Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[S600BSB]

Evanivitch said:

andymadmak said:

Evanivitch said:

Earthdweller said:

But the Rayner case isn’t about taking advantage of parliamentary rules quite legally though maybe morally dubiously, it’s about her honesty and integrity and fitness to hold high office

No, it isn't. It's about trying to smear someone the Tory party think is beneath them. The Torys literally elected a serial adulterer and liar into office. Their PM and and chancellor have been given penalties for breaking their own laws, and the chancellor then became PM!

It's the desperate acts of a desperate party.

Surely it's about whether she has broken the law or not? If she has, then the severity or otherwise of that breach should determine what happens next. The trouble for AR is that she has already proscribed the appropriate punishment, no matter how minor the infraction (when talking about others) so by her own words she may have to go, even if many sensible people of all political persuasions would have probably just shrugged their shoulders.

Edited by andymadmak on Monday 13th May 15:07

And I agree, she should fall on her own sword if that's the case she's found guilty of a criminal offence.

Bit it'll change nothing in the Tory party.

Agree. Important Labour are better, and are seen to be better, than the Cons.

[TonyToniTone]

Evanivitch said:

And I agree, she should fall on her own sword if that's the case she's found guilty of a criminal offence.

Bit it'll change nothing in the Tory party.

So it has to be a criminal offence, plenty of wriggle room then.

[Randy Winkman]

119 said:

Well said.

I reckon she's toast.

If "toast" means she'll have to resign she will simply do that and Labour will still win the GE. Then 6 months later she'll be given another role in the party.

[Evanivitch]

TonyToniTone said:

Evanivitch said:

And I agree, she should fall on her own sword if that's the case she's found guilty of a criminal offence.

Bit it'll change nothing in the Tory party.

So it has to be a criminal offence, plenty of wriggle room then.

And a very, very clear line.

[pork911]

Criminal offence or just breaking the law? If the latter, that is now no longer a bar to high office.

[Evanivitch]

pork911 said:

Criminal offence or just breaking the law? If the latter, that is now no longer a bar to high office.

Are we barring people with speeding tickets from cabinet?

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-suella...

[Biggy Stardust]

Evanivitch said:

And a very, very clear line.

Not so much a clear line as a high bar.

[rscott]

Wombat3 said:

Earthdweller said:

I genuinely think that 15 years ago she really didn’t think she’d done anything wrong .....

As others have said, an excellent and on-the-money post.

The bit I have quoted above however I'm not so sure about. There appear to be 3 potential areas of questionable financial goings on: CGT, Council house purchase discounts & Council tax single person discounts.

I could quite believe she did not understand the rules around CGT, but the latter two you have to apply for AIUI & the information/rules on each would have been given to her at the time.

If she is being interviewed it won't be to do with CGT because the police simply do not get involved in that.

Therefore its either to do with Council tax or the Council house purchase issues, or possibly the electoral role issue though as has been said it doesn't really look like she's done much on the latter & you can be registered at more than one property.

I don't think there are any issues around the council house purchase discounts - there doesn't seem to be any dispute that she lived there for the required time before the purchase.
She would only have to repay some of the discount had she sold within 5 years of purchase - there's nothing in the rules which says the purchaser needs to live there for all that time.

As you say, it's perfectly legal to be on the electoral roll more than once (nothing in the regs prevents you being registered at two different addresses, even in the same district). Many MPs are on it more than once - once at home and another at their London accomodation.

So potentially the only issue left from your list of 3 is whether she claimed the single person discount inappropriately. Whether the council would still have records going back 9 years could be an issue, but I've not even seen any clear statements as to whether she claimed it or not?

[Evanivitch]

Biggy Stardust said:

Evanivitch said:

And a very, very clear line.

Not so much a clear line as a high bar.

Nothing high about it, the former and current prime minister have already had that covered.

[TonyToniTone]

Evanivitch said:

Nothing high about it, the former and current prime minister have already had that covered.

Is a FPN a criminal conviction?

[98elise]

TonyToniTone said:

Evanivitch said:

And I agree, she should fall on her own sword if that's the case she's found guilty of a criminal offence.

Bit it'll change nothing in the Tory party.

So it has to be a criminal offence, plenty of wriggle room then.

There is a reason she chose those words.

[98elise]

Evanivitch said:

TonyToniTone said:

Evanivitch said:

And I agree, she should fall on her own sword if that's the case she's found guilty of a criminal offence.

Bit it'll change nothing in the Tory party.

So it has to be a criminal offence, plenty of wriggle room then.

And a very, very clear line.

And she's been clear where that line sits when it's Tories!

[Siko]

98elise said:

And she's been clear where that line sits when it's Tories!

