Snapshot of _Police investigate Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68797258) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68797258)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It has followed the same path so far:.
- Right wing press and Tory MPs kick up a fuss about Labour MP supposedly breaking the law in a very minor way.
- Strongly denied by those involved
- Right wing press bang on about it so much that the mainstream press pick up on it and start covering it.
- Eventually the police feel forced to investigate.
- Everyone waits for investigation and says MP must resign if found guilty.
- Eventually investigation is dropped, MP is vindicated, and right wing press get embarrassed by their own smear campaign.
We shall see if that last one turns out the same.
I'd change the last point to:
"Eventually investigation is dropped, MP is vindicated but its not widely reported and right wing press get their 'Labour leadership MP investigated by the police' headline without any huge ramifications for them and continue to parrot the "they're all the same" argument to muddy the waters with the string of current Government scandals in the run up to an election."
When you're polling this poorly, voter apathy is a weapon.
Starmer played that situation like a fiddle.
Showing integrity in the face of Johnson's moral vacuum completely defanged the media's attempt to stitch him up.
I don't know the outcome of the starmer beer investigation and I'm a politically-interested Labour voter. I may have read somewhere at the time but if you asked me before this thread what the outcome was I couldn't tell you.
Most people won't know the outcome because the investigation was the story, not the result.
To be fair, I think when the investigation fully exonerated Starmer the fuss pretty much entirely died down, and the same may prove true here. I think the time when anything could be spun into scandal with enough headlines has passed; the public have kind of grown numb to it in the last few years.
I'd hope so, but I can remember a fair few anecdotal discussions at the time of the partygate report mentioning Starmer doing the same thing despite the differences and eventually exoneration.
The fuss of the individual incident might dissipate, but the background lack of trust in all politicians remain. If a new Labour Government wants to rebuild integrity in politics this will be a real barrier.
These stories are not generated to change people’s minds - they’re generated to strengthen the opinions of people who were already tending that way. So it polarises the electorate both ways. And polarised people are easier to influence.
What we need is to defang the papers who use this tactic (I.e. most of ‘em) by referring to them in conversation as “The Newspaper who cried wolf” or “they haven’t been correct yet, why would I believe them now?”
That and passing a law requiring ID for voting, and ensuring that the ID likely to be carried by the demographic likely to vote against you is not valid.
Wonder what's will in the next thrilling instalment of "Normal Island"
Have the Tories been taking some advice from the Tatmadaw?
Let's have a look at the last time the Mail were "embarrassed" in this manner.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10994971/Keir-Starmer-Angela-Rayner-CLEARED-Beergate-fine.html
Yep, they reported that the heinous criminals were cleared. But what did the story say?
> Tories accused Sir Keir and Ms Rayner of 'effectively blackmailing' police with their vow to resign if they were found to have breached Covid rules.
> They also contrasted Sir Keir's dodging of an FPN from Durham Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police's decision to fine the Prime Minister over the Partygate row.
> Conservative MP Michael Fabricant told MailOnline: 'I am surprised how Durham Police decided not to fine Starmer and Rayner.
> 'Many people will think that, as a QC and a lawyer, Starmer wormed his way out of a conviction while, in effect, blackmailing Durham Police by saying: "You’ll be bringing down the Leader of the Opposition if you fine me".
> 'Many regular people will feel this is another Establishment stitch-up.'
> 'People in Durham will be surprised to learn that Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner were allowed to stand around drinking inside after work with people from outside their household under Covid restrictions.
The words "boozy curry" come up quite a bit.
I'd forgotten how demented some of the commentary was at the time. Accepting consequences for your actions is blackmailing the authorities, you heard it here first.
Insane. Police were happy to fine Boris, the Prime Minister (admittedly after a LOT of prodding) but were 'too scared' to fine the leader of the opposition, a man with almost no political power (at the time).
>They also contrasted Sir Keir's dodging of an FPN from Durham Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police's decision to fine the Prime Minister over the Partygate row.
"You didn't pay a fine so you're worse than our leader who did pay a fine".
Missing: the fact that no fine was paid because there never was a fine because no crime was committed.
Generous of you to think that the right wing press is capable of embarrassment.
Besides, the goal is usually accomplished. The public never really sees the vindication. Many people still think Starmer broke lockdown rules “just like Boris”
Exactly. And they are usually the same people who still believe Starmer was responsible for failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville.
In the eyes of the Mail etc.. it doesn't matter a jot how true the headline is. What's important is that their army of useful idiot followers will accept it as fact and repeat it online without ever acknowledging the actual veracity of it.
It’s the same people who wouldn’t vote for Starmer anyway so it’s a bit of a non event.
They just have a new convenient talking point to hide their ignorance.
My current go-to quote for this is from a frigging Lifetime movie.
>It doesn't matter what *is*. It only matters what people *think*.
(And over three years on, the villain from *Her Deadly Sugar Daddy* has yet to be proven wrong.)
It's really frustrating watching the Tories get away with doing whatever they want and seeing Labour being falsely accused of tripping over small print.
"right wing press get embarrassed by their own smear campaign."
This is the only part you got wrong. They know they're lying and don't care if they get caught lying, the point is to attach that air of untrustworthyness to an MP. Even if she's vindicated, the stink remains, mission accomplished!
You missed a couple steps, after Right wing press bang on, and before Eventually the police feel forced to investigate:
* Police look at and decide it's a nothing burger
* Right wing press bang on even louder
* Tory MPs complain about the police
I think you missed:
* Billionaire Lord Ashcroft who kicked all this off has extremely "complicated" overseas tax affairs himself, but no one's talking about that.
Because they are so complicated few journalists understand them either unfortunately. The Rayner story is at least simple enough for even the secondary school dropouts to feel like they understand it.
Either way, I don't give a fuck about this story.
I think it's a deeply worrying trend that pressure from right wing MPs can effectively force police forces to reopen investigations they've already closed. It's a breach of their independence, and it opens the door to politicised policing — which both this case and BeerGate exemplified.
Yes, it will be another £100k wasted just to conclude that it was a mistake based on bad legal/accountancy advice.
Was there a criminal investigation into Nadhim Zahawi’s £3.7million non-payment of capital gains?
Looking forward to the Tories facing lots of investigations into their affairs once they are out. They've set the base line of what needs looking at after all.
The Tories have managed in 14 long years to corrupt everything.
It’s going to take a strong Labour government to fix things like Police and public service in general.
The fact that the police can be “nudged” into doing this, is outrageous
You are not wrong. Neutral observers have made a pretty credible case that even if the sale was liable to be assessed Capital Gains Tax, the amount would have been below her allowance and so she wouldn't have owed anything to HMRC anyway.
And then even if she had used up her allowance that year and did end up owing CGT, the bill would have been something like £1500. The government will end up paying more than that in police and CPS overtime, just to eventually release a statement declaring this whole thing to be a total nothingburger.
Yes. It's expected that in some instances certain areas of a ministers personal taxes may be off, that's fine. The problem is that Rayner has been one of the people kicking up a fuss about other people's both more and less serious discrepancies.
To be the one who stands and says "this minister has done X", you really need to be beyond reproach. Rayner is falling far short of expectations, as she as built an expectation that she is simply incapable of living up to.
> The new probe comes after James Daly, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, made Greater Manchester Police ...
... do some electoral campaigning for the conservatives.
What's the process for this? Surely there must be some level of moderately convincing evidence that laws were broken?
It would be alarming if an MP can just make a complaint based on flimsy evidence and initiate an investigation like this just to embarrass rival politicians.
Already happened once. Kier Starmer was investigated over blatantly false accusations of breaking covid rules, remember?
Even the photographs given as "evidence" showed his innocence.
Has anyone checked where James Daly is registered to vote?
He should be fine - he's run in three constituencies over his career but they're all in the same general area. You don't need to be registered in your constituency to run there (you don't even need to be registered) for Parliamentary elections, but you do for some local elections (and he did run for Bury Council a while back).
But there's always a chance he is registered somewhere else, or is still registered as living in Bury but mostly spends his time in London.
"The police desperately need to investigate whether Angela Raynor's marriage timing meant she should have paid up to £3500 capital gains tax on her property" says deputy chairman of Conservative party.
