Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[Wombat3]

The righteous indignation and whataboutery in here in defence of Raymer is becoming hilarious !

It will all come out in the wash one way or another & if she is found to have transgressed no doubt similar, relatable offences that may have been committed elsewhere will be reported en masse and then they too will be investigated.

[philv]

rscott said:

So that is suddenly important all of a sudden when it's likely we'll have a Labour government. Doesn't seem to be an issue with the present incumbents - we've got a defence secretary who has apparently used fake identities to promote his own online marketing firm while being an MP.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gen...

I thought the reason for voting labour in is because tories are supposedly scum.

But its ok to vote in labour even if they're the same?

[andymadmak]

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

[valiant]

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.

Yes, but standards matter when it's someone you don't like.

When it's your team it can be dismissed as an oversight or something along the lines of "it was only a piece of cake".

[768]

valiant said:

Yes, but standards matter when it's someone you don't like.

When it's your team it can be dismissed as an oversight or something along the lines of "it was only a piece of cake".

Consistency of the application of standards matters.

Whether it was only a piece of cake, or Rayner being a low level tax cheat, my issues with the pair of them are far, far more substantial. I think it's a mistake to be so myopic. If you're going to cry foul over a piece of cake it leaves you nowhere to go with the slightest indiscretion. We cannot tolerate any transgression, however unintended or inconsequential now. And then we wonder why our politicians don't appear human or to possess any redeeming qualities.

[rscott]

768 said:

valiant said:

Yes, but standards matter when it's someone you don't like.

When it's your team it can be dismissed as an oversight or something along the lines of "it was only a piece of cake".

Consistency of the application of standards matters.

Whether it was only a piece of cake, or Rayner being a low level tax cheat, my issues with the pair of them are far, far more substantial. I think it's a mistake to be so myopic. If you're going to cry foul over a piece of cake it leaves you nowhere to go with the slightest indiscretion. We cannot tolerate any transgression, however unintended or inconsequential now. And then we wonder why our politicians don't appear human or to possess any redeeming qualities.

Boris was never really about cake though - it was for deliberately misleading the house.

[valiant]

rscott said:

Boris was never really about cake though - it was for deliberately misleading the house.

Indeed, but it was excused as such by more than a few on here...

[Wombat3]

rscott said:

768 said:

valiant said:

Yes, but standards matter when it's someone you don't like.

When it's your team it can be dismissed as an oversight or something along the lines of "it was only a piece of cake".

Consistency of the application of standards matters.

Whether it was only a piece of cake, or Rayner being a low level tax cheat, my issues with the pair of them are far, far more substantial. I think it's a mistake to be so myopic. If you're going to cry foul over a piece of cake it leaves you nowhere to go with the slightest indiscretion. We cannot tolerate any transgression, however unintended or inconsequential now. And then we wonder why our politicians don't appear human or to possess any redeeming qualities.

Boris was never really about cake though - it was for deliberately misleading the house.

Exactly right and he was quite correctly skewered for it.

The stupidity was that it was hardly a Blair/45 minutes till doomsday deal, it was just him being stupid enough to think he could blag his way out of a vaguely embarrassing corner - because that's all it would have been had he Mea Culpa'd it at the first opportunity.

[Mr Penguin]

And it wasn't even the cake that finally finished him but defending Pincher instead of saying "he did it before, he told me that he was sorry and he wouldn't do it again but he broke my trust so he had to go"

Very few things will actually bring down a politician if they bat carefully rather than hitting everything for six

[Wombat3]

Mr Penguin said:

And it wasn't even the cake that finally finished him but defending Pincher instead of saying "he did it before, he told me that he was sorry and he wouldn't do it again but he broke my trust so he had to go"

Very few things will actually bring down a politician if they bat carefully rather than hitting everything for six

Indeed, but if he was too stupid to figure those things out, then probably best he went anyway!

[Earthdweller]

valiant 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.

Yes, but standards matter when it's someone you don't like.

When it's your team it can be dismissed as an oversight or something along the lines of "it was only a piece of cake".

Politics is dirty and grubby and many of those who aspire to be in Parliament are people you really wouldn’t want to sit and enjoy a pint with

And that goes for ALL sides of the house

Rayner’s problem is simple, she has been right at the forefront of the dirt slinging, and far from shy about it

When you shout loudly that any of your opponents that have unproven allegations made about them should resign/be sacked/kicked out of Parliament it leaves you on a very sticky wicket should someone make unproven allegations about you .. and places you right where someone would be looking for any dirt on you

Id suggest that someone got a good idea of exactly what Rayner had done before it became public and they have dripped info into the public domain as she denied the allegations

Now if she’d had any political nous about her she should have realised this and headed it off, instead she played straight into their hands by doubling down on her denials and indignation

If she had straight away said something like “as far as I’m aware I haven’t done anything wrong but I will immediately contact the relevant authorities and if I have inadvertently made an error I will immediately correct it and pay any tax I may owe”

