Angela Rayner to face investigation?

[JNW1]

bhstewie said:

JNW1 said:

The only reason this has become a story is because you've got a politician who's been very vocal about MP's being held to the highest standards apparently failing to follow her own advice. The amount of CGT she may have sought to avoid is peanuts (if any) but the suspicion she might have lied about her living arrangements in order to do so - when she's been so outspoken in her criticism of other MP's breaking the law or bending the rules - is what's attracted the attention of her opponents and the media.

"Don't do as I do, do as I say" is a sentiment which tends to provoke an adverse reaction - and accusations of hypocrisy - and here we are....

I'm with you on the hypocrisy thing.

But I honestly have no idea of the likelihood of the Police saying "yep we've found evidence of criminality" at the end of this v it turning out the Mail and Telegraph were totally over-egging it all along.

If there's any wrongdoing my guess is she's not been honest about her living arrangements in order try to avoid (evade?) a CGT bill; however, if that's the case I think she's been really stupid as from the sounds of it any bill would have been negligible (if indeed there was one at all).

So IMO it's not the monetary amount that's given substance to the story, it's Rayner's potential dishonesty when she's so keen on calling that sort of thing out in others.

[heebeegeetee]

Mr Penguin said:

He's a backbench MP that most people won't have heard of and who lost the whip as soon as the story became public and who won't be standing in the next election. It also seems to be a more straightforward case than Rayner so less room for discussion.

"As soon as the story became public"

That took 3 years I understand, between the Tories and the media frothing over Rayner they successfully hid the story for 3 years, did they not?

Apologies, 3 months. Seems the Rayner frothing media sat on the story for 3 months. Did the police do likewise?

Edited by heebeegeetee on Sunday 21st April 09:40

[Mr Penguin]

heebeegeetee said:

"As soon as the story became public"

That took 3 years I understand, between the Tories and the media frothing over Rayner they successfully hid the story for 3 years, did they not?

Apologies, 3 months. Seems the Rayner frothing media sat on the story for 3 months. Did the police do likewise?

Edited by heebeegeetee on Sunday 21st April 09:40

I don't think the media sat on it for three months, it was three months since it was reported to CCHQ and then the media after they didn't do anything. The media also have to check it and run stories like this through lawyers so it will take a few weeks between them getting it and printing it.

The police were only informed after the story became public so they also haven't sat on it.

[Baroque attacks]

JNW1 said:

If there's any wrongdoing my guess is she's not been honest about her living arrangements in order try to avoid (evade?) a CGT bill; however, if that's the case I think she's been really stupid as from the sounds of it any bill would have been negligible (if indeed there was one at all).

So IMO it's not the monetary amount that's given substance to the story, it's Rayner's potential dishonesty when she's so keen on calling that sort of thing out in others.

That’s what it has evolved to - has she tried to bullst her way out of it.

[heebeegeetee]

Mr Penguin said:

I don't think the media sat on it for three months, it was three months since it was reported to CCHQ and then the media after they didn't do anything. The media also have to check it and run stories like this through lawyers so it will take a few weeks between them getting it and printing it.

I think the media are normally far more proactive than just waiting to be told a story.

[Mr Penguin]

heebeegeetee said:

I think the media are normally far more proactive than just waiting to be told a story.

How would they find out about the Menzies story if they were not given it?

[rscott]

Vanden Saab said:

sugerbear said:

All quiet on the Menzies thread though

Resigned and suspended, so the same as in this case ... oh wait.

Only when it hit the press, 3 months after the party started investigating. Still waiting for an explanation from the Tories as to why the big delay.

[rscott]

OzzyR1 said:

Angela Rayner is a weird one personally.

Often I can see where she is coming from in a debate & enjoy her direct style of delivery and that she makes some decent points in support of her argument.
To get to deputy shadow PM by the age of 42 after being pregnant at 16 & dropping out of school before GCSEs is remarkable.
Fair play, obviously has intelligence, determination and ambition.

At other times I find her arrogant and boorish.
Also hypocritical - recall her demanding Sunak's wife make her tax statements public even though a private individual with no role in government other than being married to Rishi. Recently, Rayner refused to release her own tax returns which smacks of double-standards.
Think she also stated that Boris should resign as a matter of principle when he was under investigation by the police for partygate.
Now she is being investigated herself, seems to have switched that to "I'll resign if found guilty".

