice from 2 experts
I'm sure she did but my guess is it was after the Telegraph story and they both said that she'd underpaid.
When she bought the Hove house maybe the conveyancers asked her if she owned another house and when she said "No" they intimated that only normal SD was due.
They could only work with the information they were told - I'm finding it hard to believe that she was unaware of the situation regarding buying another house given the amount of time spent working on the legals for her son's trust.
A council house she then bought at a discount and then sold at profit meaning that house is no longer available for others in her position. A house she bought using tory legislation to do so
gross hypocrisy
Oh bugger off TJ. She didn't do anything millions of other working class people did. Or are you arguing that working class people should be doomed to a life of rent-paying and never have an opportunity own their own homes? The right-to-buy policy had many flaws - not replacing social housing stock being the main one - but it at least provided a leg up for working people to achieve a little bit of security. You seem to be arguing that working class people are hypocrites for wanting to be better off financially. How about you direct your ire at silver spoon multi-millionaire tax dodgers instead of someone who worked her way up from nothing?
Well, she has resigned from all three positions now. Honestly, the right decision and something that i have to give her credit for.
Of course its gross hypocrisy to state that the council house gave her a chance she wouldn't have had otherwise and then to remove that council house from the stock of council houses whilst making a profit from the public purse. She directly took opportunity from others
Or are you arguing that working class people should be doomed to a life of rent-paying and never have an opportunity own their own homes?
She has made it harder for those who follow her
She directly took opportunity from others
No, the policy which didn't allow councils to reinvest the money from council house sales in new social housing did that. The people who bought the houses simply took a very good opportunity to better themselves. People who bought council houses are not morally responsible for the lack of social housing in this country. This is a very odd take TBH.
Aye right.
Oh bugger off TJ. She didn't do anything millions of other working class people did. Or are you arguing that working class people should be doomed to a life of rent-paying and never have an opportunity own their own homes? The right-to-buy policy had many flaws - not replacing social housing stock being the main one - but it at least provided a leg up for working people to achieve a little bit of security. You seem to be arguing that working class people are hypocrites for wanting to be better off financially. How about you direct your ire at silver spoon multi-millionaire tax dodgers instead of someone who worked her way up from nothing?
Unusually I agree with every word of that, in principle right to buy was an excellent tool to enhance social mobility, i practice it was implemented terribly because all Thatcher was interested in was more home owners who are more likely to vote Tory. She didn't want social housing and actively stopped councils from using the proceeds to build more housing.
Ultimately I wanted Rayner to be so much better than all of this.
All this what? what are you complaining about exactly? The nub of the story here is "Woman with complex tax arrangements is badly advised, political opponents seek to capitalise" There's even a headline in todays Telegraph (of all places) that says "I'm a tax expert, and even I don't know about the rules Rayner broke" . So what's your complaint about her? That she has complex tax arrangements? That she's buying a place in Hove? That because she's a Labour politician she can't take advantage of the salary she's earning? That she should live in a council flat and wear a sour expression?
She didn't really do a whole load of much.
Why on earth do centrists keep queuing to defend the indefensible?
I thought she would be better in every respect.
All I will say is your expectations of a Labour government is extremely low.
As soon as this scandal broke or even as soon as she realised she had underpaid, maybe she should have just put her hands in her pockets and coughed up the evaded £40k plus the maximum % fine (~30%?).
Right to buy was never about social mobility. It was about destroying the stock of council housing and even if councils had been allowed to build new houses with the receipts they could never have replaced the stock because of the discounts given. It was once again the transfer of state owned property into private hands with a corresponding huge loss of money to the state.
It has meant in most of the country there now is very little council housing and many of the houses sold have ended up as private rented to folk on housing benefit at much higher rents than council rents.
It was a huge transfer of money and property from the state ie the people to individuals. Its cost the country massivly
She believed that she relied on the legal advice she had received, but unfortunately did not heed the caution contained within it, which acknowledged that it did not constitute expert tax advice and which suggested that expert advice be sought.
