The Labour Government

[metalblue]

Whatever the mechanism, she’s got to go.

Agreed mate just think people need to appreciate there is a process and it’s probably out of Starmer’s hands.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Rayner should have offered her resignation immediately her “mistake” ? .became public knowledge, I say the same for all our politicians who seem to think they are above the law.

They know when they accept high office the dirty laundry will be discovered and aired publicly.

 

[meltonblue]

Agreed mate just think people need to appreciate there is a process and it’s probably out of Starmer’s hands.

It’ll be her resigning when it does happen.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Disagree. Think this will do for her before the month is out.

It would be disingenuous of me to not say I hope you're right.

 

[Earlyriser]

I agree that her position is untenable, but doubt she will jump nor be pushed. She must have known the optics of this latest transaction would look terrible even if she thought it legal. And yet she did it anyway. I think that means she doesn't really give a toss about public opinion so unless Starmer sacks her - which I doubt he will after his latest comments - I think she will just stay put.

I honestly think her choice of sunglasses yesterday was ' a fuck you media' statement

 

[Brewster's millions]

I wonder if she is going to publish the initial tax advice that she received, and which led her to paying the wrong amount of tax?

One would think that this would be the easiest, simplest and most effective way of supporting her argument and proving that her avoiding an additional 40 grand in tax was a honest and unwitting mistake.

If it existed, you would think that she’d be keen to prove it.

 

[blueinsa]

I wonder if she is going to publish the initial tax advice that she received, and which led her to paying the wrong amount of tax?

One would think that this would be the easiest, simplest and most effective way of supporting her argument and proving that her avoiding an additional 40 grand in tax was a honest and unwitting mistake.

If it existed, you would think that she’d be keen to prove it.

You also not buying the “I instructed expert advice to ensure I don’t break the law but it turns out they wasn’t all that expert”?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wonder if she is going to publish the initial tax advice that she received, and which led her to paying the wrong amount of tax?

One would think that this would be the easiest, simplest and most effective way of supporting her argument and proving that her avoiding an additional 40 grand in tax was a honest and unwitting mistake.

If it existed, you would think that she’d be keen to prove it.

Interesting point. I’m not sure if she’s made it clear if it was financial or legal advice. Or whether it was written or oral. Plenty of people act on oral advice, but even so it could still be corroborated by the source I guess.

I think if it was written advice from a reputable source then she could disclose it, although it could contain other matters which (for perfectly legitimate reasons) she doesn’t want in the public domain.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wonder if she is going to publish the initial tax advice that she received, and which led her to paying the wrong amount of tax?

One would think that this would be the easiest, simplest and most effective way of supporting her argument and proving that her avoiding an additional 40 grand in tax was a honest and unwitting mistake.

If it existed, you would think that she’d be keen to prove it.

If she did, does that mean you think she wouldn’t need to resign?

 

[Brewster's millions]

You also not buying the “I instructed expert advice to ensure I don’t break the law but it turns out they wasn’t all that expert”?

I think she’s lied about the matter is still doing so.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Interesting point. I’m not sure if she’s made it clear if it was financial or legal advice. Or whether it was written or oral. Plenty of people act on oral advice, but even so it could still be corroborated by the source I guess.

I think if it was written advice from a reputable source then she could disclose it, although it could contain other matters which (for perfectly legitimate reasons) she doesn’t want in the public domain.

She has said that she received legal advice on the purchase, rather than advice in general. If it was provided in a meeting and not documented, you would think that the meeting itself could be corroborated.

I wouldn’t expect her to disclose unnecessary personal details if written advice was provided, but I would be surprised if even a redacted document couldn’t provide evidence of the critical part of the judgement.

To answer your question on whether she would need to resign if the incorrect advice could be proven, I think it would make it a more finely balanced decision than it is currently. But ultimately I think she should still resign.

The idea of her property in Hove being her primary residence was always a tall story and being the recipient of poor advice isn’t a defence in the eyes of the HMRC. For a minister in charge of housing policy that isn’t something you can come back from.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The idea of her property in Hove being her primary residence was always a tall story and being the recipient of poor advice isn’t a defence in the eyes of the HMRC. For a minister in charge of housing policy that isn’t something you can come back from.

If accepted it’s a sustainable defence against dishonesty, but not liability. It could impact on any surcharge too, if the advice was corroborated and accepted.

And upon reflection I agree that she should probably still go in any event.

 

[meltonblue]

She has said that she received legal advice on the purchase, rather than advice in general. If it was provided in a meeting and not documented, you would think that the meeting itself could be corroborated.

I wouldn’t expect her to disclose unnecessary personal details if written advice was provided, but I would be surprised if even a redacted document couldn’t provide evidence of the critical part of the judgement.

To answer your question on whether she would need to resign if the incorrect advice could be proven, I think it would make it a more finely balanced decision than it is currently. But ultimately I think she should still resign.

The idea of her property in Hove being her primary residence was always a tall story and being the recipient of poor advice isn’t a defence in the eyes of the HMRC. For a minister in charge of housing policy that isn’t something you can come back from.

On your last paragraph, if she can show she obtained appropriate legal advice then she’ll owe back tax and interest. If she can’t then HMRC classes it as carelessness, which has a penalty to it too.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

On your last paragraph, if she can show she obtained appropriate legal advice then she’ll owe back tax and interest. If she can’t then HMRC classes it as carelessness, which has a penalty to it too.

I think if she can’t, having unequivocally claimed she was in receipt of that advice then it arguably stretches beyond carelessness, although HMRC don’t generally go straight to dishonestly because of the costs involved in a prosecution unless it’s a more sustained course of conduct.

 

[Earlyriser]

Once the attack dogs get a scent of blood they will not let it go. She will either be forced to resign or be sacked on the basis that the situation has become a distraction from other events. However may think if it keeps the migrant story off the front pages....

 

[woody1968]

Bogus legal advice - really - who from ? Name and shame Raynor or resign.

 

[KS55]

People in second houses PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER shouldn't throw stones.

Small adjustment.

 

[KS55]

Praying for some whiffs of fiscal improvement by then I suspect.

Which will not arrive. The fiscal position is worsening by the day.

 

[meltonblue]

I think if she can’t, having unequivocally claimed she was in receipt of that advice then it arguably stretches beyond carelessness, although HMRC don’t generally go straight to dishonestly because of the costs involved in a prosecution unless it’s a more sustained course of conduct.

If it turns out she was given the correct legal advice and went against it then I’d agree.

 

[mcmxciijones]

Do as we say not as we do. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.