Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[Mr Penguin]

Earthdweller said:

No it won’t be

The investigation will be being treated as a critical incident, ie one that has a serious reputational risk to the organisation

It will have been allocated to a very experienced SIO with a dedicated team of specialist detectives

It’s most likely a syndicate from FMIT ( Force Major incident team ) that has been allocated the job as a whole

These are dedicated teams that normally investigate the most serious and complex crimes/enquiries

There won’t be any corners cut at all

What would trigger that level of investigation? Is it because she is a sr politician or just because it is in the news?

[Biggy Stardust]

CoolHands said:

Just get her in for interview and put some straight questions to her.

You say that as if a politician would actually give straight answers.

[pavarotti1980]

paulrockliffe said:

Electoral law disbars lots of things, a lot more than just voting twice.

The electoral fraud that is alleged relates to the nomination to stand as an MP, nothing to do with where votes were cast.

Ironically this case would be fairly mild electoral fraud compared with her colleagues who habitually rent property that they never live in so as to be able to claim to be from the area. Eg Laura Pidcock claimed to be a local in North West Durham when she lived in Cramlington and made a big song and dance about her opponent being parachuted into the Constituency. Her opponent grew up in the Constituency and had extant ties through their family, put their correct address on the nomination as they lived in Kent at the time, Laura rented a room above a shop and claimed to live there, but didn't.

Richard Holden is a complete muppet.

[pork911]

For politicians is the procedure not just a questionnaire in the post?

[rscott]

XCP said:

I live between 2 houses and am on the electoral register for both. As long as I only vote once that is ok is it not?

It's fine - you can even vote at both in some circumstances.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-...

[rscott]

Mr Penguin said:

Sounds like the police are taking this seriously

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-rayner-p...

The police investigation into Angela Rayner is examining multiple allegations and is not limited to potential electoral law offences.

At least a dozen officers at Greater Manchester police are investigating the Labour deputy leader over where she lived in the 2010s and the sale of her former council house in Stockport.

They are examining tax matters and other issues on top of the question of whether Rayner gave false information for the electoral register when she lived between two former council houses in Stockport in the 2010s.

There's a 12 month deadline for electoral offences (can be extended to 24 months by a magistrate), so she can't be prosecuted for that.

The CGT issue has a 6 year limit, unless they can show it was deliberate, rather than a mistake, so unlikely to be able to charge her for that either. Not sure that the police normally investigate tax issues either?


That's based on the article in that well known lefty rag, the FT.. https://twitter.com/RKWinvisibleman/status/1778846...

[williamp]

rscott said:

There's a 12 month deadline for electoral offences (can be extended to 24 months by a magistrate), so she can't be prosecuted for that.

The CGT issue has a 6 year limit, unless they can show it was deliberate, rather than a mistake, so unlikely to be able to charge her for that either. Not sure that the police normally investigate tax issues either?


That's based on the article in that well known lefty rag, the FT.. https://twitter.com/RKWinvisibleman/status/1778846...

So by continually lying abut if, she ran down the clock and will get away with it. Thats ok then. The sort of thing we want of a deputy leader probably in government this time next year

[President Merkin]

williamp said:

So by continually lying abut if, she ran down the clock and will get away with it. Thats ok then. The sort of thing we want of a deputy leader probably in government this time next year

Nope. Not even close to what happened. If only there were some journalism available online to help work out the basic sequence of events.

[Blue62]

President Merkin said:

Nope. Not even close to what happened. If only there were some journalism available online to help work out the basic sequence of events.

It’s getting boring now, the wilful ignorance on display is pitiful as is the willingness to believe something that has little to no basis in proof. I expect we are going to see more of this as the election looms, stories, rumours and innuendo, all dressed up as the truth and spoon fed to an audience just waiting to be lied to.

I really couldn’t care less about Rayner, not my gang and not my kind of politician, but she’s got my sympathy now.