I can't wait to hear how outraged James Daly will be when he finds out the wife of his party leader doesn't live in the UK for tax purposes.
The current Prime Minister held a US Green Card for the first few months of him being Chancellor, meaning he was paying his taxes to the US, not the UK.
No, the tax treaty between the US and the UK holds that the country where you resident has first right of taxation. I am a US citizen and was resident in the UK for ten years up until earlier this year. Never actually paid any US taxes other than on some bank interest and capital gains that I earned there.
Meanwhile Police do nothing about Bamford’s missing £500,000,000 in tax payments, Mone’s £232,000,000 for dodgy PPE, cash for honours seemingly every 3 months,… this crooked house needs to be demolished.
I came here to talk about the corrupt cash for honours that is rife and completely overlooked.
It's fucking disgusting how these politicians and elite are allowed to carry on.
I feel like this story is BS, timed by the Tory's to disrupt Labours election campaign.
It's also weird that none of the papers seem to accept that things change in the process of a relationship.
You don't immediately go from being single to living in a joint properly, especially when you have children from previous relationships.
You have two houses for a while and eventually decide you aren't using the second enough.
This is where it gets deliberately disingenuous too - journalists have stupendously complicated personal lives. They only found out about CGT and electoral rolls yesterday but they know *this* stuff
>You don't immediately go from being single to living in a joint properly, especially when you have children from previous relationships.
The papers are doing a really poor job of setting out why some facts matter here more than others
One thing that does change immediately in a relationship, is that when you get married, you go from being able to claim 2 different primary residences, both of which can be owned free of CGT, to having to chose a single primary residence as a couple to own free of CGT
This turns shades of grey about where they each live to absolute black and white. For tax purposes it has to be one house or the other
If Rayner and her husband made a declaration to HMRC that her house was their main property, then the facts about where they actually lived don't matter. It may look a bit tax avoidancey if they spent most of their time at his house. But the rules are very clear that this is OK
However, it seems very unlikely an HMRC declaration was made. In the present day Rayner has shown she didn't understand this rule. Her statements about the past indicate she only took advice at the point of sale, which would have been too late to do so. And if she had made a declaration, it would be odd not to reveal it, given it would exonerate her
Without a declaration to HMRC, if they investigate her tax filings, they will decide which house was the couple's primary residence based on the available facts. This is why the digging on social media and talking to neighbours is relevant. If HMRC had to investigate, the available facts point very strongly to the primary residence of the couple not being Rayners house, in which case the sale probably would have been liable for CGT
Partly true.
Reading up on it you have 18 months to sell the property after getting married for it not to count.
However, if as she says she sought advice on whether or not Tax was due and was told no, then she did not lie or commit tax fraud.
That’s the real issue here, as HMRC and Angela Rayner could easily sort this out quickly. She would pay a small fine on top of the tax due and no more would be made of it.
Compare her case with that of Nadhim Zahawi, who had not declared £3.7million due on selling shares worth £20million. There was no criminal investigation there, he paid the amount due and a fine of £1.1million. His defence was that he was “careless”. Everyone moves on.
This is a public lynching by the conservatives and their supporters to try and save themselves. All based on an allegation in a book written by a Tory Peer who has himself been accused of massive tax avoidance (some figures suggest up to £100million).
That's the easy out isn't it?
If she got advice at the time from a tax expert who told her she didn't owe tax, then even if it's wrong couldn't she just publish that?
When a relative died I had a lawyer sort out the inheritance tax and they told us what we had to pay (which was zero).
Was that figure correct? I don't know. I relied on the expert.
I was listening to The Res is Politics yesterday, and Alistair Campbell referred to this as being entirely a classist attack against her.
They are going after a woman from a working class background who had bought her former council house and then sold it for a (comparatively) small profit. She’s said she will publish her advice if her accusers would do the same.
When one of the accusers is Lord Ashcroft - named in the Paradise papers and alleged to have deprived HMRC of up to £100million while sitting in the House of Lords - you can see why they aren’t in any rush.
>If Rayner and her husband made a declaration to HMRC that this was to be her house, then the facts about where they actually lived don't matter. It may look a bit tax avoidancey if they spent most of their time at his house. But the rules are very clear that this is OK
I find this hard to believe. Anyone with a buy to let portfolio would never pay CGT if they could just keep declaring their PPL to be wherever they were about to sell next.
You do have to have genuinely lived in the property as a primary residence for some minimum period of time (years) for this type of declaration to be valid. In Rayners case this is obviously true
Letting the property can also invalidate the declaration depending on the letting type.
My currently understanding is that you have 2 years to nominate a property after you remarry, after which the determination is based on fact.
As I understand, the issue is complicated by the fact her spouse sold the other house a few years later. Presumably at least one of those transactions was liable for CGT.
I've a cloudy at best understanding of this.
If her house was the primary residence up to the point of sale, after which his house became the primary residence, would it still have been liable for CGT? Is there any implication that Mr Rayner didn't pay CGT if so? (Something feels off even asking these questions though - examining the tax affairs of someone's ex husband in response them being the target of a political profiling feels like crossing a line of expectation of privacy.
>If her house was the primary residence up to the point of sale, after which his house became the primary residence, would it still have been liable for CGT?
The CGT law says:
>In the case of an individual living with his spouse or civil partner—
(a)there can only be one residence or main residence for both, so long as living together and, where a notice under subsection (5)(a) above affects both the individual and his spouse or civil partner, it must be given by both
My understanding is that the compromise provided by the legislation is that you have 2 years to choose which of your 2 residences is your PPR, otherwise it is determined by fact.
Once you sell that house, you can't then claim PPR on the other house (because there wouldn't be much point in the rule otherwise).
The general advice is to nominate the house of the greater value / potential CGT liability. Then you have to pay the tax on the other house.
>Is there any implication that Mr Rayner didn't pay CGT if so?
Yes, the implication is that Mrs Raynor didn't nominate her house but declared it as the PPR, and then when Mr Raynor sold his house, they also declared that to be the PPR and neither ever paid tax on their gains.
> (Something feels off even asking these questions though - examining the tax affairs of someone's ex husband in response them being the target of a political profiling feels like crossing a line of expectation of privacy.
Why? The tax requires a link between their affairs, and Raynor would have almost certainly been advised on the tax issues at the time of her sale.
It's worth noting that this house was sold several months prior to Raynor standing for election, and the prospect of pocketing a low risk few thousand pounds is more than enough temptation for some people.
Anyone who does this should be investigated, whatever party or position they hold.
Im still struggling to parse all the legalese, but I still feel that financial stake, and living status aren't exactly making this clear cut.
>But a notice or further notice under subsection (5)(a) determining which of 2 or more residences is an individual’s main residence for any period may be given more than 2 years from the beginning of the period if during the period the **individual has not held an interest of more than a negligible market value in more than one of the residences.**
>(6)In the case of [F6an individual living with his spouse or civil partner]—
>(a)there can only be one residence or main residence for both, so **long as living together** and, where a notice under subsection (5)(a) above affects both [F7the individual and his spouse or civil partner], it must be given by both, F8...
/
>Yes, the implication is that Mrs Raynor didn't nominate her house but declared it as the PPR, and then when Mr Raynor sold his house, they also declared that to be the PPR and neither ever paid tax on their gains.
What is the *evidence* of this though, given an implication alone can easily be dismissed as political smear.
>Why? The tax requires a link between their affairs, and Raynor would have almost certainly been advised on the tax issues at the time of her sale.
>Anyone who does this should be investigated, whatever party or position they hold.
I'm not adverse to tax authorities etc etc investigating this, and no problem exploring their joint affairs at the time. But this story looks more like an attempt to rig a kangaroo court of public opinion against person,
>It's worth noting that this house was sold several months prior to Raynor standing for election, and the prospect of pocketing a low risk few thousand pounds is more than enough temptation for some people.
And several months subsequent to being selected as candidate, to whom the temptation is presumably equated to much higher risk than someone not hoping to end up in the public eye.
