Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
NomduJour said:
Eh? Who do you think issued the referrals for the pretend party fines?
Only after a heck of a lot of complaining, abject denials by the Conservative Party, leaked footage (probably from Dominic Cummings) and a number of inquiries. And even then the penalties were utterly insignificant.
NomduJour said:
Partygate was just plain embarrassing, they were all working together (“bubble” nonsense) in any case - can’t think of anywhere else that would try to exploit the operation of its government and civil service in a pandemic like that.
This thread is about Rayner.Best to keep this nonsense in the loon thread:-
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
valiant said:
vaud said:
How many news cycles before SKS asks her to step aside temporarily?
Why would he?It’s not affecting poll numbers and the only news outlets giving it serious column inches are the right wing rags like the Daily Heil and the Express.
Just because it’s, quite ludicrously, made umpteen pages here doesn’t mean that the wider population gives a fig about it.
Starmer will act when he no choice or when it’s opportune to do so. We’re not there at the moment (yet!).
Don't often rate Parris but he's spot on here. Every word amplified by some of the worst people on these pages.
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
EddieSteadyGo said:
Yes, I realise the timelines were longer, as she married her husband in 2010 and decided to sell her original property in 2015. But even taking that into account, if you were in a similar situation, would you expect to pay CGT when you sold your original home?
This type of situation must have happened millions of times before, when people start new relationships and they need to sell one of their existing homes after getting together. I honestly doubt people are expecting to pay CGT when one of those original homes gets sold.
It does happen all the time but when a couple marries - and each already has their own home - I think under HMRC rules they have to nominate which property is to be treated as their main residence within two years of getting married if they are going to retain and use both homes? The Rayners obviously kept both their pre-marital homes for longer than that after getting married so one or other should have been nominated as their primary residence - as a married couple you're not allowed to retain two primary residences indefinitely.This type of situation must have happened millions of times before, when people start new relationships and they need to sell one of their existing homes after getting together. I honestly doubt people are expecting to pay CGT when one of those original homes gets sold.
However, a lot of the time a couple getting married will probably sell one or other (or perhaps both) of the existing properties within two years and in that scenario I don't think any CGT is payable. If one is retained I imagine it's often rented out and then income tax rules apply (as will CGT if and when it's eventually sold).
The daft thing in Rayner's case is that, even assuming her house wasn't the one nominated as the main residence post-marriage, I suspect any CGT liability would have been minimal. Therefore, in terms of numbers the whole thing probably doesn't add up to a row of beans (unless there's something in the right to buy rules that complicates things?).
President Merkin said:
Don't often rate Parris but he's spot on here. Every word amplified by some of the worst people on these pages.
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
They really are terrified of her. https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
JNW1 said:
It does happen all the time but when a couple marries - and each already has their own home - I think under HMRC rules they have to nominate which property is to be treated as their main residence within two years of getting married if they are going to retain and use both homes? The Rayners obviously kept both their pre-marital homes for longer than that after getting married so one or other should have been nominated as their primary residence - as a married couple you're not allowed to retain two primary residences indefinitely.
However, a lot of the time a couple getting married will probably sell one or other (or perhaps both) of the existing properties within two years and in that scenario I don't think any CGT is payable. If one is retained I imagine it's often rented out and then income tax rules apply (as will CGT if and when it's eventually sold).
The daft thing in Rayner's case is that, even assuming her house wasn't the one nominated as the main residence post-marriage, I suspect any CGT liability would have been minimal. Therefore, in terms of numbers the whole thing probably doesn't add up to a row of beans (unless there's something in the right to buy rules that complicates things?).
Yes, that does make sense. I'm not an expert in residential CGT (probably that is obvious!) so I don't know the rules fully, but is that point about two years after marriage on the HRMC website? I can see why there must be some kind of timeframe, because, as you say, it wouldn't be realistic to expect to keep two primary residences indefinitely.However, a lot of the time a couple getting married will probably sell one or other (or perhaps both) of the existing properties within two years and in that scenario I don't think any CGT is payable. If one is retained I imagine it's often rented out and then income tax rules apply (as will CGT if and when it's eventually sold).
The daft thing in Rayner's case is that, even assuming her house wasn't the one nominated as the main residence post-marriage, I suspect any CGT liability would have been minimal. Therefore, in terms of numbers the whole thing probably doesn't add up to a row of beans (unless there's something in the right to buy rules that complicates things?).
EddieSteadyGo said:
Realistically, if you owned a house, and you started a new relationship with a new partner who also owned their own house, and you paid for the upkeep of services on your original house and you also paid the mortgage. And they paid for the upkeep of services on their house and mortgage on their house. And then at some point you start living together and you start a family. Once the relationship seems stable you decide to sell your house and live in the one house together. Would you realistically expect to pay CGT on the gain of your original house?
What's more stable than being married with two kids? 
"Ang, now that we're married do you think we should move in together? It must be a struggle on your own with the 2 and 1 year old?"
"Not yet Mark, I really need to be sure that you're committed to this relationship"
President Merkin said:
Don't often rate Parris but he's spot on here. Every word amplified by some of the worst people on these pages.
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
I was with him until he claimed misogyny.https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
bennno said:
captain_cynic said:
They really are terrified of her.
Nah, she's just been a hugely vocal gobshyte baying for individuals to resign if theres any whiff of wrongdoing. Now she's been identified of wrongdoing, many individuals are simply calling for her to uphold her own standards.
bennno said:
captain_cynic said:
They really are terrified of her.
Nah, she's just been a hugely vocal gobshyte baying for individuals to resign if theres any whiff of wrongdoing. Now she's been identified of wrongdoing, many individuals are simply calling for her to uphold her own standards.
Rufus Stone said:
President Merkin said:
Don't often rate Parris but he's spot on here. Every word amplified by some of the worst people on these pages.
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
I was with him until he claimed misogyny.https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
captain_cynic said:
bennno said:
Nah, she's just been a hugely vocal gobshyte baying for individuals to resign if theres any whiff of wrongdoing.
Now she's been identified of wrongdoing, many individuals are simply calling for her to uphold her own standards.
You really are terrified. Now she's been identified of wrongdoing, many individuals are simply calling for her to uphold her own standards.
Or of ginger growlers.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff