Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
simon_harris said:
Part of the problem as I see it is that there is now zero degrees of latitude for any "indiscretion" so the default answer on any accusation is straight denial, that is then slowly walked back as details (and the truth) emerges in a fairly blatant attempt to mitigate consequences.
We should be adult enough to realise this is the real world and s
t happens, people in the most part are just trying to get through life as best they can and I sincerely doubt there was some Machiavellian plot to evade a couple of grand of CGT. Perhaps maximise what was available to her through whatever options she had at the time but that is no different to most of us, again I doubt she was thinking what if I am ever sitting on the front bench how would this look splashed across the papers...
We get the politicians we deserve and our endless need for scandal leads us to where we are.
Then admit to it, hold your hands up and "mea culpa", pay the money back as it's peanuts compared to current earnings. It's the lying about it afterwards to try and hide it that sticks in the throat (as above, from all parties).We should be adult enough to realise this is the real world and s
t happens, people in the most part are just trying to get through life as best they can and I sincerely doubt there was some Machiavellian plot to evade a couple of grand of CGT. Perhaps maximise what was available to her through whatever options she had at the time but that is no different to most of us, again I doubt she was thinking what if I am ever sitting on the front bench how would this look splashed across the papers...We get the politicians we deserve and our endless need for scandal leads us to where we are.
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Then admit to it, hold your hands up and "mea culpa", pay the money back as it's peanuts compared to current earnings. It's the lying about it afterwards to try and hide it that sticks in the throat (as above, from all parties).
We all know our system doesn't work that way...first, if she admits *any* fault, those who were already demanding her resignation then demand another police investigation and/or more HMRC investigation into her broader tax affairs. Calls for her resignation get even more shrill. Then, when she inevitably resigns, they demand anyone who has spoken in support of Rayner should "apologise". Next they focus on "who knew what, when". The focus moves to endless questions of Starmer... why hadn't he demanded her resignation earlier? Did he condemn Rayner's actions? What did this say about his judgement? Why didn't he demand answers sooner? etc etc etc. The focus also moves into the minutiae of the timeline, to try and find anything which might be a slight contradiction in Starmer's previous account so they can accuse him of lying. And on it goes. With that type of system, it is incentivised to deny everything and avoid admitting anything.
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Then admit to it, hold your hands up and "mea culpa", pay the money back as it's peanuts compared to current earnings. It's the lying about it afterwards to try and hide it that sticks in the throat (as above, from all parties).
Exactly this, its not what she did 10 years ago, its what she's doing & saying about it now that matters (if she wants to be deputy PM in less than 9 months).EddieSteadyGo said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Then admit to it, hold your hands up and "mea culpa", pay the money back as it's peanuts compared to current earnings. It's the lying about it afterwards to try and hide it that sticks in the throat (as above, from all parties).
We all know our system doesn't work that way...first, if she admits *any* fault, those who were already demanding her resignation then demand another police investigation and/or more HMRC investigation into her broader tax affairs. Calls for her resignation get even more shrill. Then, when she inevitably resigns, they demand anyone who has spoken in support of Rayner should "apologise". Next they focus on "who knew what, when". The focus moves to endless questions of Starmer... why hadn't he demanded her resignation earlier? Did he condemn Rayner's actions? What did this say about his judgement? Why didn't he demand answers sooner? etc etc etc. The focus also moves into the minutiae of the timeline, to try and find anything which might be a slight contradiction in Starmer's previous account so they can accuse him of lying. And on it goes. With that type of system, it is incentivised to deny everything and avoid admitting anything.
But, this is quite a minor thing. She should pay whatever is necessary and get on with her job. If anything further comes to light then maybe then is the time to call for her P45. Hopefully though she will be rather more thoughtful in future about how she talks about other MPs. They are all human it would seem, even Angie.
Edited to add: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqqqWAI-6QQ
Edited by andymadmak on Monday 8th April 13:32
EddieSteadyGo said:
simon_harris said:
Part of the problem as I see it is that there is now zero degrees of latitude for any "indiscretion" so the default answer on any accusation is straight denial, that is then slowly walked back as details (and the truth) emerges in a fairly blatant attempt to mitigate consequences.
We should be adult enough to realise this is the real world and st happens, people in the most part are just trying to get through life as best they can and I sincerely doubt there was some Machiavellian plot to evade a couple of grand of CGT. Perhaps maximise what was available to her through whatever options she had at the time but that is no different to most of us, again I doubt she was thinking what if I am ever sitting on the front bench how would this look splashed across the papers...
We get the politicians we deserve and our endless need for scandal leads us to where we are.
Exactly. I've been thinking about this, as to whether there is a solution, but it's hard. We have had so many years of Conservative government, that all their opponents have loved slinging mud, sometimes deserved, other times not so much. Truth didn't really matter, provided it fitted Rayner's favourite narrative of "Tory scum". And we will now go into the next 5 years of a Labour government where, despite all the "holier-than-thou" pronouncements, we will discover those politicians will have many of the same character flaws as the politicians in the present government. We should be adult enough to realise this is the real world and s
t happens, people in the most part are just trying to get through life as best they can and I sincerely doubt there was some Machiavellian plot to evade a couple of grand of CGT. Perhaps maximise what was available to her through whatever options she had at the time but that is no different to most of us, again I doubt she was thinking what if I am ever sitting on the front bench how would this look splashed across the papers...We get the politicians we deserve and our endless need for scandal leads us to where we are.