Very marmite for me as a politician.
One thing I can say with certainty is that I'd hate to work under her as a trainee/graduate - don't think she'd make life easy.

I believe her line was that Boris should resign because Downing Street was under investigation - so the place he was supposed to be in charge of, rather than just him personally.

[heebeegeetee]

Mr Penguin said:

How would they find out about the Menzies story if they were not given it?

Westminster must be a heck of a rumour mill...

[98elise]

OzzyR1 said:

Angela Rayner is a weird one personally.

Often I can see where she is coming from in a debate & enjoy her direct style of delivery and that she makes some decent points in support of her argument.
To get to deputy shadow PM by the age of 42 after being pregnant at 16 & dropping out of school before GCSEs is remarkable.
Fair play, obviously has intelligence, determination and ambition.

At other times I find her arrogant and boorish.
Also hypocritical - recall her demanding Sunak's wife make her tax statements public even though a private individual with no role in government other than being married to Rishi. Recently, Rayner refused to release her own tax returns which smacks of double-standards.
Think she also stated that Boris should resign as a matter of principle when he was under investigation by the police for partygate.
Now she is being investigated herself, seems to have switched that to "I'll resign if found guilty".

Very marmite for me as a politician.
One thing I can say with certainty is that I'd hate to work under her as a trainee/graduate - don't think she'd make life easy.

I don't get that her (or any politicians) rise is remarkable. If you stand in a relatively safe seat then you're going to be an MP, then it's just a case of being picked for a role within the cabinet (or shadow cabinet).

You don't need to be qualified or competent to do the role.

Boris would be a perfect example. The only reason he was running the country is because he was popular. Even his greatest fans know that he was a buffoon who should never have had any real power.

[Mr Penguin]

98elise said:

I don't get that her (or any politicians) rise is remarkable. If you stand in a relatively safe seat then you're going to be an MP, then it's just a case of being picked for a role within the cabinet (or shadow cabinet).

You don't need to be qualified or competent to do the role.

Boris would be a perfect example. The only reason he was running the country is because he was popular. Even his greatest fans know that he was a buffoon who should never have had any real power.

Very few people who apply get picked to be an MP - six made the longlist in Sheffield Central but they had a lot more applications https://labourlist.org/2022/10/six-make-longlist-t...
Less than half of MPs are picked to be a junior minister - 109 ministers from 232 MPs (Labour 2015)
Less than half again make it to cabinet - 15 from those 109 are in the cabinet at any one time.

All in an environment where everyone is doing what they can to get ahead.

[Biggy Stardust]

Mr Penguin said:

Very few people who apply get picked to be an MP - six made the longlist in Sheffield Central but they had a lot more applications https://labourlist.org/2022/10/six-make-longlist-t...
Less than half of MPs are picked to be a junior minister - 109 ministers from 232 MPs (Labour 2015)
Less than half again make it to cabinet - 15 from those 109 are in the cabinet at any one time.

All in an environment where everyone is doing what they can to get ahead.

Not quite the level playing field you suggest:

"Labour first supported all-women shortlists for selecting parliamentary candidates at its 1993 conference, and it has since been credited with increasing women’s representation in politics. When the party used the policy in the 1997 general election, a record 101 women were elected to parliament.

Current high-profile politicians in today’s parliament — including Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner and MPs Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy — have all been selected under AWS."

[98elise]

Mr Penguin said:

98elise said:

I don't get that her (or any politicians) rise is remarkable. If you stand in a relatively safe seat then you're going to be an MP, then it's just a case of being picked for a role within the cabinet (or shadow cabinet).

You don't need to be qualified or competent to do the role.

Boris would be a perfect example. The only reason he was running the country is because he was popular. Even his greatest fans know that he was a buffoon who should never have had any real power.

Very few people who apply get picked to be an MP - six made the longlist in Sheffield Central but they had a lot more applications https://labourlist.org/2022/10/six-make-longlist-t...
Less than half of MPs are picked to be a junior minister - 109 ministers from 232 MPs (Labour 2015)
Less than half again make it to cabinet - 15 from those 109 are in the cabinet at any one time.

All in an environment where everyone is doing what they can to get ahead.

None of that sounds any more remarkable than any job or career, except in the main you need to have some sort of competence rather than popularity.

Again, I point to Boris as a perfect example....and he was PM!

[Mr Penguin]

Biggy Stardust said:

Not quite the level playing field you suggest:

"Labour first supported all-women shortlists for selecting parliamentary candidates at its 1993 conference, and it has since been credited with increasing women’s representation in politics. When the party used the policy in the 1997 general election, a record 101 women were elected to parliament.

Current high-profile politicians in today’s parliament — including Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner and MPs Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy — have all been selected under AWS."

They still have to beat the other women who stand and then make it through parliament. In Rayner's case, you can add being elected by the membership.

[andyA700]

Biggy Stardust said:

Mr Penguin said:

Very few people who apply get picked to be an MP - six made the longlist in Sheffield Central but they had a lot more applications https://labourlist.org/2022/10/six-make-longlist-t...
Less than half of MPs are picked to be a junior minister - 109 ministers from 232 MPs (Labour 2015)
Less than half again make it to cabinet - 15 from those 109 are in the cabinet at any one time.

All in an environment where everyone is doing what they can to get ahead.

Not quite the level playing field you suggest:

"Labour first supported all-women shortlists for selecting parliamentary candidates at its 1993 conference, and it has since been credited with increasing women’s representation in politics. When the party used the policy in the 1997 general election, a record 101 women were elected to parliament.

Current high-profile politicians in today’s parliament — including Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner and MPs Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy — have all been selected under AWS."

You can add Lisa Nandy to the AWS list as well. The following makes interesting reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-women_shortlist

[Wombat3]

Baroque attacks said:

JNW1 said:

If there's any wrongdoing my guess is she's not been honest about her living arrangements in order try to avoid (evade?) a CGT bill; however, if that's the case I think she's been really stupid as from the sounds of it any bill would have been negligible (if indeed there was one at all).

So IMO it's not the monetary amount that's given substance to the story, it's Rayner's potential dishonesty when she's so keen on calling that sort of thing out in others.

That’s what it has evolved to - has she tried to bullst her way out of it.

It was always about whether she's lying or not now in the context of her suitability for office in what will very likely be the next Government.

[Mr Penguin]

Today there is an article about her (written by the editor of the New Statesman) which I think is quite well balanced.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-rayner-i...

Article said:

In spring 2021, for instance, she outmanoeuvred Starmer and dispatched her aides to brief on her behalf after he tried to demote her during a botched shadow cabinet reshuffle from which Rayner emerged strengthened and garlanded with new job titles. The “more titles he feeds her, the hungrier I fear she is likely to become”, Boris Johnson quipped in the Commons, likening Rayner to a lioness. “She knows in any pride of lions, it is the male who tends to occupy the position of titular, of nominal authority, but the most dangerous beast, the prize hunter of the pack, is in fact the lioness.”

It's hard to say that she hasn't progressed a lot in her career compared to where she started.

[rscott]

Wombat3 said:

Baroque attacks said:

JNW1 said:

If there's any wrongdoing my guess is she's not been honest about her living arrangements in order try to avoid (evade?) a CGT bill; however, if that's the case I think she's been really stupid as from the sounds of it any bill would have been negligible (if indeed there was one at all).

So IMO it's not the monetary amount that's given substance to the story, it's Rayner's potential dishonesty when she's so keen on calling that sort of thing out in others.

That’s what it has evolved to - has she tried to bullst her way out of it.

It was always about whether she's lying or not now in the context of her suitability for office in what will very likely be the next Government.

Are you saying that if she does turn out to have been lying, she'll be carrying on the tradition of many recent government ministers?

[Wombat3]

rscott said:

Wombat3 said:

Baroque attacks said:

JNW1 said:

If there's any wrongdoing my guess is she's not been honest about her living arrangements in order try to avoid (evade?) a CGT bill; however, if that's the case I think she's been really stupid as from the sounds of it any bill would have been negligible (if indeed there was one at all).

So IMO it's not the monetary amount that's given substance to the story, it's Rayner's potential dishonesty when she's so keen on calling that sort of thing out in others.

That’s what it has evolved to - has she tried to bullst her way out of it.

It was always about whether she's lying or not now in the context of her suitability for office in what will very likely be the next Government.

Are you saying that if she does turn out to have been lying, she'll be carrying on the tradition of many recent government ministers?

Quite probably (and a pox on all their houses).

Nonetheless, if it is the case, it'd then be somewhat daft to elevate her to that position in the first place.

[Deesee]

Ah, 130k the ex husband made, by then being married and clearly not living together..

The DWP deep dive will be interesting.