Angela Rayner

[Lazarus]

Well Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party has been in the news a lot recently.
This is mostly in relation to financial affairs and the sale of a house and allegedly false information she gave in relation to her main residence.

Angela Rayner has said she’ll stand down if she’s found to have broken the law. I think many people would acknowledge that what she’s alleged to have done is a drop in the ocean compared to some Tory behaviour.
two wrongs don’t make a right; are the press right to be reporting on this, or is it a convenient storm in a teacup?

 

[Ennui]

I wrote a long whingy post but this is it in a nutshell.



The media decides who gets a kicking and when. Who that is depends on what's most suitable for our media barons' interests at the time.
Guilt or innocence doesn't come into it.

 

[MrsBsDayOff]

I don't know who I'm voting for next time. I couldn't be bothered with either Labour or Tories, and I've voted for both in the past. Can't stand Angela Rayner but equally can't stand Rishi Sunak etc

 

[Moley1]

This is a very good read and explains what is happening and why for those interested.

No wonder the Tories are out to get Angela Rayner

Setting the attack dogs on Angela Rayner shows us just how much she is feared—and if she resigns, it will only be a victory for cowardly conservative ...

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

 

[cowtastrophe]

This is a very good read and explains what is happening and why for those interested.

No wonder the Tories are out to get Angela Rayner

Setting the attack dogs on Angela Rayner shows us just how much she is feared—and if she resigns, it will only be a victory for cowardly conservative ...

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

That‘s a really good article and bang on the money, imho. I tend to think there’s a certain level of sexism involved too - a lot of the discussion I’ve seen on more male-dominated platforms use some rather misogynistic language about her in a way that they don’t about male politicians.

 

[Lazarus]

That’s an excellent article and a great reminder of how forgetful the Tories are when it comes to their money.
That said, am i satisfied that she can weedle out of saying she lived somewhere when she was clearly elsewhere with her husband? No.

 

[Traazers]

Probably a good time to revive this thread...

 

[FunSomeDays]

Even better time now!! Can’t believe she’s been cleared of that tax evasion..I mean how convenient!! One law for us poor suckers & quite another for them!!

 

[UsernameBlank]

Even better time now!! Can’t believe she’s been cleared of that tax evasion..I mean how convenient!! One law for us poor suckers & quite another for them!!

I’m not sure what exactly she’s done with the marital home. Sold some of her share to her sons trust fund bla bla bla but she obviously still owns part in legal documents and that means the new flat is a second owned home. She been cleared or deliberate wrong doing but still had to pay the 40k. Funny she was still arguing with HMRC the other week & now it suits her she clears it.

 

[Libertine1975]

From my understanding, her son was born with disabilities due to a duck up during his birth and the NHS paid a settlement to him which she and her ex are the trustees of. They used some trust money to adapt the home for the son.

She and husband then split up and she sold her half of the family home to the trust. She was still a legal owner of the property as she and her ex are the trustees of the trust but she personally has no equitable interest in the property.

Under HMRC rules she is still classed as not having replaced her main residence as she is a legal owner of the marital home. In my opinion whilst I understand why she has been made to pay the higher rate of SDLT I don’t necessarily agree with the law as it stands in this specific situation. She has acted in her son's interest by ensuring he can stay in an environment adapted for his needs.

 

[catsandsoup]

From my understanding, her son was born with disabilities due to a duck up during his birth and the NHS paid a settlement to him which she and her ex are the trustees of. They used some trust money to adapt the home for the son.

She and husband then split up and she sold her half of the family home to the trust. She was still a legal owner of the property as she and her ex are the trustees of the trust but she personally has no equitable interest in the property.

Under HMRC rules she is still classed as not having replaced her main residence as she is a legal owner of the marital home. In my opinion whilst I understand why she has been made to pay the higher rate of SDLT I don’t necessarily agree with the law as it stands in this specific situation. She has acted in her son's interest by ensuring he can stay in an environment adapted for his needs.

Obviously none of us know the ins and outs of her son's disability, but in fairness, he was born at 23 weeks; even if he'd had the best nurses, doctors and medical care in the world, it would be unavoidable that being born that early wouldn't impact on his long-term health.

 

[Libertine1975]

Obviously none of us know the ins and outs of her son's disability, but in fairness, he was born at 23 weeks; even if he'd had the best nurses, doctors and medical care in the world, it would be unavoidable that being born that early wouldn't impact on his long-term health.

Oh I agree I don't know the ins and outs but the NHS wouldn't have paid out unless they were found to have made a mistake contributing to whatever the disabilities are.

 

[UsernameBlank]

Angela was advised to get specialist advice on her situation but failed to. Even if she did the only way she could have avoided the 40k tax bill would’ve been to give up being a trustee and i doubt she’d of done that. I’m sure the tax cash was never hard earned and would have been free in a brown envelope so she won’t loose too much sleep over it.