The Labour Government

[meltonblue]

So we can all defraud HMRC and have it dealt with behind closed doors then yeah because the country is in a bit of a mess?

Maybe it’s in a mess because of tax dodging fuckers like Raynor who get to decide what the rest of us have to do whilst she ignores it?

It’s not defrauding HMRC, there’s no need to make it out worse!

 

[BossHog]

Who supplied the legal advice to Angela Rayner? Was it cabinet colleague Jonathan Reynolds? He’s a solicitor. Oh no, I remember now, he’s not. He made that up

 

[Manchester33]

As a Labour voter, her position is clearly untenable. She should have resigned immediately — clinging on is pointless when we all know she’ll be gone by the end of September.

If there was any “silver bullet” (proof this was simply misguided but professional advice), it would already be out in the open.

Frustrating, really — she felt closer to a traditional Labour politician than Starmer’s centrism.

 

[City Hobgoblin]

So we can all defraud HMRC and have it dealt with behind closed doors then yeah because the country is in a bit of a mess?

Maybe it’s in a mess because of tax dodging fuckers like Raynor who get to decide what the rest of us have to do whilst she ignores it?

Even if her tax avoidance was intentional, how does it compare to the tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta etc?

 

[Manchester33]

Even if her tax avoidance was intentional, how does it compare to the tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta etc?

What she’s accused of is not tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is legal. She’s not paid tax she HAD to pay.

I dislike those companies and I’m not defending them, but you have to hold the deputy PM to a significantly higher standard. If she were a Tory every Labour voter (myself included) would (rightfully) be calling for her resignation.

 

[Vic]

I'll hold my hands up about Rayner's "advice". I really couldn't see any problem if she had divested herself of her share in the Ashton house (even if she still resided there part of the time). You don't pay the higher rate if you only own one residence - except it seems for this small print in the rules: you still have another residence if it " - is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)".

 

[blueinsa]

Even if her tax avoidance was intentional, how does it compare to the tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta etc?

Stop it.

 

[meltonblue]

I'll hold my hands up about Rayner's "advice". I really couldn't see any problem if she had divested herself of her share in the Ashton house (even if she still resided there part of the time). You don't pay the higher rate if you only own one residence - except it seems for this small print in the rules: you still have another residence if it " - is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)".

The issue she’s got is also how vociferously she’s gone after people in the past too. Even if it’s not remotely a comparable in terms of the actual action (Zahawi for example), if you’re going to do that then you’ve got to be clean yourself, particularly for someone like Raynor given the scrutiny.

 

[Djibrilshairdo]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but why is the mp for Ashton under Lyne buying an £800,000 flat in Sussex? Does she even live in Ashton anymore?

Also how does the housing secretary seemingly not understand her own rules?

Perhaps it’s the threat of Labour losing the Ashton seat to Reform and Raynor has (had) eyes on a seat with a 20k majority that guarantees continuation of her £150k meal ticket. Or perhaps she just likes swimming.

 

[Oldham Exile]

a measured response

I assume that you posted this to ensure that we all saw the opinions of the many comments made?

Such as:

"Question is would a normal person with a disabled child be allowed to get away with this? Or would the book be thrown at them? There has to be parity for all."

Which is typical of them

 

[meltonblue]

I assume that you posted this to ensure that we all saw the opinions of the many comments made?

Such as:

"Question is would a normal person with a disabled child be allowed to get away with this? Or would the book be thrown at them? There has to be parity for all."

Which is typical of them

That makes no sense to be fair. A “normal” person would probably be better off, given it’s likely they wouldn’t lose their job over it.

 

[Oldham Exile]

The context of that legal advice is key.

If legal advice was in response to a direction from Rayner saying “please move forward with this transaction and ensure I pay the correct amount of tax and fees” then I think disclosing that would be very powerful.

She’s isn’t a solicitor / legal expert and those of us who aren’t do have to defer to professionals who give paid advice for that very reason.

However, if the legal advice was in response to a direction from Rayner of “please reduce my tax and fees in this transaction as much as possible and use any legal mechanism to do so”, it would be a very different story.

Unless she publishes documents that confirm scenario 1, the public will rightly assume it’s scenario 2 and she’s fucked.

Indeed - but I think that the vast majority of opinion have good reason to believe that it is scenario 2

 

[bluethrunthru]

I think

Indeed - but I think that the vast majority of opinion have good reason to believe that it is scenario 2

 

[Oldham Exile]

If having a 4.7% unemployment rate is a cause of celebration, and a success story for Labour, then presumably you must give the previous government major credit given that it was 4.1% when they left office.

I'm just wondering what has happened in recent years that has led to the UK having a lower unemployment rate than the UK......??

 

[Oldham Exile]

Even if her tax avoidance was intentional, how does it compare to the tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon, Google, Meta etc?

Although I agree that there is a need for a clampdown on such companies - this is pure deflection

 

[meltonblue]

Indeed - but I think that the vast majority of opinion have good reason to believe that it is scenario 2

The vast majority should hopefully realise they have no idea on the intention, they just know the outcome of it, which has ended up being neither of those scenarios.

 

[Brewster's millions]

That makes no sense to be fair. A “normal” person would probably be better off, given it’s likely they wouldn’t lose their job over it.

Cuts both ways though.

A ‘normal’ person wouldn’t have spent the last few years advancing their career and elevating themselves into a position of huge authority by rampaging against people avoiding tax and owning second homes.

So when it turns out that such a person has avoided tax on a matter relating to a second (or third) home, then they shouldn’t expect to treated as a normal person.

 

[TinFoilHat]

The Gammonati-

Rayner -

Hang Her!

Kill the witch!

Farage - has 4 houses, EU passport, and is currently committing treason in the US.

*Crickets*

 

[meltonblue]

Cuts both ways though.

A ‘normal’ person wouldn’t have spent the last few years advancing their career and elevating themselves into a position of huge authority by rampaging against people avoiding tax and owning second homes.

So when it turns out that such a person has avoided tax on a matter relating to a second (or third) home, then they shouldn’t expect to treated as a normal person.

Well, yes, I’ve already said she should resign for it. To be clear, it’s a second home and only in stamp duty world, not in reality.

I’m not convinced it was as intentional as others though, given if she’d have waited a few months then what she did would have been perfectly fine. Seen she’s now said she sought advice from three separate parties too.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Well, yes, I’ve already said she should resign for it. To be clear, it’s a second home and only in stamp duty world, not in reality.

I’m not convinced it was as intentional as others though, given if she’d have waited a few months then what she did would have been perfectly fine. Seen she’s now said she sought advice from three separate parties too.

Strange that she didn’t seek advice from Shoosmiths though, given that they established the trust for her son and could have very easily explained the implications of that with regard to stamp duty.

Particularly given that she sold her share of the family home (at a valuation exactly on the IHT threshold) to that trust, which appears to have been the source of the funds for the property in Hove.

Plus the fact that she’s classed as a politically exposed person, and therefore would have faced a higher level of scrutiny around the origin of the funds for purchase of the Hove property.

So lots of opportunities it seems for her to have been given the correct legal advice, or at least for the potential complications around the trust from a stamp duty perspective to have been raised. Yet strangely none of that occurred, and despite these failings, she’s not willing to disclose who provided what appears to have been very poor professional advice.