Thats the quote from the ethics advisor
“I deeply regret my decision to not seek additional specialist tax advice”
From Raynor
So once again its the lies, partial truths and cover up that gets them. Yesterday she said she took advice from 2 experts
I have some sympathy for her. She sought expert advice, and the experts then said "oh but we aren't really experts in this area so you might need even more specialist advice to be sure". They'll still have charged her for telling her what they don't know, I'm sure! Anyone who has ever sought legal or tax advice knows it always comes with caveats like this. In her position, should she have done more? Possibly. Should she be liable for 2nd home stamp duty given she doesn't own the other house? Possibly not - it seems the trust carve out is probably not for that reason, and if I understood the "expert" on the radio yesterday if she had waited till her son was 18 she'd have been in the clear!
When I say I have some sympathy, I don't mean loads of sympathy - she can afford an £800K house, so I'm sure she'll survive! Moreover regardless of the tax position I don't think its a good look for the housing minister to be actively complaining about a housing crisis and owning a house she wasn't going to be living in! Personally I'd welcome all MP's financial affairs being open to such scrutiny, but it conflicts me that whilst I'd welcome that for all, it feels like this has become a personal vendetta - how did anyone know what she paid in Stamp Duty?
The criticism for buying a council house using a tory law is pretty ridiculous (it was a Thatcher policy which multiple governments of various colours kept; should potential politicians live their whole lives in a parallel world where they never benefit from policies they oppose?). Anyone who could do it, and didn't, was probably making poor financial decisions. The flaw in the policy was not the right to buy - it was that the proceeds were not used to build replacement properties.
Meh...
Whatever her culpability in the matter, it pales into insignificance compared to the dodgyness I've come to expect from politicians over the past 10 years
And calling her a hypocrite for taking the opportunity to buy her council house .. that's a bit rich coming from a multiple home owner tbh
It would be great if we had some politicians dedicated to fixing the damn country instead of creating a constant swamp of failure.
I mean they keep talking about splitting the left and letting Reform in.
Why be so damned inadequate then?
There's no way this Labour lot are going to last this full five years.
I know many people in Rayner's shoes and i tell you what they get zero sympathy from many corners of society.
Anything of value happening with GBenergy? Or anything useful with leccy bills? Like solid material improvements?
No because they're too obsessed with their own existence and not working in the interests of the public.
Whatever her culpability in the matter, it pales into insignificance compared to the dodgyness I've come to expect from politicians over the past 10 years
The bar is low so let's give Labour a free pass then?
Makes no sense. They need to be held to a higher standard.
Right to buy was never about social mobility.
I can tell you categorically that my mum and dad (and many friends) benefitted massively from right to buy. And not just financially, it gave them the security and confidence to aspire to greater things rather than being stuck as a council tenant with very little opportunity to break out of the cycle. If you're going to blame right-to-buy ex-council tenants for the lack of social housing you're looking in entirely the wrong direction. I'm very surprised TJ, I never had you down as someone who blames the little guy. What next? pointing the finger at benefit scroungers for the state of the NHS?
It was once again the transfer of state owned property into private hands with a corresponding huge loss of money to the state.
Although it did give a nice short term boost to central government with the lump sums.
Which ultimately is the problem with Thatcherism.
Works until you run out of state assets to sell off cheap and you have the rental bills to pay.
She sought expert advice, and the experts then said "oh but we aren't really experts in this area so you might need even more specialist advice to be sure".
"her conveyancers said they pushed through the £30,000 stamp duty purely on the information Ms Rayner was giving them."
"The nail in her political coffin was a report by the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser that she had ignored two warnings that she needed expert tax advice on her purchase:
“She believed that she relied on the legal advice she had received, but unfortunately did not heed the caution contained within it, which acknowledged that it did not constitute expert tax advice and which suggested that expert advice be sought.”"
... which she then ignored.
Right to buy was never about social mobility.
I can tell you categorically that my mum and dad (and many friends) benefitted massively from right to buy. And not just financially, it gave them the security and confidence to aspire to greater things rather than being stuck as a council tenant with very little opportunity to break out of the cycle. If you're going to blame right-to-buy ex-council tenants for the lack of social housing you're looking in entirely the wrong direction. I'm very surprised TJ, I never had you down as someone who blames the little guy. What next? pointing the finger at benefit scroungers for the state of the NHS?
Oh yes - better off council tenants benefited massively as individuals because they got a massively subsidised house. However those that are worst off lost hugely because they can no longer have a secure council house but have to go into an insecure private rental. Even if councils had been allowed to put the proceeds into council housing there still would have been an overall loss of council housing due to the discounts. Where did I blame the little guy? What I did was calling out Raynors hypocrisy for thanking a labour government for giving her as council house while her actions denied that chance to anyone else.
#
I am not suprised that you fail to see how this entrenches inequality and comes at a huge cost to those worst off in society
The bar is low so let's give Labour a free pass then?
Makes no sense. They need to be held to a higher standard.
I dont think they shoukd get a free pass no. But in context of dodgy politicians, I'm failing ro get too outraged about this one tbh
Meh...
Whatever her culpability in the matter, it pales into insignificance compared to the dodgyness I've come to expect from politicians over the past 10 years
And calling her a hypocrite for taking the opportunity to buy her council house .. that's a bit rich coming from a multiple home owner tbh
I have not taken government subsidy, I let well below market rent and I am in the process of selling to my tenant at a favourable price. I only owned two flats because my partner died. One was hers
The bar is low so let's give Labour a free pass then?
Makes no sense. They need to be held to a higher standard.
I dont think they shoukd get a free pass no. But in context of dodgy politicians, I'm failing ro get too outraged about this one tbh
This is also true. Its far less than Tories and even other labour politicians
Just a small one - since when is being part of government as useful measurement of a successful person?
They're there to serve the public. Can we get the purpose of an MP correct?
As I understand Rayner voted for all the same shitty right-wing stuff that this government has put forward too.
Ultimately she didn't really make a progressive mark in government. Purely based on performance I don't think she added much at all. (Not saying I wouldn't have liked to have seen her running the country - she would have been better leader than Starmer. Who knows.)
Interesting reshuffle. Big panic as I see it.
Let's not forget her legacy - zero hour contracts will be banned, no more fire & re-hire & tenants won't be able to be booted just cos the landlord wants them out.
I dont think they shoukd get a free pass no. But in context of dodgy politicians, I'm failing ro get too outraged about this one tbh
The difference is no one out there in the real world cares a bit about balance. Tories control (or did) the narrative - they can afford to be ridiculous. They will get the free pass.
It's pointless saying Labour have not been as bad as the Tories. Short memories will take care of that.
Labour had to be so much better - for the public to buy into it. Look at the massive collapse in the polls - Labour are held to higher standards. That's just how it works.
This logic loses them the election.
It's not about outrage either - it's about not giving the electorate an excuse to hate Labour and that's exactly what has been done.
Almost weekly.
This is the issue with taxation. Labour are associated with high taxation (it's not true when compared to all the stealth taxes that came on board during the Tories tenure) - but that's the public perception.
So they should have made efforts to cut taxation on working people. You have to get people on side by changing their livelihoods.
Instead they totally bumbled taxation mechanically and optically.
I reckon Starmer is toast after this. I've got no doubt that many 'shenanigans' have been deployed to force Rayner's departure, probably on behalf of Streeting who is/was her main rival to succeed Starmer. Now that she's gone his attention will turn to Starmer, and Rayner will bide her time before taking her opportunity to put the boot into Starmer's leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer is gone long before the next election.
I am in the process of selling to my tenant at a favourable price.and if the new owner declares the price paid rather than true market value to HMRC will you grass her in?
that feels a little like Rayner's excuse.I only owned two flats because my partner died. One was hers
They're there to serve the public. Can we get the purpose of an MP correct?
This is an important point and a bugbear of mine. They are there to serve. They should have no privileges and perks above that of a normal worker. The whole second home bullshit also needs looking at.
I am in the process of selling to my tenant at a favourable price.and if the new owner declares the price paid rather than true market value to HMRC will you grass her in?that feels a little like Rayner's excuse.I only owned two flats because my partner died. One was hers
Its at market value just not squeezing every penny. I will also be paying the CGT due even tho I could fiddle it so I didn't have to pay
I reckon Starmer is toast after this. I've got no doubt that many 'shenanigans' have been deployed to force Rayner's departure, probably on behalf of Streeting who is/was her main rival to succeed Starmer. Now that she's gone his attention will turn to Starmer, and Rayner will bide her time before taking her opportunity to put the boot into Starmer's leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer is gone long before the next election.
I very much doubt Starmer will go
I very much doubt Starmer will go
It won't be his choice. Streeting is desperate to be PM, and he's pretty much nailed on to lose his seat at the next election so he's not going to hang around. The only chance he has is removing Starmer and taking his place before the next election is called.