[EddieSteadyGo]

williamp said:

So by continually lying abut if, she ran down the clock and will get away with it. Thats ok then. The sort of thing we want of a deputy leader probably in government this time next year

The bigger question is do you really want to disbar someone from putting themselves forward to stand for election, and to potentially be a member of the government, if at some point, prior to being an MP, they committed what is probably (at worst) a misdemeanour. I know it's good sport going after Rayner, and Rayner is only getting back what she has dished out herself, and even her staunchest allies can't argue she isn't a hypocrite, but I think we need to keep this in proportion.

I'd argue what we really need is to revisit Nolan's previous work on "Standards in Public Life". This obliges politicians to uphold principles of "openness" and "honesty" and "objectivity". When was the last time you heard a political interview where you could say those values were being demonstrated?

We (the general public) should see ourselves as "non-exec" directors, and we should see our senior politicians as the directors we appoint to the "board" to run the country on our behalf. In that context, we should expect candid and clear communication; that includes what is working, what needs attention, what mistakes have been made etc etc. It doesn't need mistakes to be covered up, or the truth to be twisted with spin.

But we have allowed the media to turn politics into a soap opera. Everyone clutches their pearls at trivial issues, or exaggerates any "mistake" into being a catastrophe. It serves the media well (generates a lot of clicks etc), and it might serve politicians (as it makes them feel famous as "celebrities") but we the public are foolish if we think it suits our best interest.

It just encourages politicians to be guarded, to avoid admitting anything in case it is portrayed as a "gaff". And how can we solve problems if there is no openness? If we look at the Rayner situation in that context, I think it reveals some of the underlying problem.

[MaxFromage]

rscott said:

The CGT issue has a 6 year limit, unless they can show it was deliberate, rather than a mistake, so unlikely to be able to charge her for that either. Not sure that the police normally investigate tax issues either?

That's not correct. If she failed to notify her liability to CGT, they can go back 20 years:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/enquiry-m...

[Mr Penguin]

EddieSteadyGo said:

The bigger question is do you really want to disbar someone from putting themselves forward to stand for election, and to potentially be a member of the government, if at some point, prior to being an MP, they committed what is probably (at worst) a misdemeanour. I know it's good sport going after Rayner, and Rayner is only getting back what she has dished out herself, and even her staunchest allies can't argue she isn't a hypocrite, but I think we need to keep this in proportion.

Nobody is disbarred for minor historic offences and Rayner could have killed the story early on if she had paid a couple of thousand and said she didn't think she owed tax but would pay it anyway or just published her advice. The same goes for Boris and the parties. If anything, you can see the way the media hounds politicians over a story as punishing those who break the Nolan principles.

[sugerbear]

MaxFromage said:

rscott said:

The CGT issue has a 6 year limit, unless they can show it was deliberate, rather than a mistake, so unlikely to be able to charge her for that either. Not sure that the police normally investigate tax issues either?

That's not correct. If she failed to notify her liability to CGT, they can go back 20 years:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/enquiry-m...

"if" doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

If she calculated that she didn't have any CGT liability why would she need to notify?

[vaud]

Mr Penguin said:

Nobody is disbarred for minor historic offences and Rayner could have killed the story early on if she had paid a couple of thousand and said she didn't think she owed tax but would pay it anyway or just published her advice. The same goes for Boris and the parties. If anything, you can see the way the media hounds politicians over a story as punishing those who break the Nolan principles.

The issue for Rayner is she changes the narrative from "if someone is under investigation they should stand down" (I think that was her phrase) to "I'll resign if I have done anything illegal" which is a hypocritical position and what the press latch on to.If she had never said the former then she might be in a stronger position, but she chose a political shot in the first place?

[paulrockliffe]

pavarotti1980 said:

Richard Holden is a complete muppet.

