The Labour Government

gordondaviesmoustache said:
I talk in here like I talk in real life. I’m highly articulate but I routinely use coarse, industrial language, that am not afraid to use in ‘refined’ company. It’s not an act, and nor is it calculated - it’s how I express myself and have done for many years, and to great effect I’d say.

I’m generally viewed an an exceptional communicator with highly developed people skills by those that know me in the real world, as well as being true to myself, and a genuine person by those I interact with. Nothing fake or calculated about me.

It all helps, of course if, like Rayner, you have huge reserves of self-confidence, in terms of being true to yourself.

Which is why I guess I found your reasoning in relation to Rayner to be poor, because I don’t personally see anything calculated. She expresses herself in a way that I view as natural to her, which for reasons of the foregoing I view as genuine.

I think your judgement of her is wholly wrong.
Click to expand...
Being true to yourself does not mean that you bring "your whole self to work". That modern day fetish is already running out of steam. For those who still posses at least a faltering grasp on reality, there is still a thing called a professional self, you know the lumberjack who turns up for work and leaves his suspenders and a bra at home.

9r5sej.jpg


johnny crossan said:
her current persona has been refined to fit her political ambitions. In short she's a fake.
Click to expand...
No, in short she's a politician.

389hka.jpg
 
Vic said:
Is this just a Rayner-specific thing or does it apply to every MP with a second home abroad?
Click to expand...
A socialist with a second home abroad or in this country? Why do we need to build 1.5 million homes again?

And no, not just Rayner. Anyone who behaves hypocritically. No one would expect Trump to behave selflessly so he can get away with dodgy behaviour. But Socialists and the left in general set themselves up as 'better' people so leave themselves with farer to fall. She may be totally innocent (and naive) or she may have knowingly played the margins, nothing that I myself would not have tried! The difference is I have not sold myself as "Honest Palerider" the working mans friend. The point is she is supposed to be BETTER than Trump, Farage, Johnson not exactly the same!
 
Last edited:
metalblue said:
On the contrary, I think strong journalism has brought many an MP to task over the years.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting there were no instances of strong journalism. I was saying we have significant structural issues if you believe independence and plurality in media are important for democracy.

90% of conventional media in the UK is owned by 3 corporations and 2 tech corporations who account for 80% of online advertising revenue own the majority of the top news platforms and in effect act as gatekeepers of public discourse. The BBC has been transformed from a source of national pride to a political football. To name but three disturbing trends.
 
blueinsa said:
It’s hard Vic when you spend a few days telling us we are all wrong and she has done nothing wrong, I get it.

She has made you see your arse but that’s politics mate.

You will get over it.
Click to expand...
Well, that's bunkum too.

I was the first to quote the bit she got wrong

Vic said:
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)".
Click to expand...

Since then all I've done is try and sift through the hatred, the misogyny and the class warfare to get to a bit of understanding. Unlike those rushing headlong to judgment (and making stuff up), I've tried to read the HMRC guidance - and the legalese of section 4ZA behind it.

I'm open to correction on this, but from what I can see the actual HMRC declaration doesn't mention the "trust" in the question about ownership. So you could ignore this box if you didn't realise that ownership can mean something other than ownership - i.e. you're treated as an owner when you're not an owner. (Some might say the law is an ass.)

"Residential — additional properties":
Is where the purchase of a residential property results in you owning more than one residential property
If the new property is a replacement for your main residence which has not yet been sold, you must still use this code but you may be able to claim a refund when your main residence is sold
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Well, that's bunkum too.

I was the first to quote the bit she got wrong



Since then all I've done is try and sift through the hatred, the misogyny and the class warfare to get to a bit of understanding. Unlike those rushing headlong to judgment (and making stuff up), I've tried to read the HMRC guidance - and the legalese of sectuon 4ZA behind it.

I'm open to correction on this, but from what I can see the actual HMRC declaration doesn't mention the "trust" in the question about ownership. So you could ignore this box if you didn't realise that ownership can mean something other than ownership - i.e. you're treated as an owner when you're not an owner. (Some might say the law is an ass.)

"Residential — additional properties":
Is where the purchase of a residential property results in you owning more than one residential property
If the new property is a replacement for your main residence which has not yet been sold, you must still use this code but you may be able to claim a refund when your main residence is sold
Click to expand...

Good summary and the relevant case law of it all here -

taxpolicy.org.uk

Why Angela Rayner is likely to pay £8,000 in HMRC penalties

Why Angela Rayner’s Hove flat triggers the higher stamp duty rate — and why HMRC is likely to fine her about £8,000 for a careless mistake.
taxpolicy.org.uk taxpolicy.org.uk
 
Vic said:
Well, that's bunkum too.

I was the first to quote the bit she got wrong



Since then all I've done is try and sift through the hatred, the misogyny and the class warfare to get to a bit of understanding. Unlike those rushing headlong to judgment (and making stuff up), I've tried to read the HMRC guidance - and the legalese of sectuon 4ZA behind it.

I'm open to correction on this, but from what I can see the actual HMRC declaration doesn't mention the "trust" in the question about ownership. So you could ignore this box if you didn't realise that ownership can mean something other than ownership - i.e. you're treated as an owner when you're not an owner. (Some might say the law is an ass.)

"Residential — additional properties":
Is where the purchase of a residential property results in you owning more than one residential property
If the new property is a replacement for your main residence which has not yet been sold, you must still use this code but you may be able to claim a refund when your main residence is sold
Click to expand...

Don’t quote me your post when you finally had the balls to rear your head after the fact lol.

You and others told us we had it all wrong, she had done nothing untoward.

Ooops!

Drop the misogyny line as well. It’s as utterly pathetic as it is expected from you and others on here that deflect and try to shut down using the same old tired accusations.

Spend 5 mins reading the Tory threads or the so called right wing threads to see the comments on females in those which funnily never seem to bring out claims of misogyny.

Funny that.
 
blueinsa said:
Don’t quote me your post when you finally had the balls to rear your head after the fact lol.

You and others told us we had it all wrong, she had done nothing untoward.

Ooops!
Click to expand...

To be fair, you did say she took out a gagging order.
 
Ashton Moss Messi said:
Angela's real crime was to be a down-to-earth northerner who left school as a single mum, lived in a council house on an estate, worked in a low pay job for the council and had the outright cheek to rise to the highest ranks of government, talking to Oxbridge types with a northern bluntness and commoner's accent.

Giving hope to all who didn't have the silver spoon.
Click to expand...
And got too effing greedy, like a lot do.
 
blueinsa said:
If it was solely her son and his medical pay out in what way did that stop her discussing her tax affairs on a completely separate house purchase?

So you want us to believe the NHS asked for a court order to stop her doing that?
Click to expand...

Because they’re inextricably linked. She can’t discuss the tax on the hove house without discussing the Ashton house as the whole thing is about the ownership and the trust. I’m not asking you to believe anything, I’m just pointing out the facts.

The court order isn’t new, it’s been in place since 2020.

Hence why there was a debate earlier in the thread about whether she could have used parliamentary privilege (which would have been an abuse of her power as an MP).
 
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
Because they’re inextricably linked. She can’t discuss the tax on the hove house without discussing the Ashton house as the whole thing is about the ownership and the trust. I’m not asking you to believe anything, I’m just pointing out the facts.

The court order isn’t new, it’s been in place since 2020.

Hence why there was a debate earlier in the thread about whether she could have used parliamentary privilege (which would have been an abuse of her power as an MP).
Click to expand...

Yet she was able to go to the court and have it lifted which suggests to me, it was her court order and not the NHS.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Who are the 6 MPs who aren't in it for themselves?
Click to expand...
Maths was never my strong point Grade 6 'O' level - when it was an actual pass (!); so I will revise north to 100% of them. I've always included our local incumbent in the stat either way.

I've seen close hand what it is like with local party politics ( vipers nest springs to mind), so I'm sure The Westminster 'bubble' is far worse. Most of them are pretty ineffective. We watch Parliament TV regularly. I despair that these people are there to represent the views of and offer support to their constituents. No wonder very little is achieved at local level ( unless it's in the south east),policy and any activity is decided by the mass of 20 something Gen Zs advising and 'guiding' the Blob.
 
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