Yvette Cooper is the Ken Clarke of the Labour party. I have no idea what she does to deserve these appointments to the top jobs in govt.
I have no idea what she does to deserve these appointments to the top jobs in govt.
Maybe Lammy was not sufficiently pro-Israel.
How do you think Starmer will be removed?
How do you think Starmer will be removed?
By an ICJ charge of enabling genocide (hopefully, he ****ing deserves it)
So once again its the lies, partial truths and cover up that gets them. Yesterday she said she took advice from 2 experts
What lie? she took advice from two lawyers when it turns out she should've sought advice from three...What a waste.
So once again its the lies, partial truths and cover up that gets them. Yesterday she said she took advice from 2 experts
What lie? she took advice from two lawyers when it turns out she should've sought advice from three...What a waste.
That the Hove house was her main residence despite the fact she was registered for council tax at the other house as her main residence and that for all other purposes her main residence was the other house
That she took advice from experts in the matter of trusts when she didn't and the advice she got was to seek advice from actual experts
The difference is no one out there in the real world cares a bit about balance. Tories control (or did) the narrative - they can afford to be ridiculous. They will get the free pass.
It's pointless saying Labour have not been as bad as the Tories. Short memories will take care of that.
Labour had to be so much better - for the public to buy into it. Look at the massive collapse in the polls - Labour are held to higher standards. That's just how it works.
This logic loses them the election.
It's not about outrage either - it's about not giving the electorate an excuse to hate Labour and that's exactly what has been done.
Almost weekly.
This is the issue with taxation. Labour are associated with high taxation (it's not true when compared to all the stealth taxes that came on board during the Tories tenure) - but that's the public perception.
So they should have made efforts to cut taxation on working people. You have to get people on side by changing their livelihoods.
Instead they totally bumbled taxation mechanically and optically.
I try and stay away from politics threads, but can I just say how much I agree with @rone here.
Labour were always going to be held to higher standards than the Tories (and Reform). Unfair as that may be, it can't (shouldn't?) have come as a surprise to them.
Someone, maybe on here, said that all Labour needed to do when they came into to power was make the man on the street feel a bit better about their life, make them feel like they have couple of extra quid in their pocket and not get caught in any kind of scandal.
Instead, they've had scandals, talked about immigration and if anything people feel poorer.
No wonder people, irrelevant of who they voted for, feel like they don't know what they're doing.
After looking at this reshuffle I can only think that Starmer is on the Reform payroll.
What was he thinking putting Cooper in the foreign office?
What lie? she took advice from two lawyers when it turns out she should've sought advice from three...What a waste.
Her conveyancing solicitors advised her to take tax advice. She didn't. She's either deceitful or very careless.
Labour were going to be held to higher standards because.....they spent many years taking the justifiable shots at Tory bad behaviour and KS gave the speech about “here to serve” on the steps of No 10 on Day One.
Lets hope they start to make as much fuss about Farage and his dodgy dealings too - however he isnt as arrogant/ignorant as Rayner to assume things will get overlooked, nor as quick to go either.
Its just disappointing that Rayner was so quick to get her nose in the trough with the rest of them, and that its benefited Reform who will no doubt have their nose in the trough too. Good result for the family solicitors who Rayner tried to throw under the bus though.
however he isnt as arrogant/ignorant as Rayner to assume things will get overlooked
A cursory look indicates that really isnt the case. What he is arrogant about, sadly correctly true, is the media wont really pursue him and his supporters will shrug everything off.
His partner just deciding to buy a house in Clacton being a good example vs it being a joint purchase. Legal (probably so long as he has no involvement in it) but would fail the next day paper test for a Labour minister. and would be something the papers would be searching endlessly for evidence showing he does have some ownership.
Likewise his use of a company for tv and other payments so its not income tax. Again legal but given his strong words about tax avoidance rather dubious.
I’m not defending Farage but TV companies, especially beyond the BBC and ITV, have a large number of presenters and the like as freelancers rather than employees, and he probably has little alternative to setting up a service company to be paid.