It's off topic, but yes he is. He was doing a decent job as a Constituency MP, getting stuff done while being rude to the local Momentum types that popped up to bother him every time he tried to help someone. It was noticeable though how much more got done when Conservative councillors were also elected, there's something for wider consideration there. Then he got a whiff of power and started focussing on that instead and now he knows the Constituency is going he's given up completely and is just trying to get himself inserted into another Constituency. That said, Pidcock did absolutely nothing locally, so he was at least a fleeting improvement on that and more broadly it's sad that after the boundary review we'll go back to having no meaningful representation under Kevan Jones, who is an absolute plum with no interest in anything outside Durham City.

Anyway, I was referring to the election that Pidcock won, that Holden wasn't involved in. Holden was completely upfront about his zero connection to the area, but did as much as any outsider could to work around that. I don't think it's even remotely a factor in why people vote the way they do, so I just found it bizarre the lengths that Pidcock went to to dishonestly curate this image of a local here to stand up for her kin.

[Mr Penguin]

vaud said:

The issue for Rayner is she changes the narrative from "if someone is under investigation they should stand down" (I think that was her phrase) to "I'll resign if I have done anything illegal" which is a hypocritical position and what the press latch on to.If she had never said the former then she might be in a stronger position, but she chose a political shot in the first place?

That too, like Ed Davey demanding resignations from everyone.

Her current position also leaves some wiggle room if she isn't charged but the police say they have enough evidence to charge if the statute of limitations wasn't an issue. She'll just say "I didn't do anything wrong, I haven't been convicted of anything and I would fight it if I could."

[Amateurish]

vaud said:

Mr Penguin said:

Nobody is disbarred for minor historic offences and Rayner could have killed the story early on if she had paid a couple of thousand and said she didn't think she owed tax but would pay it anyway or just published her advice. The same goes for Boris and the parties. If anything, you can see the way the media hounds politicians over a story as punishing those who break the Nolan principles.

The issue for Rayner is she changes the narrative from "if someone is under investigation they should stand down" (I think that was her phrase) to "I'll resign if I have done anything illegal" which is a hypocritical position and what the press latch on to.If she had never said the former then she might be in a stronger position, but she chose a political shot in the first place?

Can you find the actual quote? I tried Googling...

If this relates to "Partygate" then I imagine that the standard would be different for a standing PM who broke the rules he himself had introduced.

Vs something which allegedly happened 15 years when AR was a care worker for Stockport council (and 5 years before she stood as an MP).

[vaud]

Amateurish said:

Can you find the actual quote? I tried Googling...

If this relates to "Partygate" then I imagine that the standard would be different for a standing PM who broke the rules he himself had introduced.

Vs something which allegedly happened 15 years when AR was a care worker for Stockport council (and 5 years before she stood as an MP).

From the telegraph:

Angela Rayner, Sir Keir's deputy, also urged Mr Johnson to stand down after the Metropolitan Police confirmed on Jan 25 that it would investigate alleged lockdown rule-breaking gatherings in Downing Street and Whitehall.

She wrote on Twitter: "Boris Johnson's Downing Street is under police investigation. How on earth can he think he can stay on as Prime Minister?"

In an article for the Politico website published that day, Ms Rayner wrote: "It feels almost beyond belief that the Metropolitan Police are now investigating evidence of 'the most serious and flagrant type of breach' in Downing Street itself.

"What a reflection on the man who holds the very highest office in our country. Yet still he feels he can hang on? A complete disgrace."

[vaud]

Amateurish said:

Can you find the actual quote? I tried Googling...

If this relates to "Partygate" then I imagine that the standard would be different for a standing PM who broke the rules he himself had introduced.

Vs something which allegedly happened 15 years when AR was a care worker for Stockport council (and 5 years before she stood as an MP).

I appreciate the difference but those that live in glass houses... I'm not political about this, I think all MPs should be held to the same standards.

[President Merkin]

One risk of living in a post shame political environment is if you look the other way at the sins of your team, it's not especially credible to howl when the other transgresses. And have the current shambles ever poured that on us in the past five years. Thus, I'm relaxed about the more swivel eyed end of the pond thinking they've covered off the whole thing by assuming Ange is both guilty of a crime & a hypocrite if not. You don't know the former & aren't especially persuasive on the latter.