She has indeed Hoist by her own petard methinks.

[Evanivitch]

TonyToniTone said:

Evanivitch said:

Nothing high about it, the former and current prime minister have already had that covered.

Is a FPN a criminal conviction?

An FPN isn't a conviction, but it is the result of an alleged criminal offence.

[djohnson]

Wombat3 said:

Earthdweller said:

I genuinely think that 15 years ago she really didn’t think she’d done anything wrong .....

As others have said, an excellent and on-the-money post.

The bit I have quoted above however I'm not so sure about. There appear to be 3 potential areas of questionable financial goings on: CGT, Council house purchase discounts & Council tax single person discounts.

I could quite believe she did not understand the rules around CGT, but the latter two you have to apply for AIUI & the information/rules on each would have been given to her at the time.

If she is being interviewed it won't be to do with CGT because the police simply do not get involved in that.

Therefore its either to do with Council tax or the Council house purchase issues, or possibly the electoral role issue though as has been said it doesn't really look like she's done much on the latter & you can be registered at more than one property.

…. or whether her brother received some housing or other benefit by pretending to live with her husband which he wouldn’t have received had it been clear he was renting from his sister.

[abzmike]

Evanivitch said:

TonyToniTone said:

Evanivitch said:

Nothing high about it, the former and current prime minister have already had that covered.

Is a FPN a criminal conviction?

An FPN isn't a conviction, but it is the result of an alleged criminal offence.

Ask the PM... he's got a couple.

[djohnson]

rscott said:

I don't think there are any issues around the council house purchase discounts - there doesn't seem to be any dispute that she lived there for the required time before the purchase.
She would only have to repay some of the discount had she sold within 5 years of purchase - there's nothing in the rules which says the purchaser needs to live there for all that time.

I think there’s more to this that we currently realise. I only speculate, but I wonder if the apparent clarity that she resided there long enough to qualify for the full discount isn’t quite right and actually it was rented to her brother prior to her being entitled to the full discount. That’d certainly be a more plausible explanation for the plain obfuscation over who lived where than the suggestion that she both understood and set out to evade CGT. I also wonder whether LAs had any scope to bespoke the terms of the arrangement and hence whether AR actually had an obligation to live there for a period of time post purchase or return part of the discount. If such a requirement wasn’t added by many other LAs it wouldn’t generally be expected to have existed.

[Baroque attacks]

djohnson said:

rscott said:

I don't think there are any issues around the council house purchase discounts - there doesn't seem to be any dispute that she lived there for the required time before the purchase.
She would only have to repay some of the discount had she sold within 5 years of purchase - there's nothing in the rules which says the purchaser needs to live there for all that time.

I think there’s more to this that we currently realise. I only speculate, but I wonder if the apparent clarity that she resided there long enough to qualify for the full discount isn’t quite right and actually it was rented to her brother prior to her being entitled to the full discount. That’d certainly be a more plausible explanation for the plain obfuscation over who lived where than the suggestion that she both understood and set out to evade CGT. I also wonder whether LAs had any scope to bespoke the terms of the arrangement and hence whether AR actually had an obligation to live there for a period of time post purchase or return part of the discount. If such a requirement wasn’t added by many other LAs it wouldn’t generally be expected to have existed.

You’d assume so, for it to be taking this long to close it down, either way.

[rscott]

djohnson said:

rscott said:

I don't think there are any issues around the council house purchase discounts - there doesn't seem to be any dispute that she lived there for the required time before the purchase.
She would only have to repay some of the discount had she sold within 5 years of purchase - there's nothing in the rules which says the purchaser needs to live there for all that time.

I think there’s more to this that we currently realise. I only speculate, but I wonder if the apparent clarity that she resided there long enough to qualify for the full discount isn’t quite right and actually it was rented to her brother prior to her being entitled to the full discount. That’d certainly be a more plausible explanation for the plain obfuscation over who lived where than the suggestion that she both understood and set out to evade CGT. I also wonder whether LAs had any scope to bespoke the terms of the arrangement and hence whether AR actually had an obligation to live there for a period of time post purchase or return part of the discount. If such a requirement wasn’t added by many other LAs it wouldn’t generally be expected to have existed.

I doubt there was any bespoke arrangement. I think it's just confusion from some commentators about the rules regarding what happens after purchase.
There were a lot of posts on here and Twitter saying she had to live there for 5 years, but none have been able to post links to any official policies/websites which back that claim up.

[Mr Penguin]

I assumed that there would be rules on actually living there for a while after buying but then couldn't find anything to confirm it and I think most people would think it not on if she immediately rented it out, even if it is legal.

The reason she doesn't want to share her legal advice may be because it gets her off any criminal charges but at a cost of hurting her political reputation.