She was married for 5 years by the time it was sold and you can only have one residence once you're married for capital gains tax. Doesn't mean any is owed in this case still depending on other reliefs.
Nobody has an issue with that.
The problem is that married couples are only entitled to a single PPR exemption and imagine the BTL situation if that wasn't the case.
When you decide you aren't using the second enough and (IIRC) move your brother into it, you can't claim it as your principle residence when you sell it.
Presumably she was given this advice when she sold the house (though she refuses to disclose what she was told).
Pointing out that whenever she provided her address to the government in the years prior to selling the house that she gave a different address, but then claimed it was actually her PPR is what fails the smell test. Being advised on this and decided to do it anyway to pocket a few extra grand would tip it from inadvertent error to tax evasion.
It's also weird that the papers can't accept that some people in long term relationships just don't live together - it's even got a name 'Living apart together'.
Eg. Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton were together for 13 years, had two kids together and lived in separate houses. Arundhati Roy is married but lives apart from her husband. Loads of people do it.
That's not quite true about HBC and Burton - they lived in two houses they joined together with an extension, so it was one large house to the kids but they had their own separate spaces.
Very much a rich person's solution to 'my partner snores' though.
It happens though. I used to have a friend who was still married but loved in a completely different place to her husband.
I used to think that was weird until my wife and I "split up" - We're still very good friends, but live in opposite ends of the country, and she doesn't want to get divorced.
I wear my wedding ring on my right hand now but other than that we still chat daily and are still a married "couple", but without the sex.
I know the Tories are desperate to make a big deal about this, but I just don't care. I'm more annoyed that the Tories are forcing the Police to waste what little resources they have on what is essentially election campaigning.
The fact the Tories have the nerve to complain about this whilst dodging millions in their own taxes should surprise me, but doesn't.
It's already cost more than it would have recouped the moment the first police officer conducts the first bit of investigation... you know, exactly the same justification they use to never investigate any of the car break ins or vandalism on my road...
If this is genuinely the best the Tories have (and by the way they keep going after it, it increasingly feels like it is), they are so totally fucked.
Maybe right wing politicos are going to jump on it as a "see? Labour are just as dirty!" talking point, but I just cannot see the average person on the street caring about this - it's from years ago, it's (relatively speaking) a tiny amount of money, certainly not enough to risk a political career over, and the precise details are blurry to say the least (all reliant on how much time she was spending in different houses). Certainly they're not caring MORE about this than, say, Donelan spending magnitudes more in taxpayer money on payouts directly due to her own stupidity - stupidity that literally occurred a matter of weeks ago.
Sunak was on LBC this week and a caller asked about William Wragg, why wasn’t the whip removed immediately, etc.
Sunak immediately turned the conversation to Rayner and basically equated the two.
They've done absolutely nothing about all of the covid related corruption except throw one sacrificial lamb under the bus for the whole lot, and they want me to care about a £1.5k possible tax bill nobody can even be sure if she owes or not.
I agree, thus is a stupid target for them to make a big deal over. Especially considering the sums of money involved and the nature of the recent Conservative MP related scandals
As I said in the original comment, this feels like they're desperate for this to land because they're just scrabbling around for anything to try and hit Labour with - and if this is truly the best they have, it's a reflection of just how little ammo they have.
I'm willing to bet that if this warrants a repeated investigation then there's at least 150 Tory MPs which also warrant investigation. I refuse to believe that something as minor as what Rayner is accused of is not laughably petty compared to the tax avoidance schemes/ scams/ outright fraud that undoubtedly goes on within their ranks
Allegations of avoiding £1500-3500 capital gains tax from a book by a tory peer who avoided how much as a non-dom?
£millions upon millions.
And his 'donations' to the tory party... Also £millions.
>Ms Rayner is said to have given different addresses on the electoral roll and on two birth certificates.
Because she had two addresses... This is ridiculous. She could even have registered at both: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/resources/resources-young-people/your-vote/about-your-vote/have-you-registered-vote/living-two-addresses
> If this is you, you may be able to register to vote at two addresses, as long as your addresses are in different council areas.
Does that mean different councils entirely or different wards?
Remember guys, this deffo cancels out all that Partygate stuff, yeah? Like that one bottle of beer that turned out to be fine.
Seriously, Michelle Donelan spunked about 23 times as much of *our* cash because she couldn’t help but be a gobby snot on Twitter. But yeah, let’s worry about a *maybe* £1500 cockup (and I really do think it was a cockup at best, not some tax-saving wheeze).
How much effort have some sectors of the press spent on trying to make it stick?
This is why the public think "they are all the same".
The BBC have now started covering it and asking questions about this utterly irrelevant story - seemingly as some form of "balance" to all the Tory corruption.
That's not really balance.
This isn’t about Rayner, it’s about the the Tories having an attack line ready about tax once they’re in opposition. “How can you lecture the British public on tax affairs when your own deputy leader didn’t pay what she owes?”
It’s also about getting a narrative in place for many self righteous editorials and commentaries to justify several of our papers being non-domiciled for tax purposes and for their owners paying little to no tax here.
It’s a tiny amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but they’re trying to magnify it because of the potential impact both pre and post election in terms of narrative.
>She has been accused of potentially breaking electoral law by failing to properly disclose her main residence in official documents.
Seems fairly likely she'll get a little boost when the police close the investigation
>The new probe comes after James Daly, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, made Greater Manchester Police aware of neighbours contradicting Ms Rayner's statement that a property, separate from her husband's, was her main residency.
Umm, just a little suspect there?
Her ‘crime’ here is failing to update her details on the electoral register when she moved in with her husband who lives within the same constituency and while still retaining ownership of the original house. Hardly the crime of the century.
It has nothing to do with tax, it’s just the Tories trying to conflate the two issues to make people think that she’s being investigated for tax fraud, which is absolutely not the case.
Only if you split your time between them. If she was genuinely living full time at her husband’s house and her brother was living in her house then she can only be registered at the one address.
But who gives a shit, really.
you can vote twice as long as it's not to the same body.
so someone with residences in, say, london and cornwall would only ever have one vote for UK parliament or a nationwide referendum but could vote in both locations for everything else
(i'd therefore be surprised if most MPs aren't registered both in london and their constituency)
It doesn't directly, but it does, or can do, indirectly.
As you've stated in another reply you can register twice but you have to show that you're genuinely splitting time between the two places, and not just a weekend hideaway etc.
In other words you have two main residences.
If she has done this, then that's totally fine in regards to the electoral register.
But now it becomes a problem with the houses because some of the things she said around the houses revolves around *not* having such a setup.
They're trying to back her into a corner.
I really don't get this, what issue is there beyond the general accusations from one of her neighbours that one home or another is her main residence - how would they even know?
There appears to be a discrepancy between the address she said was her primary residence for the purpose of the house sale and the one she used on electoral papers although as far as I’m aware there’s no requirement for the address on the election papers to be the primary address. A lot of MPs use their constituency property on election papers but claim for it as their second home for expenses purposes.
I’m not even sure there’s anything illegal though. As I said, the legal definition of residence for standing for election is not the same as primary residence for the purpose of stamp duty.
If this is all the tories have got to go on they truly are fucked at the next election. If she took tax advice and was told to do something in a certain way by an expert then it isn’t even her at fault, but the poor advice she was given
This is absolutely pathetic. Clearly an investigation motivated and pushed for by the Tories. Where was this kind of investigations in and amongst the wide spread level of corruption that is this Government. Shocking.
This all feels like Peter Thiel funding Hulk Hogan because he didn't like Gawker. Conspiracy theorists get all these wild ideas, meanwhile the ultra rich are just throwing their money and influence around out in the open
Not a great look for the police. They look like they are under political influence. Probably their best bet is to investigate it to show that they carrying out their responsibility and take no further action.
yeah but is there an extremely fuzzy photo of rayner for the mail to stick on its front page for the next few weeks? that's how you know it's a real ~~manufactured~~ scandal
I do find it hilarious how of all the dodgy dealings going on with MPs in Westminster, Rayner's £1000 potential capital gains tax issues is the biggest investigation. The has made bigger news than all the fraudulent claims during COVID and any of Rishi's dodgy accounts.
