The Labour Government

[meltonblue]

Of course, I can't stand the loathsome harpy.

Which is your prerogative :) I’m just pointing out the facts as personally I couldn’t give a shit about any of them from a party political perspective.

To reiterate my position, I think she should have resigned already. I don’t think what she’s done is particularly egregious compared to others and it might well be a genuine mistake, but given she’s the housing minister and also the scrutiny she’s put on others in the past, she should have resigned yesterday as neither of those are in any way an excuse to me.

What I would say though is don’t let your personal opinion of a politician sway what you think should be expected of parliament as that’s a very slippery slope, which is why I said using parliamentary privilege was a no goer.

 

[hilts]

So you knew about the bit that says

Settlements and bare trusts
10 (1) Sub-paragraph (3) applies in relation to a land transaction if—(a) the main subject-matter of the transaction consists of a major interest in one or more dwellings,(b) the purchaser (or one of them) is acting as trustee of a settlement, and(c) under the terms of the settlement a beneficiary will be entitled to—(i) occupy the dwelling or dwellings for life, or(ii) income earned in respect of the dwelling or dwellings.
(2) Sub-paragraph (3) also applies in relation to a land transaction if—(a) the main subject-matter of the transaction consists of a term of years absolute in a dwelling, and(b) the purchaser (or one of them) is acting as a trustee of a bare trust.
(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies in relation to a land transaction the beneficiary of the settlement or bare trust (rather than the trustee) is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as the purchaser (or as one of them).
(4) Paragraphs 3(3) and 4 of Schedule 16 (trustees to be treated as the purchaser) have effect subject to sub-paragraph (3).

11 (1) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where—(a) a person is a beneficiary under a settlement,(b) a major interest in a dwelling forms part of the trust property, and(c) under the terms of the settlement, the beneficiary is entitled to—(i) occupy the dwelling for life, or(ii) income earned in respect of the dwelling.
(2) Sub-paragraph (3) also applies where—(a) a person is a beneficiary under a bare trust, and(b) a term of years absolute in a dwelling forms part of the trust property.
(3) Where this sub-paragraph applies—(a) the beneficiary is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as holding the interest in the dwelling, and(b) if the trustee of the settlement or bare trust disposes of the interest, the beneficiary is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as having disposed of it.

12 (1) This paragraph applies where, by reason of paragraph 10 or 11 or paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 16, the child of a person (“P”) would (but for this paragraph) be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as—(a) being the purchaser in relation to a land transaction,(b) holding an interest in a dwelling, or(c) having disposed of an interest in a dwelling.
(2) Where this paragraph applies—(a) P and any spouse or civil partner of P are to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as being the purchaser, holding the interest or (as the case may be) having disposed of the interest, and(b) the child is not to be so treated.
(3) But sub-paragraph (2)(a) does not apply in relation to a spouse orcivil partner of P if the two of them are not living together.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 9 applies for the purposes of thisparagraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.
(5) “Child” means a person under the age of 18.

13 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a land transaction if—(a) the main subject-matter of the transaction consists of a major interest in one or more dwellings,(b) the purchaser (or one of them) is acting as trustee of a settlement, (c) that purchaser is an individual, and(d) under the terms of the settlement a beneficiary is not entitled to—(i) occupy the dwelling or dwellings for life, or(ii) income earned in respect of the dwelling or dwellings.
(2) In determining whether the transaction falls within paragraph 4 or paragraph 7—(a) if the purchaser mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is the only purchaser, ignore paragraph (a) of those paragraphs, and(b) if that purchaser is not the only purchaser, ignore paragraph(a) of those paragraphs when having regard to that purchaser.


[2003 Finance Act, Schedule 4ZA, as amended by the Finance Act 2016 and subsequently]

Sorry you're confusing me with someone who claimed to know about stamp duty/tax laws. Doh for you,!

Anyhow what are they saying on the doorsteps of the houses with labour posters in the window? Are they backing Ange,?

Presuming you could find a doorstep that she didn't.own. :-)

Ttfn.

 

[frothy]

Good for you, you're awesome, but from what I've read, it's entirely possible she's made a mistake but everyone is so quick to jump specifically on her, primarily because parts of the media and twitter get everyone so wound up about her. They don't like northerners getting out their box you see.

FFS

 

[stonerblue]

What's comedy gold mate is your opinion on pretty much everything.

I'm here all week.

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

Hopefully there is a by election in Ashton so they can vote in an mp who actually lives in the area/ isn’t spending most of their time in the other side of the country

 

[SamTheGuru]

It is all getting very confusing. I have never voted Labour but I have to say; Jeremy Corbyn is the only person I can see right now that is being true to Labour and the values. It doesn't mean I would vote for Labour if Jeremy Corbyn was in charge (I didn't before); But respect where respect is due. The whole system is a sham and it degrades society increasingly when you see active banter in the house of commons day by day.

 

[city2]

She’s toast

 

[SamTheGuru]

I am a little bit angry about her trying to substantiate through humanisation. How incredibly patronising can you be?

 

[urban genie]

She has refered herself to tge parliamemetary ethics commitee, if found guilty she resigns.

no tory who has been caught out ever did and plenty the last 14 years robbed tax payer blind and openly.

She's fucked up, and live by the sword n. all that, bit takong up the front page new over an act of treason by the fisherprice mosley frog faced **** is tiresome and ridiculous, also the rent a mob who spray painted her house are orchastrated just like the rest.

She done wrong and should face the music, bit theor is an underlyign theme here of destabalisation in the way it is being reported conpared to similar previously that should concern us all

 

[117 M34]

Hopefully there is a by election in Ashton so they can vote in an mp who actually lives in the area/ isn’t spending most of their time in the other side of the country

Has any deputy PM spent a lot of time in their constituency area?

 

[Gray]

Very short honeymoon period for the Labour Party, they just do not understand what really pisses off the voters.

 

[urban genie]

Very short honeymoon period for the Labour Party, they just do not understand what really pisses off the voters.

They are poor are showing what they have done well and poorer at handing the rolling out unpopular policy.


letting reeves loose to cut the winter fuel as a first month policy gave those against them an in and since their good work is overshaddowed by negative press even though most of it is nonsnense

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Going to be very interesting today.

I thought the way senior Labour politicians openly and unequivocally backed her yesterday was noteworthy and possibly telling. It’s safe to assume they likely know more than the rest of us about the minutiae.

Think they only way she can survive was if she was given negligent advice by an appropriate legal professional (who she was entitled to believe had some expertise in the relevant field) and that advice was founded on full and frank instructions from Rayner.

Anything less than that and I’d say her position is untenable I’m afraid. Which is a shame.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Want to know how completely f*cked up the UK is?

The chancellor of the exchequer, the person in charge of the country's finances and taxation is DEFENDING tax avoidance because the person doing it is her mate

That's how rotten our government is.

It's ok to avoid tax ... its illegal to evade tax. The question is which one did Rayner try and do?

 

[Blue Maverick]

The big question is why is her second hime in Hove? Surely she shoukd be travelling back to Ashton to see her constituents

 

[metalblue]

Following on from the good news of the Norwegian’s buying frigates some more good news in the offering for our shipbuilders.

Rosyth shipyard expected to win £1bn Danish navy contract

The Babcock shipyard in Rosyth is finalising a deal to build up to four Type 31 frigates for the Danish navy.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[One Fan Clapping]

Good for you, you're awesome, but from what I've read, it's entirely possible she's made a mistake but everyone is so quick to jump specifically on her, primarily because parts of the media and twitter get everyone so wound up about her. They don't like northerners getting out their box you see.

Nothing to do with that. If she hadn’t persistently called for at least ten other MPs to be sacked (before any inquiry was held- some trade union rep) I would not have cared less. She’s persistently said that if she broke any rules she resign. What’s she waiting for?

 

[hcblue95]

Nothing to do with that. If she hadn’t persistently called for at least ten other MPs to be sacked (before any inquiry was held- some trade union rep) I would not have cared less. She’s persistently said that if she broke any rules she resign. What’s she waiting for?

She's waiting to find out if she's broken any rules I guess?

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's ok to avoid tax ... its illegal to evade tax. The question is which one did Rayner try and do?

Is avoidance OK when you've spent your whole career mercilessly slagging people off for doing what she's done?

I don't think it is at all.

Not to mention her very poor judgement at best.

 

[metalblue]

Going to be very interesting today.

I thought the way senior Labour politicians openly and unequivocally backed her yesterday was noteworthy and possibly telling. It’s safe to assume they likely know more than the rest of us about the minutiae.

Think they only way she can survive was if she was given negligent advice by an appropriate legal professional (who she was entitled to believe had some expertise in the relevant field) and that advice was founded on full and frank instructions from Rayner.

Anything less than that and I’d say her position is untenable I’m afraid. Which is a shame.

Add in that Starmer put a timeline on the conclusion of his appointed independent ethics advisor on top of the way she was backed yesterday, certainly interesting.