I don’t think any of us have seen the exchange of information, exact wording or sequence either of what she asked or what the answers say - as a minister we might feel we are entitled to see them but it strikes me that correspondence is potentially legally privileged and so she’s been rather candid in sharing it even with the ethics advisor. Given the ethics advisor has seen them and doesn’t describe her as deceitful, and he’s not known for mincing his words it seems intentionally disingenuous to continue to suggest that. It seems to be accepted that she was not sufficiently diligent, although I don’t know if that is “as a minister” or if HMRC would conclude every tax payer with the exact same circumstance and words would have been careless. I am fairly confident that had anyone else contacted them three months after a house transaction and said, “based on a review of my position I believe we may have inadvertently understated my liabilities” I am sure HMRC would have simply charge interest! I would also not be surprised if many people on this forum have had a letter from their solicitor during a house purchase which says something like “we have calculated the stamp duty to be X, this does not constitute tax advice and you may wish to seek such advice”. And I suspect many other people getting such a statement don’t have a tax advisor on tap so take no further action. If a solicitor really wants / expect you to take tax advice they are experienced enough at writing letters to help achieve that objective; eg “Your circumstance are unusual so we are unable to advise on your stamp duty liabilities - you should seek specialist tax advice” or “we would recommend you get specific tax advice for your situation from someone like XYZ”.What lie? she took advice from two lawyers when it turns out she should've sought advice from three...What a waste.
Her conveyancing solicitors advised her to take tax advice. She didn't. She's either deceitful or very careless.
he does have a choice how he treats the company payment to himself though!I’m not defending Farage but TV companies, especially beyond the BBC and ITV, have a large number of presenters and the like as freelancers rather than employees, and he probably has little alternative to setting up a service company to be paid.
Someone, maybe on here, said that all Labour needed to do when they came into to power was make the man on the street feel a bit better about their life, make them feel like they have couple of extra quid in their pocket and not get caught in any kind of scandal.
So much this.
This really shouldn't have been difficult to do.
We'd be looking at a different Labour now.
It comes down to material conditions. They've made no attempt to change anything on a household bill for instance. Leaving stuff to the collapsing mess of Neolibralism.
Afraid to be radical.
Pretending they have no real levers is utter nonsense. Letting the BoE mess about with interest rates too little too late. Letting water companies go on a binge and be totally irresponsible with our life source. Not really doing anything for the environment by ignoring the impending problems. Not investing in small business with grants and schemes. (As a small business I've seen absolutely nothing. Under the Tories I got the odd grant and the bounce back loan which really helped.)
Then when people start messing around and putting flags up - they can't see the connection between a broken country and Labour's trajectory.
Instead we have discussion about ID cards and other standard diversions.
Look at the FTSE 100 - it's at record highs of 9000+ that should according to capitalism be making everyone wealthy. Guess what? - turns out there is no connection between the real economy and people with wealth! Trickle down doing its thing again. You know where that money came from? -the BoE funds nice interest income into people's accounts who then purchase bonds and other assets. Interest income is created from nothing by the BoE. Why are there no fiscal rules for people being given money here? Why is there a line of cash available to people with money?
It's staring us in the face. The BoE create money for the rich and deprive the rest of us. It is that simple.
It would just take one journalist one question to the Chancellor - "how can your central bank easily without restraint or fiscal rule create money for people with assets? But can't spend for public purpose?"
I'm so so angry that probably the one hope we have had has been utterly squandered.
Labour's legacy will send the country into an even bigger dive.
- Given the ethics advisor has seen them and doesn’t describe her as deceitful, and he’s not known for mincing his words it seems intentionally disingenuous to continue to suggest that.
The only person who truly knows their motivation for failing to take advice is Rayner. As for the rest of your post, your description of what HMRC would likely do is optimistic to say the least. They do take account of circumstances and being careless won't necessarily get you out of a fine. She has a complex set of arrangements which make her case rather different to be simple house purchase.
She took advice and seemingly some of the advice was “get some definitive advice from a specialist”. So, she either thought “hmmm, that’s a bit more pfaff and fees I’m sure they’re being over dramatic and I'll say nothing more and it will fall through the cracks", or "maybe I am liable but if I stay quiet I’ll get away with it”. Both are acts of commission in that she took a course of action despite being told to ask someone of a higher knowledge of the rules.
As for HMRC fines, they have quite a game of snakes and ladders with the amount they can fine you depending on the degree of determination you’ve gone to to not pay the tax and how easily you admit the error of your ways. I once didn’t declare a bit of income from which tax had been deducted at source because it came to me in a convoluted way. HMRC systems managed to cross check my return vs numbers they had and raised a query. I owed them some extra money because although I had had tax deducted at source a quirk of the tax system which I hadn’t even thought of meant I owed them extra. I felt a bit unlucky, tripped up by the complexity of the tax system rather than any attempt to avoid paying what I should, but having had it all explained to me by a tax accountant I agreed I did owe money. I picked up a penalty (15%) but because I put my hands up straightaway it is was suspended for 12 months and reduced to zero for no further transgressions.
Any reasonable conveyancer should know the rules around SDLT and second homes. But if you include the Trust element, I reckon 10-20% might know what to apply. Probably another 30-40% would know it was worth querying. But, realistically, the client ought to be taking separate and trusted advice if they've structured their own arrangements in a niche way.
The speed with which she has resigned suggests to me that there's a bit more to this. Not necessarily more arrangements to be uncovered, but more about her attitude and conduct towards this.
Also, just having a spare forty grand to make good is unlikely to play well to normal folk who see their income disappear every month with no prospect of building up savings.
Any reasonable conveyancer should know the rules around SDLT and second homes. But if you include the Trust element, I reckon 10-20% might know what to apply. Probably another 30-40% would know it was worth querying. But, realistically, the client ought to be taking separate and trusted advice if they've structured their own arrangements in a niche way.
The speed with which she has resigned suggests to me that there's a bit more to this. Not necessarily more arrangements to be uncovered, but more about her attitude and conduct towards this.
Also, just having a spare forty grand to make good is unlikely to play well to normal folk who see their income disappear every month with no prospect of building up savings.
I've just checked the solictors website that I used when buying a house... they have 5 smallish offices, so I guess a medium size firm.
Amongst 9 'departments' in total, they have 3 distinct deparments for conveayance, wills & probate, and trusts & estates.
I guess that alone is clue enough that a conveyancer isn't gong to be a specialist in either of the other two areas, and they should simply advise you to take further advice, and it sounds like in this case they did.
I think, being objective, it's hard to argue Rayner wasn't a bit remiss here, but I don't think we can be sure there's anything more nefarious than that going on - and we probably never will be sure.
Hence what happened, is what happens when anyone stuffs up a tax declaration - if you pay up without fuss they don't tend to drag you over the coals too much.
I do agree though given the party she is in, and her position, she probaby had to go - if not mostly only because of the media circus it would create, the press would dine out for months/years on this and would cause a huge headache for the party as a whole.
It does seem a little rough though, given the constant rule breaking the tories were up to - and we know a lot of that was done with intent - we're almost conditioned to accept that tories are completley corrupt.
I doubt she has a 'spare' 40k tbh. Her (ex) salary may appear high against the average but its still not a lot to support a 600+k mortgage and ironically given the circumstances she will be paying a load of income tax in that bracket so her take home isn't as much as people think. She's only been earning that for a reasonably short timeframe as well plus her outgoings must be considerable with another house even sharing it with her husband. I'm not saying she's on the breadline but its amazing how people spend right up to and above their means. Hence why she was looking to shave the stamp duty down a bit. There are also rumblings about her other house being overvalued when it was 'sold' to the trust allowing her to take out excess funds from the trust. I suspect that if true, its actually a criminal offence unlike the stamp duty fiasco though very hard to prove.
It does seem a little rough though, given the constant rule breaking the tories were up to - and we know a lot of that was done with intent - we're almost conditioned to accept that tories are completley corrupt.
However, one can only guess how Rayner would have responded if the tories were in power and a tory minister had been caught doing the same. Forgiving, not baying for blood and their resignation?
It does seem a little rough though, given the constant rule breaking the tories were up to - and we know a lot of that was done with intent - we're almost conditioned to accept that tories are completley corrupt.
However, one can only guess how Rayner would have responded if the tories were in power and a tory minister had been caught doing the same. Forgiving, not baying for blood and their resignation?
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.
However, one can only guess how Rayner would have responded if the tories were in power and a tory minister had been caught doing the same. Forgiving, not baying for blood and their resignation?
We don't need to guess. She was baying for blood whenever a scandal arose and is on record as saying "One rule for them, one for everybody else".
However, one can only guess how Rayner would have responded if the tories were in power and a tory minister had been caught doing the same. Forgiving, not baying for blood and their resignation?
We don't need to guess. She was baying for blood whenever a scandal arose and is on record as saying "One rule for them, one for everybody else".
She's correct though - and she's resigned - a tory MP wouldn't have.
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.