She would have spiked their guns, particularly if Starmer had been stronger and come out saying something similar, saying that he expects all his MP’s to be completely transparent and honest and that genuine mistakes can be made and corrected

Rayner’s indignation and outrage at her accusers and Starmer’s invisibility over the matter have played right into her accusers hands and the longer it’s gone on the more they smell blood

As ever it’s not what mistake you make it the covering it up that gets you

I genuinely think that 15 years ago she really didn’t think she’d done anything wrong and if she hadn’t become a high profile and very vociferous public figure non of this would ever have come to light or become an issue, probably not even if she was a typical nondescript wallflower backbench MP


When you play with fire you better make sure your flameproof or someone will ensure you get burnt

That is politics, it’s dirty and it’s grubby

[bitchstewie]

Evanivitch said:

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.

That's very true.

Unfortunately it seems that was priced in with Johnson so somehow he was allowed to be crooked as scoliosis and got defended for it by many of the apologists who are now losing their st over Rayner because standards and behaviours really matter all of a sudden.

[Lotobear]

Earthdweller said:

valiant 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.

Yes, but standards matter when it's someone you don't like.

When it's your team it can be dismissed as an oversight or something along the lines of "it was only a piece of cake".

Politics is dirty and grubby and many of those who aspire to be in Parliament are people you really wouldn’t want to sit and enjoy a pint with

And that goes for ALL sides of the house

Rayner’s problem is simple, she has been right at the forefront of the dirt slinging, and far from shy about it

When you shout loudly that any of your opponents that have unproven allegations made about them should resign/be sacked/kicked out of Parliament it leaves you on a very sticky wicket should someone make unproven allegations about you .. and places you right where someone would be looking for any dirt on you

Id suggest that someone got a good idea of exactly what Rayner had done before it became public and they have dripped info into the public domain as she denied the allegations

Now if she’d had any political nous about her she should have realised this and headed it off, instead she played straight into their hands by doubling down on her denials and indignation

If she had straight away said something like “as far as I’m aware I haven’t done anything wrong but I will immediately contact the relevant authorities and if I have inadvertently made an error I will immediately correct it and pay any tax I may owe”

She would have spiked their guns, particularly if Starmer had been stronger and come out saying something similar, saying that he expects all his MP’s to be completely transparent and honest and that genuine mistakes can be made and corrected

Rayner’s indignation and outrage at her accusers and Starmer’s invisibility over the matter have played right into her accusers hands and the longer it’s gone on the more they smell blood



As ever it’s not what mistake you make it the covering it up that gets you

I genuinely think that 15 years ago she really didn’t think she’d done anything wrong and if she hadn’t become a high profile and very vociferous public figure non of this would ever have come to light or become an issue, probably not even if she was a typical nondescript wallflower backbench MP


When you play with fire you better make sure your flameproof or someone will ensure you get burnt

That is politics, it’s dirty and it’s grubby

Excellent post

[bitchstewie]

Earthdweller said:

Politics is dirty and grubby and many of those who aspire to be in Parliament are people you really wouldn’t want to sit and enjoy a pint with

And that goes for ALL sides of the house

Rayner’s problem is simple, she has been right at the forefront of the dirt slinging, and far from shy about it

When you shout loudly that any of your opponents that have unproven allegations made about them should resign/be sacked/kicked out of Parliament it leaves you on a very sticky wicket should someone make unproven allegations about you .. and places you right where someone would be looking for any dirt on you

Id suggest that someone got a good idea of exactly what Rayner had done before it became public and they have dripped info into the public domain as she denied the allegations

Now if she’d had any political nous about her she should have realised this and headed it off, instead she played straight into their hands by doubling down on her denials and indignation

If she had straight away said something like “as far as I’m aware I haven’t done anything wrong but I will immediately contact the relevant authorities and if I have inadvertently made an error I will immediately correct it and pay any tax I may owe”

She would have spiked their guns, particularly if Starmer had been stronger and come out saying something similar, saying that he expects all his MP’s to be completely transparent and honest and that genuine mistakes can be made and corrected

Rayner’s indignation and outrage at her accusers and Starmer’s invisibility over the matter have played right into her accusers hands and the longer it’s gone on the more they smell blood

As ever it’s not what mistake you make it the covering it up that gets you

I genuinely think that 15 years ago she really didn’t think she’d done anything wrong and if she hadn’t become a high profile and very vociferous public figure non of this would ever have come to light or become an issue, probably not even if she was a typical nondescript wallflower backbench MP


When you play with fire you better make sure your flameproof or someone will ensure you get burnt

That is politics, it’s dirty and it’s grubby

Awful lot of truth in that.

[chemistry]

Earthdweller said:

Politics is dirty and grubby and many of those who aspire to be in Parliament are people you really wouldn’t want to sit and enjoy a pint with. And that goes for ALL sides of the house.

Rayner’s problem is simple, she has been right at the forefront of the dirt slinging, and far from shy about it. When you shout loudly that any of your opponents that have unproven allegations made about them should resign/be sacked/kicked out of Parliament it leaves you on a very sticky wicket should someone make unproven allegations about you...and places you right where someone would be looking for any dirt on you.

When you play with fire you better make sure your flameproof or someone will ensure you get burnt.

This (please forgive the edit). That doesn't excuse the actions of Boris or any other MP who has broken the rules/law of course, but Angela has made her bed and so can't now complain when she has to lie (no pun intended) in it.

[paulrockliffe]

bhstewie said:

That's very true.

Unfortunately it seems that was priced in with Johnson so somehow he was allowed to be crooked as scoliosis and got defended for it by many of the apologists who are now losing their st over Rayner because standards and behaviours really matter all of a sudden.

If Rayner had said she'd done all this stuff, but if you elect me I'll carry on shouting at horrible Tories, then of course that would play into the balance of whether she should resign or not. The public has already given their view and in a democratic election that must have more weight than pretty much anything else.

We can argue about fitness to hold public office all day and I suspect we would find consensus around getting rid of all these idiots we end up with, but the lowest bar to apply is surely, the standards that that person expects of others. Honestly don't think that is even remotely controversial, yet we have pages and pages of dissembling nonsense.

[Evanivitch]

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.

[biggbn]

Earthdweller said:

valiant 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.

Yes, but standards matter when it's someone you don't like.

When it's your team it can be dismissed as an oversight or something along the lines of "it was only a piece of cake".

Politics is dirty and grubby and many of those who aspire to be in Parliament are people you really wouldn’t want to sit and enjoy a pint with

And that goes for ALL sides of the house

Rayner’s problem is simple, she has been right at the forefront of the dirt slinging, and far from shy about it

When you shout loudly that any of your opponents that have unproven allegations made about them should resign/be sacked/kicked out of Parliament it leaves you on a very sticky wicket should someone make unproven allegations about you .. and places you right where someone would be looking for any dirt on you

Id suggest that someone got a good idea of exactly what Rayner had done before it became public and they have dripped info into the public domain as she denied the allegations

Now if she’d had any political nous about her she should have realised this and headed it off, instead she played straight into their hands by doubling down on her denials and indignation

If she had straight away said something like “as far as I’m aware I haven’t done anything wrong but I will immediately contact the relevant authorities and if I have inadvertently made an error I will immediately correct it and pay any tax I may owe”

She would have spiked their guns, particularly if Starmer had been stronger and come out saying something similar, saying that he expects all his MP’s to be completely transparent and honest and that genuine mistakes can be made and corrected

Rayner’s indignation and outrage at her accusers and Starmer’s invisibility over the matter have played right into her accusers hands and the longer it’s gone on the more they smell blood

As ever it’s not what mistake you make it the covering it up that gets you

I genuinely think that 15 years ago she really didn’t think she’d done anything wrong and if she hadn’t become a high profile and very vociferous public figure non of this would ever have come to light or become an issue, probably not even if she was a typical nondescript wallflower backbench MP


When you play with fire you better make sure your flameproof or someone will ensure you get burnt

That is politics, it’s dirty and it’s grubby

I like Rayner but wrote almost exactly what you have just said many pages ago when this first broke. Bang on.

[119]

Earthdweller said:

Politics is dirty and grubby and many of those who aspire to be in Parliament are people you really wouldn’t want to sit and enjoy a pint with

And that goes for ALL sides of the house

Rayner’s problem is simple, she has been right at the forefront of the dirt slinging, and far from shy about it

When you shout loudly that any of your opponents that have unproven allegations made about them should resign/be sacked/kicked out of Parliament it leaves you on a very sticky wicket should someone make unproven allegations about you .. and places you right where someone would be looking for any dirt on you

Id suggest that someone got a good idea of exactly what Rayner had done before it became public and they have dripped info into the public domain as she denied the allegations

Now if she’d had any political nous about her she should have realised this and headed it off, instead she played straight into their hands by doubling down on her denials and indignation

If she had straight away said something like “as far as I’m aware I haven’t done anything wrong but I will immediately contact the relevant authorities and if I have inadvertently made an error I will immediately correct it and pay any tax I may owe”

She would have spiked their guns, particularly if Starmer had been stronger and come out saying something similar, saying that he expects all his MP’s to be completely transparent and honest and that genuine mistakes can be made and corrected

Rayner’s indignation and outrage at her accusers and Starmer’s invisibility over the matter have played right into her accusers hands and the longer it’s gone on the more they smell blood

As ever it’s not what mistake you make it the covering it up that gets you

I genuinely think that 15 years ago she really didn’t think she’d done anything wrong and if she hadn’t become a high profile and very vociferous public figure non of this would ever have come to light or become an issue, probably not even if she was a typical nondescript wallflower backbench MP


When you play with fire you better make sure your flameproof or someone will ensure you get burnt

That is politics, it’s dirty and it’s grubby

Well said.

I reckon she's toast.

[Wombat3]

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.