The Labour Government

[meltonblue]

That’s pretty much it.

She lied at every stage of the investigation, most obviously by saying that she believed she had received sufficient legal advice on the matter, because that legal advice was explicit in stating that she needed to seek expert guidance in relation to stamp duty.

The only way she would have sought out that expert advice is if the initial guidance had suggested she needed to pay the additional rate of stamp duty.

Good riddance.

Worth saying again that the ethics report found she acted with integrity. It’s your opinion that she lied throughout, which you’re perfectly entitled to :)

 

[johnny crossan]

So it’s basically a shit hole?

Interesting line of thought about the character of Reform GE targets - not on this list, which must all be pretty bad then

 

[carlosthejackal]

Shit show following on the years of lies and corruption of the previous lot . Now we’ve got Farage and co pontificating on morals and honesty. Country is fucked

 

[spacecadet]

I thought her and her family were City fans.

Family may be? I don't know them. She isn't a Blue. Though it has been pointed out to me my comment wasn't called for, so will refrain comment from now on in.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Looking forward to Badenoch’s resignation later today for lying through her teeth about being offered a scholarship to Stanford University and Farage resigning after being caught out avoiding income tax by being paid through a company.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Yes it is true. If he was 18 then she wouldn’t be treated as owning it.

Nope. It's not good enough to just hand over a house in trust and claim it's not yours when in reality you are treating it as your own. It's even more black and white if the recipient is under 18, but that is not the only reason to fall foul of the rules.

If you can't accept his, I am not bothered. You've tried to defend her position sufficiently often that I am of the opinion your are a supporter of hers, which is fine, but it does mean I don't want to waste any more of my time arguing with you. Think what you like.

EDIT: Just seen the below. I rest my case. Have a nice afternoon.

Worth saying again that the ethics report found she acted with integrity. It’s your opinion that she lied throughout, which you’re perfectly entitled to :)

 

[denislawsbackheel]

While it's a pity that all Tory MPs don't resign none of the above actually breached the ministerial code while in office.

Patel did and refused to go.
Zahawi did and had to be sacked.

 

[moomba]

Politicians acting with integrity?
Let’s take Robert Jenrick, a privately educated man, who talks a bit posh and went to Cambridge.
Housing minister who dithered over Grenfell and saw a further 10 fires on his watch.
He charged tax payers £100,000 for a third home in Newark that he ‘used rarely’.
His department awarded funding to his constituency in a process that was not ‘opaque or impartial’
Obviously he was another Covid wanker who said do as I say not as I do as he broke lockdown rules at least twice but stayed on.
He had a Tory council overrule officials on building an extension, due to the damaging impact on a conservation area.

He then approved a £ billion luxury housing development to his mate Richard Desmond, a Tory donor, despite huge opposition and he did it in a rush, on a date which meant Desmond didn’t have to pay a levy of over £30M, which would have applied a few days later. He also allowed Desmond to ‘save’ over £100M by scraping London wide rules for 35% affordable housing to only 21% for this particular development only.
He said that lying on a CV, in the real world, means you resign and lose your job. Obviously, he then had to later admit that he’d lied on his CV!

And, of course, most recently, risked the collapse of a particularly heinous murder trial with his ill timed tweets. That former justice minister and now shadow secretary of stated for Justice.

Not sure what that has to do with Angela Rayner.

Are we giving a free pass to politicians we like because they're not the only ones at it?

 

[Brewster's millions]

Worth saying again that the ethics report found she acted with integrity. It’s your opinion that she lied throughout, which you’re perfectly entitled to :)

Not my opinion, It’s a proven lie.

The advice provided to her was that she couldn’t rely on the guidance that she had received, and that she needed to seek further, expert advice. Why then did she say that the advice was incorrect? It wasn’t incorrect, because the advice was that further expert judgement was required, and she ignored it.

She didn’t act on that recommendation because she didn’t want to pay the additional rate of stamp duty. That’s it in a nutshell.

 

[maxwellblue]

Not my opinion, It’s a proven lie.

The advice provided to her was that she couldn’t rely on the guidance that she had received, and that she needed to seek further, expert advice. Why then did she say that the advice was incorrect? It wasn’t incorrect, because the advice was that further expert judgement was required, and she ignored it.

She didn’t act on that recommendation because she didn’t want to pay the additional rate of stamp duty. That’s it in a nutshell.

Exactly

 

[meltonblue]

Nope. It's not good enough to just hand over a house in trust and claim it's not yours when in reality you are treating it as your own. It's even more black and white if the recipient is under 18, but that is not the only reason to fall foul of the rules.

If you can't accept his, I am not bothered. You've tried to defend her position sufficiently often that I am of the opinion your are a supporter of hers, which is fine, but it does mean I don't want to waste any more of my time arguing with you. Think what you like.

EDIT: Just seen the below. I rest my case. Have a nice afternoon.

You’re simply factually wrong and you’re googling the wrong things. It doesn’t matter where she is living, the whole point of stamp duty is ownership. When her child turns 18, he will become the legal owner of the house. Until then, the parents are considered owners, even though it’s owned by the trust.

Of course I’m not going to accept it, it’s not a debate or an opinion that you’re entitled to, as I said you are just wrong.

And on your last point, colour me surprised you haven’t read the ethics report ;)

 

[yeseye]

Another scumbag Lucy Powell going..
How can Raynor still be MP for Ashton?
Reform will clean up in that area if there is to be a by-election.

 

[meltonblue]

Not my opinion, It’s a proven lie.

The advice provided to her was that she couldn’t rely on the guidance that she had received, and that she needed to seek further, expert advice. Why then did she say that the advice was incorrect? It wasn’t incorrect, because the advice was that further expert judgement was required, and she ignored it.

She didn’t act on that recommendation because she didn’t want to pay the additional rate of stamp duty. That’s it in a nutshell.

It’s both if you read the ethics report and she should have resigned a few days ago as it was going to be an obvious finding.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Not sure what that has to do with Angela Rayner.

Are we giving a free pass to politicians we like because they're not the only ones at it?

Not giving her a free pass in the slightest. Just noting how ‘integrity’ is actually nothing of the sort, sadly.

 

[moomba]

Not giving her a free pass in the slightest. Just noting how ‘integrity’ is actually nothing of the sort, sadly.

As I said, people have zero trust in politicians and it has nothing to do with their background, or poltical party or sex or social status. It's because over time they've shown over a long period of time that they don't deserve our trust.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Another scumbag Lucy Powell going..
How can Raynor still be MP for Ashton?
Reform will clean up in that area if there is to be a by-election.

Reform have no chance in Ashton it's got a huge Muslim community, more likely to swing to Corbyn's new party.

 

[Brewster's millions]

It’s both if you read the ethics report and she should have resigned a few days ago as it was going to be an obvious finding.

I have read the report, which is why I know that she has lied.

Quite why Magnus claims she has acted with integrity throughout the process is a complete mystery- he seems more interested in her family circumstances and in making excuses for her than actually determining whether she has broken the ministerial code.

 

[MellowJoe]

Who takes her place?

 

[Chippy_boy]

You’re simply factually wrong and you’re googling the wrong things. It doesn’t matter where she is living, the whole point of stamp duty is ownership. When her child turns 18, he will become the legal owner of the house. Until then, the parents are considered owners, even though it’s owned by the trust.

Of course I’m not going to accept it, it’s not a debate or an opinion that you’re entitled to, as I said you are just wrong.

And on your last point, colour me surprised you haven’t read the ethics report ;)

Sorry but you are mistaken. It hinges upon whether a person has a beneficial interest in the property. If they do, then it continues to count as a home for SDLT purposes. So the question becomes whether she has a beneficial interest. If she merely visits for several weeks per year, she may not be classed as having a beneficial interest. But if she is able to go to the property at any time for life (of the property) - which given the situation with her son would seem likely - then she does have a beneficial interest and the additional 3% SDLT is payable on her next home.

Google it if you wish, or not. I really don't care if you want to continue to believe you're right when you're not.

 

[johnny crossan]

Patel did and refused to go.
Zahawi did and had to be sacked.

Correct, Patel was a serial breacher. The Commissioner resigned when his judgement was reversed by Boris and the code was then rewritten. Many have been alleged to have broken the code including Johnson, Kwarteng, Jenrick & Williamson but not sure if any were officially confirmed as having done so by the OPS.