But what do we really want from our politicians and what can we reasonably expect? Truthfulness I think is important. But that means we don't "throw the book" at misdemeanours or even more serious mistakes. The satisfaction of being judgemental (enjoyed by some on here and social media in general) is corrosive because no-one can ever meet the standard, not even themselves.
And the focus on trivia means policy choices are not debated. Surely we want a government to create the best framework that is likely to improve societal health and wealth over coming decades? Whereas we seem to want to focus on finding "hypocrites" and then excoriating them, which generates a lot more heat than light.
President Merkin said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
It seems that you are lost too, since you have not included all the issues which cost the country's taxpayers a fortune when labour were in power. Try selling off part of the country's gold reserves, at an all time low price costing the country billions, or a multi billion pound computer system, that did not work for a start.
How are you getting on, with those one way glasses you seem to be wearing?
You appear to be unable to distinguish between contentious events & flat out corruption. Now we've cleared that up, would you suggest we take your other opinions seriously?How are you getting on, with those one way glasses you seem to be wearing?
Or are you so arrogant you believe that only `your' opinions are the ones that should be listened to?
Pan Pan Pan said:
President Merkin said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
It seems that you are lost too, since you have not included all the issues which cost the country's taxpayers a fortune when labour were in power. Try selling off part of the country's gold reserves, at an all time low price costing the country billions, or a multi billion pound computer system, that did not work for a start.
How are you getting on, with those one way glasses you seem to be wearing?
You appear to be unable to distinguish between contentious events & flat out corruption. Now we've cleared that up, would you suggest we take your other opinions seriously?How are you getting on, with those one way glasses you seem to be wearing?
Or are you so arrogant you believe that only `your' opinions are the ones that should be listened to?
Corruption - circumventing procurement regs so your mates gets massive government orders
Pan Pan Pan said:
Please enlighten everyone on what the difference is, between contentious events, and flat out corruption.....Or are you so arrogant you believe that only `your' opinions are the ones that should be listened to?
Well you seemingly do need something a child could grasp explaining to you, so I guess I might not be.President Merkin said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Please enlighten everyone on what the difference is, between contentious events, and flat out corruption.....Or are you so arrogant you believe that only `your' opinions are the ones that should be listened to?
Well you seemingly do need something a child could grasp explaining to you, so I guess I might not be.
86 said:
This could be an interesting story if true
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13124595/...
Both parties are going to be digging the dirt pre an election. Could turn nasty
A non-story over a possible £1,500 which HMRC don't think they are owed because there is no investigation. I guess it highlights the extent of desperation among the Conservatives and their allies in the media. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13124595/...
Both parties are going to be digging the dirt pre an election. Could turn nasty
EddieSteadyGo said:
"Fraud" FFS. I would suggest, if we use this as the basis for "throwing the book" at someone, then *everyone* would be guilty of something.
If I was to place myself into Rayner's situation, she was probably thinking about the welfare of her family and her future, and whether she wanted to fully commit to this new relationship. She didn't have a lot of money, and she wasn't thinking about being Deputy PM, so she used some grey areas, as everyone would. In fact, in the same circumstances, I could imagine myself doing exactly the same thing. When she gets asked about it many years later, she's embarrassed, and does what is the normal response i.e. deny it.
All the people (like you) who are would throw the book at her for "fraud" deserve what you get i.e. second rate politicians.
They had their first child together in 2008, married in 2010. It took her 7 years to decide whether she was going to commit to moving in with her husband, the father of her kids?If I was to place myself into Rayner's situation, she was probably thinking about the welfare of her family and her future, and whether she wanted to fully commit to this new relationship. She didn't have a lot of money, and she wasn't thinking about being Deputy PM, so she used some grey areas, as everyone would. In fact, in the same circumstances, I could imagine myself doing exactly the same thing. When she gets asked about it many years later, she's embarrassed, and does what is the normal response i.e. deny it.
All the people (like you) who are would throw the book at her for "fraud" deserve what you get i.e. second rate politicians.
Wombat3 said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Then admit to it, hold your hands up and "mea culpa", pay the money back as it's peanuts compared to current earnings. It's the lying about it afterwards to try and hide it that sticks in the throat (as above, from all parties).
Exactly this, its not what she did 10 years ago, its what she's doing & saying about it now that matters (if she wants to be deputy PM in less than 9 months).pavarotti1980 said:
This all has whiff of Kier's curry in Durham. F**k all to see but Tories happy to waste a lot of peoples time to try and make their clusterf**k of a government appear less st. Plenty of evidence rules were broken, but if the police say no rules were broken (even though they were), I will accept that, as it was not the Tories being accused on this occasion.
EFAt.blueg33 said:
There was a tax lawyer on LBC this morning, saying that the rules round CGT on property are quite grey, eg, you can nominate which is your main residence as often as you want.
His conclusion was that even experts get it wrong.
Going through this with son and his wife, you can nominate anywhere but you have to live there.His conclusion was that even experts get it wrong.
If they follow the Rayner example they will save many 10s of £k CGT when they sell wife’s house although I am sue HMRC would have a view!
CoolHands said:
JagLover said:
Does anyone genuinely believe that Rayner lived in this house, rather than with her husband, during the years in question?.
no one if they are being honest with themselves, she rented it to her brother.Edited by Baroque attacks on Monday 8th April 15:53
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff