Discussion
JNW1 said:
sugerbear said:
JNW1 said:
President Merkin said:
I suppose by extension, the £3k she may or may have not have gained is mere small potatoes to you when set against the other side of the equation, Sunak & Lord Ashcroft, whose families have benefitted from avoiding millions in tax by virtue of their non dom status.
I don't think Sunak and Lord Ashcroft stand accused of having broken any rules or doing anything illegal though do they? In contrast, the suggestion is Rayner - and possibly her brother - deliberately falsified their electoral registration returns (in itself an offence) and the inference is they did so in order to evade either a capital gains tax liability and/or a claw-back of funds received under the right to buy scheme. Therefore, while the monetary amount involved is no doubt peanuts in the grand scheme of things, it's all created an impression of someone who's been ducking and diving to save a few quid and hasn't been open and honest about it all - and that's not a good look for a senior politician who's always been quick to call out the failings of others in public life.
The notion his attendance at a lockdown party should be viewed as no different from the deliberate falsification of electoral returns with (possibly) an intention to defraud is however amusing. What next, any MP that's had a ticket for speeding - and therefore broken the law - should be viewed in the same way as someone fiddling the system for personal financial gain?
The point remains, if you want to shout and scream that Raynor needs to go because she broke the law then you dont get to choose which laws someone breaks to make them stand down.
It's a much bigger deal if you are in the ruling party, if you are a cabinet member and even worse if you are a prime minister.
Johnson / Sunak and everyone else involved certainly didn't stand down becuase they broke the law and from media reports I have seen a story where John Major during his time was registered at a different address and was called out for it but he wasn't expected to resign.
Blue62 said:
Mr Penguin said:
If there is genuinely nothing to investigate and everything is above board then she's done everything she can to turn it into something that looks like she is. Either there is something to cover up or there is another story they want to divert attention from or Labour as a whole have made a big mistake in how they handled it. Which is it?
It's non of the above, it's a personal attack based on some muck raking by a multi millionaire non dom Tory donor, you and others need to get some perspective and get a grip. The taxpayer has just forked out almost £40k to meet Michelle Donalon's legal fees after she libelled an academic, Johnson was the beneficiary of an illegal donation (which broke electoral law) of £68k to decorate his flat, the tax payer forked out almost £400k to settle Patel's bullying case with Philip Rutnam, I could go on and on and on. So let's then consider that what Rayner stands accused of by a Tory peer and donor, is possible electoral fraud and possible underpayment of tax amounting to the princely sum of £1500. After looking into the 'evidence' GMP have stated that the allegations have no substance, but due to a fresh complaint made by the Deputy Chair of the Tory party they're now looking at it again, even though the Deputy Chair won't tell anyone the nature of his complaint.
Look at the facts of the situation and stop playing Sherlock over a petty issue that has been whipped up by the biggest bunch of crooks this country has ever had to endure. Just give it a rest.
The quantum of the money involved is not really relevant here. If (maximise on the if) Rayner has broken tax or electoral laws then those laws should apply to her. "Some other dude did worse" is not a defence. Even if some time limitation were to apply, thereby allowing her to dodge court if she has done something wrong then that would still make her position untenable in my view.
As it stands, she's innocent until proven guilty. All your (and others) flapping about yeh but Tory X did Y is nonsensical, especially as Tory X doing Y is something that you and others have long complained about!
Let's see what the investigation says (if anything).
sugerbear said:
I would say that the whole partygate thing was much worse than "allegedly" not registering the right address
Don't like Sunak, as do the members based on current polling, but he turned up for a meeting with his boss and there was a short birthday celebration beforehand and he received a FPN as a result. Are you seriously maintaining this is much worse than claiming to live at the wrong address for financial benefit?, and what amounts to tax evasion and/or fraud if proven?Wombat3 said:
Fabulous word salad!
You are the one specifically citing Ashcroft and the "infosys clan" - neither of whom have been accused of breaking any UK tax laws that I know of.
The fact that their legitimate activities upset you is your issue, not theirs.
Obviously they have taken advantage of tax law - but then so does anyone sheltering money in a Pension or an ISA.
I see you are very happy to dwell on the character issue, so long as it's confined to Ange's character. If you have to preface something questionable with the word legitimate, then it may not be whiter than white legitimate as you hope. You are the one specifically citing Ashcroft and the "infosys clan" - neither of whom have been accused of breaking any UK tax laws that I know of.
The fact that their legitimate activities upset you is your issue, not theirs.
Obviously they have taken advantage of tax law - but then so does anyone sheltering money in a Pension or an ISA.
sugerbear said:
The point remains, if you want to shout and scream that Raynor needs to go because she broke the law then you dont get to choose which laws someone breaks to make them stand down.
It's a much bigger deal if you are in the ruling party, if you are a cabinet member and even worse if you are a prime minister.
Arguably it's a bigger deal if one screams that anyone being investigated should resign. AR did exactly that.It's a much bigger deal if you are in the ruling party, if you are a cabinet member and even worse if you are a prime minister.
JagLover said:
sugerbear said:
I would say that the whole partygate thing was much worse than "allegedly" not registering the right address
Don't like Sunak, as do the members based on current polling, but he turned up for a meeting with his boss and there was a short birthday celebration beforehand and he received a FPN as a result. Are you seriously maintaining this is much worse than claiming to live at the wrong address for financial benefit?, and what amounts to tax evasion and/or fraud if proven?At one time I shared my time between lodging with someone and living with my parents. I probably spent more time at my lodging that I did at my parents and even voted at my parents (where all of my post / cards etc were registered).
Are you seriously saying that in the above case I should have been hauled off to the local magistrates and given a fine because I spent a few more hours at my lodging vs my parents per week?
And yes I do think that an MP that "accidently" fell into a party and fell foul of the rules that he voted in place is much worse than what AR is supposed to have done. They were the ones making the laws for gods sake!
It's a total red herring because if you split your time between two houses, you can register to vote in either or indeed register to vote in both of them.
People bandying around words like electoral "fraud" clearly have no understanding of the law whatsoever.
The only thing you can't do is vote in the same election twice and no-one has (yet) suggested this happened.
People bandying around words like electoral "fraud" clearly have no understanding of the law whatsoever.
The only thing you can't do is vote in the same election twice and no-one has (yet) suggested this happened.
sugerbear said:
...
What exactly is AR supposed to have done when she registtered at her address? What did she stand to gain? Was she looking to swing an election in her favour by using that vote? No she wasn't ...
We covered that a few days ago. She was probably trying to get the maximum discount on her 'right to buy' property.What exactly is AR supposed to have done when she registtered at her address? What did she stand to gain? Was she looking to swing an election in her favour by using that vote? No she wasn't ...
Amateurish said:
It's a total red herring because if you split your time between two houses, you can register to vote in either or indeed register to vote in both of them.
People bandying around words like electoral "fraud" clearly have no understanding of the law whatsoever.
The only thing you can't do is vote in the same election twice and no-one has (yet) suggested this happened.
Electoral law disbars lots of things, a lot more than just voting twice.People bandying around words like electoral "fraud" clearly have no understanding of the law whatsoever.
The only thing you can't do is vote in the same election twice and no-one has (yet) suggested this happened.
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.
Amateurish said:
JNW1 said:
But if she and/or her brother did falsify their electoral registration returns it begs the question why
When you say "falsify their electoral registration returns" what exactly do you mean?Because that sounds pretty serious.
Evanivitch said:
Not related to Non-Dom, but Sunak obtained a USA Greencard, which requires a commitment to settle in the USA, whilst retaining it for 6 years as an MP...
It's an honest mistake, I sometimes confuse North Yorkshire with Claifornia.
That's probably an even worse example of whataboutery than the lockdown party fine!It's an honest mistake, I sometimes confuse North Yorkshire with Claifornia.
President Merkin said:
Wombat3 said:
Fabulous word salad!
You are the one specifically citing Ashcroft and the "infosys clan" - neither of whom have been accused of breaking any UK tax laws that I know of.
The fact that their legitimate activities upset you is your issue, not theirs.
Obviously they have taken advantage of tax law - but then so does anyone sheltering money in a Pension or an ISA.
I see you are very happy to dwell on the character issue, so long as it's confined to Ange's character. If you have to preface something questionable with the word legitimate, then it may not be whiter than white legitimate as you hope. You are the one specifically citing Ashcroft and the "infosys clan" - neither of whom have been accused of breaking any UK tax laws that I know of.
The fact that their legitimate activities upset you is your issue, not theirs.
Obviously they have taken advantage of tax law - but then so does anyone sheltering money in a Pension or an ISA.
Meanwhile you are desperately twisting & spinning to try and cast aspersions over other people's tax affairs where there is currently no evidence to suggest any wrong-doing. Its a feeble attempt at diversion/distraction from the subject matter at hand - blatant whataboutery even (except without any actual content).
You call their activities "questionable" if you wish but none of what they do is "questionable" if its in compliance with the law. If it is then its legitimate.
You are entitled to your opinion about the relevant laws, but that's a different issue.
Amateurish said:
It's a total red herring because if you split your time between two houses, you can register to vote in either or indeed register to vote in both of them.
People bandying around words like electoral "fraud" clearly have no understanding of the law whatsoever.
The only thing you can't do is vote in the same election twice and no-one has (yet) suggested this happened.
Dont think so. Married couples are required to have one (and the same) primary residence address.People bandying around words like electoral "fraud" clearly have no understanding of the law whatsoever.
The only thing you can't do is vote in the same election twice and no-one has (yet) suggested this happened.
JNW1 said:
Evanivitch said:
Not related to Non-Dom, but Sunak obtained a USA Greencard, which requires a commitment to settle in the USA, whilst retaining it for 6 years as an MP...
It's an honest mistake, I sometimes confuse North Yorkshire with Claifornia.
That's probably an even worse example of whataboutery than the lockdown party fine!It's an honest mistake, I sometimes confuse North Yorkshire with Claifornia.
Wombat3 said:
Amateurish said:
It's a total red herring because if you split your time between two houses, you can register to vote in either or indeed register to vote in both of them.
People bandying around words like electoral "fraud" clearly have no understanding of the law whatsoever.
The only thing you can't do is vote in the same election twice and no-one has (yet) suggested this happened.
Dont think so. Married couples are required to have one (and the same) primary residence address.People bandying around words like electoral "fraud" clearly have no understanding of the law whatsoever.
The only thing you can't do is vote in the same election twice and no-one has (yet) suggested this happened.
Wombat3 said:
More meaningless word salad. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I have said I don't like Rayner & I don't think she is fit for high office. That's a valid opinion (whether you agree with it or not). My views on her have much more to do with the way she treats other people, her socialist views and her evident lack of knowledge, education and understanding of the way the world actually works. If you want to gather that up and call it an assault on her character then go ahead, but its beyond wet.,
Meanwhile you are desperately twisting & spinning to try and cast aspersions over other people's tax affairs where there is currently no evidence to suggest any wrong-doing. Its a feeble attempt at diversion/distraction from the subject matter at hand - blatant whataboutery even (except without any actual content).
You call their activities "questionable" if you wish but none of what they do is "questionable" if its in compliance with the law. If it is then its legitimate.
You are entitled to your opinion about the relevant laws, but that's a different issue.
Oh no, not word salad, that's hurty Meanwhile you are desperately twisting & spinning to try and cast aspersions over other people's tax affairs where there is currently no evidence to suggest any wrong-doing. Its a feeble attempt at diversion/distraction from the subject matter at hand - blatant whataboutery even (except without any actual content).
You call their activities "questionable" if you wish but none of what they do is "questionable" if its in compliance with the law. If it is then its legitimate.
You are entitled to your opinion about the relevant laws, but that's a different issue.
Bit rich of you to suggest Ange, who came from nothing to deputy leader of Labour jniows nothing about how the world works & then to tell me squillionaire non doms have nothing to hide. With respect, that sounds more like you don't know how the world really works.
EddieSteadyGo said:
sugerbear said:
...
What exactly is AR supposed to have done when she registtered at her address? What did she stand to gain? Was she looking to swing an election in her favour by using that vote? No she wasn't ...
We covered that a few days ago. She was probably trying to get the maximum discount on her 'right to buy' property.What exactly is AR supposed to have done when she registtered at her address? What did she stand to gain? Was she looking to swing an election in her favour by using that vote? No she wasn't ...
JNW1 said:
Amateurish said:
JNW1 said:
But if she and/or her brother did falsify their electoral registration returns it begs the question why
When you say "falsify their electoral registration returns" what exactly do you mean?Because that sounds pretty serious.
She said she spent time in both homes.
The electoral commission says if you have two homes, you can register at either (or both).
Amateurish said:
It's a total red herring because if you split your time between two houses, you can register to vote in either or indeed register to vote in both of them.
As long as the properties are in different council areas (as you may vote in both council elections).Usually the decider is about where you spend most of your time (for Parliamentary anyway).
Most of this is a null point though as this has evolved into a did she lie, is she honest debate. It’s also a good lesson in killing something early on!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff