The Labour Government

[dickie davies]

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-by-election

It's looking likely that she's going to be removed from the electoral roll in her constituency, so don't know how that affects her MP status
I do know that the reason MP's, when caught up in some kind of scandal generally say, "i won't stand at the next election", is because if they resign, their salary stops immediately
If they serve until a GE, and then decide not to stand, they are entitled to a further year's salary

 

[Blue Smarties]

Lucy Powell. City fan too.

Scratch that.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Keith Stalin purge of his enemies begins.

 

[yeseye]

It's looking likely that she's going to be removed from the electoral roll in her constituency, so don't know how that affects her MP status
I do know that the reason MP's, when caught up in some kind of scandal generally say, "i won't stand at the next election", is because if they resign, their salary stops immediately
If they serve until a GE, and then decide not to stand, they are entitled to a further year's salary

She’ll keep her snout in the trough as long as possible!

 

[johnny crossan]

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.

A timely reminder of the dark side of Blue Moon. Farage on the march in here too.

 

[GH64]

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.

I think he is definitely right, (and you are possibly also right)

SDLTM09815 - SDLT - higher rates for additional dwellings: interests treated as owned by an individual, trusts, children [including children subject to the Mental Health Acts] - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

Pretty clear on that - parent treated as owner of property in trust for minor child. Doesn’t matter whether she visits or not.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Wonder if she will remain the MP for Ashton - she scraped in with the vote last time with a majority of just under 7000 and around a 50% turnout. With Reform coming 2nd. Based on the last 12 months, I wouldn't be surprised if Reform take the next election here.

I doubt she'll have to and I also doubt she'll be asked to. Not only that she's a huge mortgage to pay.

 

[meltonblue]

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.

I don’t need to google it. Think about what you’re saying here and what a beneficial interest actually is and entitles the person to. She for very obvious reasons will not be claiming a beneficial interest in the Ashton house, that would be completely nonsensical.

 

[blueinsa]

Knives are out!

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Worth saying, the ethics report did find that she acted with integrity. She hasn’t lost her job for being found to be dishonest.

Being economical with the truth would seem a fitting way of putting it.
She chose not to follow the advice she was given, which, in short, said she should seek specialist advice.
The Ethics report says " she did not heed the caution" in legal advice she received.

 

[pride in battle]

Well. She’s been sacked. I’m as good at this as I am betting on City!!!!

I wonder why ?

 

[pride in battle]

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.

Scumbag ? Lucy Powell ?

 

[The perfect fumble]

Keith Stalin purge of his enemies begins.

 

[meltonblue]

Being economical with the truth would seem a fitting way of putting it.
She chose not to follow the advice she was given, which, in short, said she should seek specialist advice.
The Ethics report says " she did not heed the caution" in legal advice she received.

Yep which rightly led to the conclusion it did.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

Yep which rightly led to the conclusion it did.

So she was fibbing then.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

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.

The way some are portrayed is very different, though.

 

[Postman Pep]

Keith Stalin purge of his enemies begins.

or continues

 

[mancityvstoke]

Dangerous crossroads..............he's right

 

[meltonblue]

So she was fibbing then.

Not sure how that’s a sequitur? She clearly didn’t say the full picture and has rightly been found not to be meeting the standard of conduct required.

Personally I still see it more as incompetence, given that’s what the ethics report found.

Either way, she should have resigned a few days ago.

 

[Bluesince1979]

Just mentioning someone who didn’t resign over a massive unpaid tax bill but was a man who spoke proper is compare and contrast not whataboutery.

Its completely irrelevant though to what rayner has done.
Just cos hes a twat does that mean she can be as well.

What it goes to show is that its YET another example of a politician being in it for what they can get, thats all.

So no point in saying “what about him”!
Hes a cock
Shes a cock.