The Labour Government

dickie davies said:
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
Click to expand...
She’ll keep her snout in the trough as long as possible!
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think he is definitely right, (and you are possibly also right)
www.gov.uk

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 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.
 
crystal_mais said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
meltonblue said:
Worth saying, the ethics report did find that she acted with integrity. She hasn’t lost her job for being found to be dishonest.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TinFoilHat said:
Keith Stalin purge of his enemies begins.
Click to expand...
zhukov.gif
 
Gaylord du Bois said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep which rightly led to the conclusion it did.
 
Gaylord du Bois said:
So she was fibbing then.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top