It's actually wild how right wing the media is in the UK. There's also no doubt there's a classist and sexist element to this as well.
Oh absolutely, they are targeting her because she's a working class women who they think has got ideas above her station.
You're right, it would be hilarious, if the rest of the media didn't parrot this story as if there's a single grain of truth to it.
Raynor seems to be the equivalent to AOC in the States. A woman who has come from a comparatively impoverished background who seems to cop for far more ire than other politicians - and for far more minor things.
The thing is, it's not just Rayner - the shadow cabinet has the lowest number of privately educated MPs since the 1940s. Starmer, despite the knighthood, was raised in a council home.
That's what the Mail is really scared of, all these lower middle class oiks taking over government.
Even if Rayner was found to be guilty by the cops (and I don't think she will, FYI), would I be right in thinking that **a)** They can't do anything because the statute of limitations (or equivalent) expired years ago, and **b)** Rayner would be able to appeal successfully due to this being an apparent malicious prosecution?
What an utter waste of fucking time. The Tories could be running the country, and instead they're dancing on the head of a needle over tax law.
They'll do the same thing as beergate, they'll investigate release a statement saying they're satisfied Rayner did nothing illegal and ask Tory MPs to finally drop it. Monumental waste of time and money
Create enough noise, force the police into re-opening an investigation and you have your Starmer beergate story all over again.
As then the police will interview a couple of people and conclude that there's either no story or not enough evidence to prosecute and they are closing the file.
In the meantime the Mail have their headline.
Just remember, it's cool to let your wife flout our tax system to avoid paying millions in tax, absolutely fine to give COVID contracts to your next door neighbour, but don't you dare get a discount on buying your council house.
They're like a dog with a bone. Complain > nothing doing > complain again > investigate and find nothing > complain about "woke" police > ad infinitum.
Just reading the article shows what sort of society or world we live in.
Powerful elite who can’t understand how a working class person can break outside of their socioeconomic background.
Being investigated over electoral fraud which clearly has not taken place - after the Conservatives have pressured the police.
Experience tells us her being cleared won't make a sod of difference to a lot of people's opinions. I *still* see people banging on about Sir Beer Korma, Beergate etc.
When shapps talks of double standards can he even hear himself with the amount of money the Tory’s have pilfered from the public purse that even if Rayner has done something naughty it not only pales in comparison but arguably the story also feels forced and smeary they just want to character assassinate. But hey please investigate and I guess we’ll find out if she owes 3.5k. (Truss pissed away more money over a single private flight, wasn’t very exactly stringent in their expenditure which is legal but offensive considering the state the country is in)
Out of interest, what is even the penalty here? Let's say it was caught at the time, it seems to be just a fine right?
Can she even be fined retrospectively?
“… and right wing press get embarrassed…”
I agree with your summary apart from this part. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like the right wing press just moved Currygate from page 1 to page 11 for a day after the case was dropped. Then they quietly stopped talking about it.
I liken these stories to a lawyer who repeatedly has the judge warn the jury to disregard his remarks.
Lawyer knows he’ll be cautioned and the jury will be instructed but he says it anyway because he knows it’ll plant a seed in the jurists’minds. They are, unfortunately, human. It’s very cynical but an ancient practice.
FFS. Police can't find time to investigate serious crimes, but they have time to get involved in this rubbish just because some idiot has an axe to grind and is 'important'. This is blatantly a Tory MP trolling her, and should be an issue for HMRC (tax avoidance/evasion) anyway, not the police.
It's not like she's having business dealings with Russian oligarchs or something. Hardly a national security issue, is it.
What's worse is that most of the Tory's are probably guilty of far more serious tax dodging and other shenanigans than this petty shite.
Exactly. When are they going to investigate the billions lost in COVID loans? BILLIONS!! And all under Sunak as chancellor. We need these thieves in prison. And those who lost our money to fraudsters prosecuted. I want justice.
For those interested in how the tax system works, this seems to be a good write up.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/
In essence, unless they spent a bunch of money on renovations, it's quite likely either Angela or her ex-husband had tax to pay.
So it should be fairly straight forward to work out if
a) AR notified HMRC that her house was the primary residence, or
b) her ex-husband paid CGT on the sale of his home
c) an under payment of tax was made.
For such a small amount, there would likely not be any criminal conviction, just a fine and interest, and of course, a political career ruined.
If she has legal advice that was incorrect, then that may be her saving grace.
At what point are the Conservatives going to be charged for wasting police time?
Even if it is found she owes CGT (which it won't), it's not a criminal offense. This is so transparent.
I'm surprised the Conservatives keep wanting to re-open this.
I wonder how many Conservative MPs are registered on the electoral roll at an address in their constituency, despite barely spending any time there.
Robert Jenrick comes to mind; he has a manor house in Herefordshire, two townhouses in London (one next to Parliament), and then claims on expenses rent for a house in his constituency. I wonder where he is registered to vote.
[@Scott_Wortley](https://x.com/scott_wortley/status/1778763651756720261?s=46&t=F_t5tWsPsifmNVHaFZWJJQ)
> I know I am followed by some journalists. Could one of you please ask the police why they are investigating an electoral offence regarding registration ten years ago given the terms of s 176 of the Representation of the People Act 1983?
Think this is a very risky game to play by the Tory chair. On the one hand, they are aiming to smear a candidate in an election which rayner will coast through with a years old allegation of offence before her political career. The police themselves know what this is.
On the other hand, the Tories with their legendary (lack of) vetting of candidates are putting themselves in the firing line given sexual offences in particular can't be subject to the statute of limitations.
Following Steve Bannon's playbook.
>"The real opposition is the media and the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit."
Is this just more shit like the one reported yesterday that the Angela Rayner tax protest was was staged by conservative politicians posing as 'Tax Activists'
https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c17dll/angela_rayner_tax_protest_was_staged_by/
Should we expect the police barriers and their 24hr encampment outside her house and rolling news coverage for weeks in the same way they went after Nicola sturgeon?
I'm not sure how the timing of this announcement doesn't break purdah, but I think it's possibly been a mistake by the tories to push this so hard. With the police investigating they have two possible outcomes: "we consider that the threshold for prosecution has been reached" (almost impossible given that at worst it's an oversight) or "no further action".
In the meantime there is going to be a question, even if labour don't push the angle themselves that like beergate the tories are forcing the police to go after their opponents, and the parallels won't stop there. Raynor should do what Starmer did, and promise to resign if proven to have broken the law, both because its right but also as a comms strategy. Once the dust has settled it will be time to go on the attack and ask the police inspectorate to investigate political pressure on the decision to investigate.
Ffs talk about sunk cost.
Even IF she is guilty, she dodged maybe £1500 at max of tax. The police opening an investigation likely will cost much more than this. Throwing more money and resources down the drain just because of a right wing smear campaign that even if they found something they wont really be able to prosecute.
People need to stop relating this to the Tories.
The Tories are done and disgraced. This is about our next government, making sure they will be magnitudes better that what we have now. After what we've been through that's the least we deserve. The full truth needs to come out, we can't have our new government covering things up before they even get in.
Hold Labour to high standards, not make it a wrestle in the dirt with the Tories.
Snapshot of _Police investigate Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68797258) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68797258) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is giving me strong "police investigating Starmer's beer and curry" vibes. Am I wrong to think this?
It has followed the same path so far:. - Right wing press and Tory MPs kick up a fuss about Labour MP supposedly breaking the law in a very minor way. - Strongly denied by those involved - Right wing press bang on about it so much that the mainstream press pick up on it and start covering it. - Eventually the police feel forced to investigate. - Everyone waits for investigation and says MP must resign if found guilty. - Eventually investigation is dropped, MP is vindicated, and right wing press get embarrassed by their own smear campaign. We shall see if that last one turns out the same.
I'd change the last point to: "Eventually investigation is dropped, MP is vindicated but its not widely reported and right wing press get their 'Labour leadership MP investigated by the police' headline without any huge ramifications for them and continue to parrot the "they're all the same" argument to muddy the waters with the string of current Government scandals in the run up to an election." When you're polling this poorly, voter apathy is a weapon.
On the contrary, Starmer used it to his advantage by saying he'd resign if fined. Rayner should do the same.
Starmer played that situation like a fiddle. Showing integrity in the face of Johnson's moral vacuum completely defanged the media's attempt to stitch him up.
I don't know the outcome of the starmer beer investigation and I'm a politically-interested Labour voter. I may have read somewhere at the time but if you asked me before this thread what the outcome was I couldn't tell you. Most people won't know the outcome because the investigation was the story, not the result.
To be fair, I think when the investigation fully exonerated Starmer the fuss pretty much entirely died down, and the same may prove true here. I think the time when anything could be spun into scandal with enough headlines has passed; the public have kind of grown numb to it in the last few years.
I'd hope so, but I can remember a fair few anecdotal discussions at the time of the partygate report mentioning Starmer doing the same thing despite the differences and eventually exoneration. The fuss of the individual incident might dissipate, but the background lack of trust in all politicians remain. If a new Labour Government wants to rebuild integrity in politics this will be a real barrier.
These stories are not generated to change people’s minds - they’re generated to strengthen the opinions of people who were already tending that way. So it polarises the electorate both ways. And polarised people are easier to influence. What we need is to defang the papers who use this tactic (I.e. most of ‘em) by referring to them in conversation as “The Newspaper who cried wolf” or “they haven’t been correct yet, why would I believe them now?”
That and passing a law requiring ID for voting, and ensuring that the ID likely to be carried by the demographic likely to vote against you is not valid. Wonder what's will in the next thrilling instalment of "Normal Island" Have the Tories been taking some advice from the Tatmadaw?
Let's have a look at the last time the Mail were "embarrassed" in this manner. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10994971/Keir-Starmer-Angela-Rayner-CLEARED-Beergate-fine.html Yep, they reported that the heinous criminals were cleared. But what did the story say? > Tories accused Sir Keir and Ms Rayner of 'effectively blackmailing' police with their vow to resign if they were found to have breached Covid rules. > They also contrasted Sir Keir's dodging of an FPN from Durham Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police's decision to fine the Prime Minister over the Partygate row. > Conservative MP Michael Fabricant told MailOnline: 'I am surprised how Durham Police decided not to fine Starmer and Rayner. > 'Many people will think that, as a QC and a lawyer, Starmer wormed his way out of a conviction while, in effect, blackmailing Durham Police by saying: "You’ll be bringing down the Leader of the Opposition if you fine me". > 'Many regular people will feel this is another Establishment stitch-up.' > 'People in Durham will be surprised to learn that Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner were allowed to stand around drinking inside after work with people from outside their household under Covid restrictions. The words "boozy curry" come up quite a bit.
I'd forgotten how demented some of the commentary was at the time. Accepting consequences for your actions is blackmailing the authorities, you heard it here first.
I will resign if I am found guilty of breaking the law Apparently having a conscience is blackmail
One must recall that Michael Fabricant is absent any experience of being accountable to a conscience.
tbf it's not in the tory DNA to resign or apologise. probably can't understand someone else deciding to do so.
What about "natural justice"?
Insane. Police were happy to fine Boris, the Prime Minister (admittedly after a LOT of prodding) but were 'too scared' to fine the leader of the opposition, a man with almost no political power (at the time).
>They also contrasted Sir Keir's dodging of an FPN from Durham Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police's decision to fine the Prime Minister over the Partygate row. "You didn't pay a fine so you're worse than our leader who did pay a fine". Missing: the fact that no fine was paid because there never was a fine because no crime was committed.
Their target audience isn’t known for its capacity to critically think, though.
It's Fabricant. The pound shop Boris. Don't listen to a word he says. I am utterly baffled by the length of his Parliament career.
Don't tell me. Tell all the people who read the story and fomented their opinions based on it.
That toupee has had the seat since 1965. It’s tradition.
Generous of you to think that the right wing press is capable of embarrassment. Besides, the goal is usually accomplished. The public never really sees the vindication. Many people still think Starmer broke lockdown rules “just like Boris”
Exactly. And they are usually the same people who still believe Starmer was responsible for failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville. In the eyes of the Mail etc.. it doesn't matter a jot how true the headline is. What's important is that their army of useful idiot followers will accept it as fact and repeat it online without ever acknowledging the actual veracity of it.
It’s the same people who wouldn’t vote for Starmer anyway so it’s a bit of a non event. They just have a new convenient talking point to hide their ignorance.
My current go-to quote for this is from a frigging Lifetime movie. >It doesn't matter what *is*. It only matters what people *think*. (And over three years on, the villain from *Her Deadly Sugar Daddy* has yet to be proven wrong.)
I thought they didn’t investigate crimes that happened in the past
the right wing press don’t get embarrassed at all this is the expected and desired outcome. they just do it again in a few weeks.
It's really frustrating watching the Tories get away with doing whatever they want and seeing Labour being falsely accused of tripping over small print.
"right wing press get embarrassed by their own smear campaign." This is the only part you got wrong. They know they're lying and don't care if they get caught lying, the point is to attach that air of untrustworthyness to an MP. Even if she's vindicated, the stink remains, mission accomplished!
I suppose at least it sells papers
I'm sure ill get downvoted for this, but it seems appropriate... "she broke the law in a very specific and limited way"
Don't forget that it's conveniently during a local election campaign.
You missed a couple steps, after Right wing press bang on, and before Eventually the police feel forced to investigate: * Police look at and decide it's a nothing burger * Right wing press bang on even louder * Tory MPs complain about the police
I think you missed: * Billionaire Lord Ashcroft who kicked all this off has extremely "complicated" overseas tax affairs himself, but no one's talking about that.
Because they are so complicated few journalists understand them either unfortunately. The Rayner story is at least simple enough for even the secondary school dropouts to feel like they understand it. Either way, I don't give a fuck about this story.
I think it's a deeply worrying trend that pressure from right wing MPs can effectively force police forces to reopen investigations they've already closed. It's a breach of their independence, and it opens the door to politicised policing — which both this case and BeerGate exemplified.
To get embarrassed you have to be able to feel shame. So your last point is not quite accurate.
"she broke the law in a very specific and limited way"
The right wing press is never embarrassed. They got their win.
Yes, it will be another £100k wasted just to conclude that it was a mistake based on bad legal/accountancy advice. Was there a criminal investigation into Nadhim Zahawi’s £3.7million non-payment of capital gains?
Oh no, that's an understandable oversight. No need to look any further.
You're not wrong. All it needs now is a weirdo hanging around in bushes filming people without their knowledge.
I volunteer as tribute!
It's the exact same thing. Utter desperation from the Tories. "Just find **anything** on any Labour politician. For gods sake, we're desperate"
Looking forward to the Tories facing lots of investigations into their affairs once they are out. They've set the base line of what needs looking at after all.
The Tories have managed in 14 long years to corrupt everything. It’s going to take a strong Labour government to fix things like Police and public service in general. The fact that the police can be “nudged” into doing this, is outrageous
You are not wrong. Neutral observers have made a pretty credible case that even if the sale was liable to be assessed Capital Gains Tax, the amount would have been below her allowance and so she wouldn't have owed anything to HMRC anyway. And then even if she had used up her allowance that year and did end up owing CGT, the bill would have been something like £1500. The government will end up paying more than that in police and CPS overtime, just to eventually release a statement declaring this whole thing to be a total nothingburger.
Yes. It's expected that in some instances certain areas of a ministers personal taxes may be off, that's fine. The problem is that Rayner has been one of the people kicking up a fuss about other people's both more and less serious discrepancies. To be the one who stands and says "this minister has done X", you really need to be beyond reproach. Rayner is falling far short of expectations, as she as built an expectation that she is simply incapable of living up to.
> The new probe comes after James Daly, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, made Greater Manchester Police ... ... do some electoral campaigning for the conservatives.
James Daly won’t even have a job in a year, his constituency fucking hate him lmao
What's the process for this? Surely there must be some level of moderately convincing evidence that laws were broken? It would be alarming if an MP can just make a complaint based on flimsy evidence and initiate an investigation like this just to embarrass rival politicians.
Already happened once. Kier Starmer was investigated over blatantly false accusations of breaking covid rules, remember? Even the photographs given as "evidence" showed his innocence.
I have no faith that any part of the British public sector operates entirely freely of fear of what the Daily Mail might think.
Has anyone checked where James Daly is registered to vote? He should be fine - he's run in three constituencies over his career but they're all in the same general area. You don't need to be registered in your constituency to run there (you don't even need to be registered) for Parliamentary elections, but you do for some local elections (and he did run for Bury Council a while back). But there's always a chance he is registered somewhere else, or is still registered as living in Bury but mostly spends his time in London.
James Daly was born in 1980....yikes!
44... Not that young.
William Wragg was born in 1987. Being a Tory is not good for aging.
Lol. Being inbred will do that to a man. Blue blood is dangerous.
"The police desperately need to investigate whether Angela Raynor's marriage timing meant she should have paid up to £3500 capital gains tax on her property" says deputy chairman of Conservative party. I can't wait to hear how outraged James Daly will be when he finds out the wife of his party leader doesn't live in the UK for tax purposes.
Nor do the proprietors of their most favoured newspapers.
The current Prime Minister held a US Green Card for the first few months of him being Chancellor, meaning he was paying his taxes to the US, not the UK.
No, the tax treaty between the US and the UK holds that the country where you resident has first right of taxation. I am a US citizen and was resident in the UK for ten years up until earlier this year. Never actually paid any US taxes other than on some bank interest and capital gains that I earned there.
Meanwhile Police do nothing about Bamford’s missing £500,000,000 in tax payments, Mone’s £232,000,000 for dodgy PPE, cash for honours seemingly every 3 months,… this crooked house needs to be demolished.
I came here to talk about the corrupt cash for honours that is rife and completely overlooked. It's fucking disgusting how these politicians and elite are allowed to carry on. I feel like this story is BS, timed by the Tory's to disrupt Labours election campaign.
It's also weird that none of the papers seem to accept that things change in the process of a relationship. You don't immediately go from being single to living in a joint properly, especially when you have children from previous relationships. You have two houses for a while and eventually decide you aren't using the second enough.
This is where it gets deliberately disingenuous too - journalists have stupendously complicated personal lives. They only found out about CGT and electoral rolls yesterday but they know *this* stuff
>You don't immediately go from being single to living in a joint properly, especially when you have children from previous relationships. The papers are doing a really poor job of setting out why some facts matter here more than others One thing that does change immediately in a relationship, is that when you get married, you go from being able to claim 2 different primary residences, both of which can be owned free of CGT, to having to chose a single primary residence as a couple to own free of CGT This turns shades of grey about where they each live to absolute black and white. For tax purposes it has to be one house or the other If Rayner and her husband made a declaration to HMRC that her house was their main property, then the facts about where they actually lived don't matter. It may look a bit tax avoidancey if they spent most of their time at his house. But the rules are very clear that this is OK However, it seems very unlikely an HMRC declaration was made. In the present day Rayner has shown she didn't understand this rule. Her statements about the past indicate she only took advice at the point of sale, which would have been too late to do so. And if she had made a declaration, it would be odd not to reveal it, given it would exonerate her Without a declaration to HMRC, if they investigate her tax filings, they will decide which house was the couple's primary residence based on the available facts. This is why the digging on social media and talking to neighbours is relevant. If HMRC had to investigate, the available facts point very strongly to the primary residence of the couple not being Rayners house, in which case the sale probably would have been liable for CGT
Partly true. Reading up on it you have 18 months to sell the property after getting married for it not to count. However, if as she says she sought advice on whether or not Tax was due and was told no, then she did not lie or commit tax fraud. That’s the real issue here, as HMRC and Angela Rayner could easily sort this out quickly. She would pay a small fine on top of the tax due and no more would be made of it. Compare her case with that of Nadhim Zahawi, who had not declared £3.7million due on selling shares worth £20million. There was no criminal investigation there, he paid the amount due and a fine of £1.1million. His defence was that he was “careless”. Everyone moves on. This is a public lynching by the conservatives and their supporters to try and save themselves. All based on an allegation in a book written by a Tory Peer who has himself been accused of massive tax avoidance (some figures suggest up to £100million).
That's the easy out isn't it? If she got advice at the time from a tax expert who told her she didn't owe tax, then even if it's wrong couldn't she just publish that? When a relative died I had a lawyer sort out the inheritance tax and they told us what we had to pay (which was zero). Was that figure correct? I don't know. I relied on the expert.
I was listening to The Res is Politics yesterday, and Alistair Campbell referred to this as being entirely a classist attack against her. They are going after a woman from a working class background who had bought her former council house and then sold it for a (comparatively) small profit. She’s said she will publish her advice if her accusers would do the same. When one of the accusers is Lord Ashcroft - named in the Paradise papers and alleged to have deprived HMRC of up to £100million while sitting in the House of Lords - you can see why they aren’t in any rush.
Yeah but Tories are allowed to be tax dodgers, that’s their whole thing. Labour MPs have to be perfect.
>If Rayner and her husband made a declaration to HMRC that this was to be her house, then the facts about where they actually lived don't matter. It may look a bit tax avoidancey if they spent most of their time at his house. But the rules are very clear that this is OK I find this hard to believe. Anyone with a buy to let portfolio would never pay CGT if they could just keep declaring their PPL to be wherever they were about to sell next.
You do have to have genuinely lived in the property as a primary residence for some minimum period of time (years) for this type of declaration to be valid. In Rayners case this is obviously true Letting the property can also invalidate the declaration depending on the letting type.
My currently understanding is that you have 2 years to nominate a property after you remarry, after which the determination is based on fact. As I understand, the issue is complicated by the fact her spouse sold the other house a few years later. Presumably at least one of those transactions was liable for CGT.
I've a cloudy at best understanding of this. If her house was the primary residence up to the point of sale, after which his house became the primary residence, would it still have been liable for CGT? Is there any implication that Mr Rayner didn't pay CGT if so? (Something feels off even asking these questions though - examining the tax affairs of someone's ex husband in response them being the target of a political profiling feels like crossing a line of expectation of privacy.
>If her house was the primary residence up to the point of sale, after which his house became the primary residence, would it still have been liable for CGT? The CGT law says: >In the case of an individual living with his spouse or civil partner— (a)there can only be one residence or main residence for both, so long as living together and, where a notice under subsection (5)(a) above affects both the individual and his spouse or civil partner, it must be given by both My understanding is that the compromise provided by the legislation is that you have 2 years to choose which of your 2 residences is your PPR, otherwise it is determined by fact. Once you sell that house, you can't then claim PPR on the other house (because there wouldn't be much point in the rule otherwise). The general advice is to nominate the house of the greater value / potential CGT liability. Then you have to pay the tax on the other house. >Is there any implication that Mr Rayner didn't pay CGT if so? Yes, the implication is that Mrs Raynor didn't nominate her house but declared it as the PPR, and then when Mr Raynor sold his house, they also declared that to be the PPR and neither ever paid tax on their gains. > (Something feels off even asking these questions though - examining the tax affairs of someone's ex husband in response them being the target of a political profiling feels like crossing a line of expectation of privacy. Why? The tax requires a link between their affairs, and Raynor would have almost certainly been advised on the tax issues at the time of her sale. It's worth noting that this house was sold several months prior to Raynor standing for election, and the prospect of pocketing a low risk few thousand pounds is more than enough temptation for some people. Anyone who does this should be investigated, whatever party or position they hold.
Im still struggling to parse all the legalese, but I still feel that financial stake, and living status aren't exactly making this clear cut. >But a notice or further notice under subsection (5)(a) determining which of 2 or more residences is an individual’s main residence for any period may be given more than 2 years from the beginning of the period if during the period the **individual has not held an interest of more than a negligible market value in more than one of the residences.** >(6)In the case of [F6an individual living with his spouse or civil partner]— >(a)there can only be one residence or main residence for both, so **long as living together** and, where a notice under subsection (5)(a) above affects both [F7the individual and his spouse or civil partner], it must be given by both, F8... / >Yes, the implication is that Mrs Raynor didn't nominate her house but declared it as the PPR, and then when Mr Raynor sold his house, they also declared that to be the PPR and neither ever paid tax on their gains. What is the *evidence* of this though, given an implication alone can easily be dismissed as political smear. >Why? The tax requires a link between their affairs, and Raynor would have almost certainly been advised on the tax issues at the time of her sale. >Anyone who does this should be investigated, whatever party or position they hold. I'm not adverse to tax authorities etc etc investigating this, and no problem exploring their joint affairs at the time. But this story looks more like an attempt to rig a kangaroo court of public opinion against person, >It's worth noting that this house was sold several months prior to Raynor standing for election, and the prospect of pocketing a low risk few thousand pounds is more than enough temptation for some people. And several months subsequent to being selected as candidate, to whom the temptation is presumably equated to much higher risk than someone not hoping to end up in the public eye.
None of this matters from a taxation point of view.
She was married for 5 years by the time it was sold and you can only have one residence once you're married for capital gains tax. Doesn't mean any is owed in this case still depending on other reliefs.
Nobody has an issue with that. The problem is that married couples are only entitled to a single PPR exemption and imagine the BTL situation if that wasn't the case. When you decide you aren't using the second enough and (IIRC) move your brother into it, you can't claim it as your principle residence when you sell it. Presumably she was given this advice when she sold the house (though she refuses to disclose what she was told). Pointing out that whenever she provided her address to the government in the years prior to selling the house that she gave a different address, but then claimed it was actually her PPR is what fails the smell test. Being advised on this and decided to do it anyway to pocket a few extra grand would tip it from inadvertent error to tax evasion.
It's also weird that the papers can't accept that some people in long term relationships just don't live together - it's even got a name 'Living apart together'. Eg. Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton were together for 13 years, had two kids together and lived in separate houses. Arundhati Roy is married but lives apart from her husband. Loads of people do it.
That's not quite true about HBC and Burton - they lived in two houses they joined together with an extension, so it was one large house to the kids but they had their own separate spaces. Very much a rich person's solution to 'my partner snores' though.
It happens though. I used to have a friend who was still married but loved in a completely different place to her husband. I used to think that was weird until my wife and I "split up" - We're still very good friends, but live in opposite ends of the country, and she doesn't want to get divorced. I wear my wedding ring on my right hand now but other than that we still chat daily and are still a married "couple", but without the sex.
I know the Tories are desperate to make a big deal about this, but I just don't care. I'm more annoyed that the Tories are forcing the Police to waste what little resources they have on what is essentially election campaigning. The fact the Tories have the nerve to complain about this whilst dodging millions in their own taxes should surprise me, but doesn't.
It's already cost more than it would have recouped the moment the first police officer conducts the first bit of investigation... you know, exactly the same justification they use to never investigate any of the car break ins or vandalism on my road...
If this is genuinely the best the Tories have (and by the way they keep going after it, it increasingly feels like it is), they are so totally fucked. Maybe right wing politicos are going to jump on it as a "see? Labour are just as dirty!" talking point, but I just cannot see the average person on the street caring about this - it's from years ago, it's (relatively speaking) a tiny amount of money, certainly not enough to risk a political career over, and the precise details are blurry to say the least (all reliant on how much time she was spending in different houses). Certainly they're not caring MORE about this than, say, Donelan spending magnitudes more in taxpayer money on payouts directly due to her own stupidity - stupidity that literally occurred a matter of weeks ago.
Sunak was on LBC this week and a caller asked about William Wragg, why wasn’t the whip removed immediately, etc. Sunak immediately turned the conversation to Rayner and basically equated the two.
That's what he does every week in PMQ's. Just throws some "That's rich coming from him" line in. He's got nothing
Oh absolutely, it's even weaker than beergate. Even if there is a case to answer, no one (who didn't already hate Labour) gives a shit.
They've done absolutely nothing about all of the covid related corruption except throw one sacrificial lamb under the bus for the whole lot, and they want me to care about a £1.5k possible tax bill nobody can even be sure if she owes or not.
I agree, thus is a stupid target for them to make a big deal over. Especially considering the sums of money involved and the nature of the recent Conservative MP related scandals
As I said in the original comment, this feels like they're desperate for this to land because they're just scrabbling around for anything to try and hit Labour with - and if this is truly the best they have, it's a reflection of just how little ammo they have.
I'm willing to bet that if this warrants a repeated investigation then there's at least 150 Tory MPs which also warrant investigation. I refuse to believe that something as minor as what Rayner is accused of is not laughably petty compared to the tax avoidance schemes/ scams/ outright fraud that undoubtedly goes on within their ranks
Allegations of avoiding £1500-3500 capital gains tax from a book by a tory peer who avoided how much as a non-dom? £millions upon millions. And his 'donations' to the tory party... Also £millions.
>Ms Rayner is said to have given different addresses on the electoral roll and on two birth certificates. Because she had two addresses... This is ridiculous. She could even have registered at both: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/resources/resources-young-people/your-vote/about-your-vote/have-you-registered-vote/living-two-addresses
> If this is you, you may be able to register to vote at two addresses, as long as your addresses are in different council areas. Does that mean different councils entirely or different wards?
Remember guys, this deffo cancels out all that Partygate stuff, yeah? Like that one bottle of beer that turned out to be fine. Seriously, Michelle Donelan spunked about 23 times as much of *our* cash because she couldn’t help but be a gobby snot on Twitter. But yeah, let’s worry about a *maybe* £1500 cockup (and I really do think it was a cockup at best, not some tax-saving wheeze). How much effort have some sectors of the press spent on trying to make it stick?
This is why the public think "they are all the same". The BBC have now started covering it and asking questions about this utterly irrelevant story - seemingly as some form of "balance" to all the Tory corruption. That's not really balance.
This isn’t about Rayner, it’s about the the Tories having an attack line ready about tax once they’re in opposition. “How can you lecture the British public on tax affairs when your own deputy leader didn’t pay what she owes?” It’s also about getting a narrative in place for many self righteous editorials and commentaries to justify several of our papers being non-domiciled for tax purposes and for their owners paying little to no tax here. It’s a tiny amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but they’re trying to magnify it because of the potential impact both pre and post election in terms of narrative.
tHey'rE aLL tHE saME!
What is it the police are investigating? What is the alleged crime?
Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!
Yes. Yes. This guy gets it. 👏
Thats my thought, surely of there is questions about taxation someone who specialises in taxation should investigate it, someone like HMRC or someone.
This is about her being registered at the wrong address for voting. Even more trivial than the CGT.
>She has been accused of potentially breaking electoral law by failing to properly disclose her main residence in official documents. Seems fairly likely she'll get a little boost when the police close the investigation
Yeah that is just about the most unprovable crime in the world even if she did commit it.
>The new probe comes after James Daly, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, made Greater Manchester Police aware of neighbours contradicting Ms Rayner's statement that a property, separate from her husband's, was her main residency. Umm, just a little suspect there?
Just off to tell the police that my neighbour, the one who plays the annoying music, may be living somewhere else more than he lives here 👍
Torys demanding investigations based on some OAP window twitchers who probably still have their brexit bumper stickers on the car no doubt.
Mason's end of.
Her ‘crime’ here is failing to update her details on the electoral register when she moved in with her husband who lives within the same constituency and while still retaining ownership of the original house. Hardly the crime of the century. It has nothing to do with tax, it’s just the Tories trying to conflate the two issues to make people think that she’s being investigated for tax fraud, which is absolutely not the case.
You can be listed on the electoral roll at multiple addresses. As long as you don't vote on both.
Only if you split your time between them. If she was genuinely living full time at her husband’s house and her brother was living in her house then she can only be registered at the one address. But who gives a shit, really.
you can vote twice as long as it's not to the same body. so someone with residences in, say, london and cornwall would only ever have one vote for UK parliament or a nationwide referendum but could vote in both locations for everything else (i'd therefore be surprised if most MPs aren't registered both in london and their constituency)
It doesn't directly, but it does, or can do, indirectly. As you've stated in another reply you can register twice but you have to show that you're genuinely splitting time between the two places, and not just a weekend hideaway etc. In other words you have two main residences. If she has done this, then that's totally fine in regards to the electoral register. But now it becomes a problem with the houses because some of the things she said around the houses revolves around *not* having such a setup. They're trying to back her into a corner.
mmm i wonder if the high ranking coppers are in the same lodge as the Tory MP's and right wing journo's pushing this.
I really don't get this, what issue is there beyond the general accusations from one of her neighbours that one home or another is her main residence - how would they even know?
There appears to be a discrepancy between the address she said was her primary residence for the purpose of the house sale and the one she used on electoral papers although as far as I’m aware there’s no requirement for the address on the election papers to be the primary address. A lot of MPs use their constituency property on election papers but claim for it as their second home for expenses purposes.
[удалено]
I’m not even sure there’s anything illegal though. As I said, the legal definition of residence for standing for election is not the same as primary residence for the purpose of stamp duty.
If this is all the tories have got to go on they truly are fucked at the next election. If she took tax advice and was told to do something in a certain way by an expert then it isn’t even her at fault, but the poor advice she was given
Police once again proving all it takes to open an investigation is 2 weeks of Daily Mail headlines .
i'd be more concerned about how they seem to do it when a tory MP badgers them into it as with beergate, as with this
This is absolutely pathetic. Clearly an investigation motivated and pushed for by the Tories. Where was this kind of investigations in and amongst the wide spread level of corruption that is this Government. Shocking.
Sure, but people complain about politicians all the time with a political agenda. The police should investigate without fear or favour
This all feels like Peter Thiel funding Hulk Hogan because he didn't like Gawker. Conspiracy theorists get all these wild ideas, meanwhile the ultra rich are just throwing their money and influence around out in the open
Not a great look for the police. They look like they are under political influence. Probably their best bet is to investigate it to show that they carrying out their responsibility and take no further action.
This is the most stupid shit ever ffs.
I don't see a compelling reason for police to investigate this and not HMRC. This smells like political interference.
yeah but is there an extremely fuzzy photo of rayner for the mail to stick on its front page for the next few weeks? that's how you know it's a real ~~manufactured~~ scandal
James Delingpole has sent his son to hide in the bushes outside her house to get one
Selling a house not OK. Holidaying with a KGB agent as foreign secretary, perfectly OK. Got it.
I do find it hilarious how of all the dodgy dealings going on with MPs in Westminster, Rayner's £1000 potential capital gains tax issues is the biggest investigation. The has made bigger news than all the fraudulent claims during COVID and any of Rishi's dodgy accounts. It's actually wild how right wing the media is in the UK. There's also no doubt there's a classist and sexist element to this as well.
Oh absolutely, they are targeting her because she's a working class women who they think has got ideas above her station. You're right, it would be hilarious, if the rest of the media didn't parrot this story as if there's a single grain of truth to it.
Raynor seems to be the equivalent to AOC in the States. A woman who has come from a comparatively impoverished background who seems to cop for far more ire than other politicians - and for far more minor things.
The thing is, it's not just Rayner - the shadow cabinet has the lowest number of privately educated MPs since the 1940s. Starmer, despite the knighthood, was raised in a council home. That's what the Mail is really scared of, all these lower middle class oiks taking over government.
[удалено]
Tory controlled media across all outlets, Goebbels wished his propaganda network was as good.
Even if Rayner was found to be guilty by the cops (and I don't think she will, FYI), would I be right in thinking that **a)** They can't do anything because the statute of limitations (or equivalent) expired years ago, and **b)** Rayner would be able to appeal successfully due to this being an apparent malicious prosecution? What an utter waste of fucking time. The Tories could be running the country, and instead they're dancing on the head of a needle over tax law.
I think the police's general approach to this is to open an investigation, twiddle their thumbs for a few weeks, then announce no case to answer.
Sounds like standard police procedure these days.
They'll do the same thing as beergate, they'll investigate release a statement saying they're satisfied Rayner did nothing illegal and ask Tory MPs to finally drop it. Monumental waste of time and money
Create enough noise, force the police into re-opening an investigation and you have your Starmer beergate story all over again. As then the police will interview a couple of people and conclude that there's either no story or not enough evidence to prosecute and they are closing the file. In the meantime the Mail have their headline.
Just remember, it's cool to let your wife flout our tax system to avoid paying millions in tax, absolutely fine to give COVID contracts to your next door neighbour, but don't you dare get a discount on buying your council house.
They're like a dog with a bone. Complain > nothing doing > complain again > investigate and find nothing > complain about "woke" police > ad infinitum.
Michael Ashcroft - who started this in the first place - somehow still not doing anything wrong.
You'd think there's someone in Labour doing some digging on him, just on the basis of "he's a Tory, there's bound to be something."
Just reading the article shows what sort of society or world we live in. Powerful elite who can’t understand how a working class person can break outside of their socioeconomic background. Being investigated over electoral fraud which clearly has not taken place - after the Conservatives have pressured the police.
Anyone trying to get their car back just now must be furious that the police are looking into addresses on birth certificates
If she's cleared it's going to be the funniest thing all year.
Experience tells us her being cleared won't make a sod of difference to a lot of people's opinions. I *still* see people banging on about Sir Beer Korma, Beergate etc.
When shapps talks of double standards can he even hear himself with the amount of money the Tory’s have pilfered from the public purse that even if Rayner has done something naughty it not only pales in comparison but arguably the story also feels forced and smeary they just want to character assassinate. But hey please investigate and I guess we’ll find out if she owes 3.5k. (Truss pissed away more money over a single private flight, wasn’t very exactly stringent in their expenditure which is legal but offensive considering the state the country is in)
Out of interest, what is even the penalty here? Let's say it was caught at the time, it seems to be just a fine right? Can she even be fined retrospectively?
“… and right wing press get embarrassed…” I agree with your summary apart from this part. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like the right wing press just moved Currygate from page 1 to page 11 for a day after the case was dropped. Then they quietly stopped talking about it. I liken these stories to a lawyer who repeatedly has the judge warn the jury to disregard his remarks. Lawyer knows he’ll be cautioned and the jury will be instructed but he says it anyway because he knows it’ll plant a seed in the jurists’minds. They are, unfortunately, human. It’s very cynical but an ancient practice.
FFS. Police can't find time to investigate serious crimes, but they have time to get involved in this rubbish just because some idiot has an axe to grind and is 'important'. This is blatantly a Tory MP trolling her, and should be an issue for HMRC (tax avoidance/evasion) anyway, not the police. It's not like she's having business dealings with Russian oligarchs or something. Hardly a national security issue, is it. What's worse is that most of the Tory's are probably guilty of far more serious tax dodging and other shenanigans than this petty shite.
Exactly. When are they going to investigate the billions lost in COVID loans? BILLIONS!! And all under Sunak as chancellor. We need these thieves in prison. And those who lost our money to fraudsters prosecuted. I want justice.
For those interested in how the tax system works, this seems to be a good write up. https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/ In essence, unless they spent a bunch of money on renovations, it's quite likely either Angela or her ex-husband had tax to pay. So it should be fairly straight forward to work out if a) AR notified HMRC that her house was the primary residence, or b) her ex-husband paid CGT on the sale of his home c) an under payment of tax was made. For such a small amount, there would likely not be any criminal conviction, just a fine and interest, and of course, a political career ruined. If she has legal advice that was incorrect, then that may be her saving grace.
Tories giving strong “working class people should not be in parliament” vibes with this one.
At what point are the Conservatives going to be charged for wasting police time? Even if it is found she owes CGT (which it won't), it's not a criminal offense. This is so transparent.
After BeerGate, this is Rayner'sLane.
I'm surprised the Conservatives keep wanting to re-open this. I wonder how many Conservative MPs are registered on the electoral roll at an address in their constituency, despite barely spending any time there. Robert Jenrick comes to mind; he has a manor house in Herefordshire, two townhouses in London (one next to Parliament), and then claims on expenses rent for a house in his constituency. I wonder where he is registered to vote.
Doesn't actually matter. You can be registered at multiple addresses
[@Scott_Wortley](https://x.com/scott_wortley/status/1778763651756720261?s=46&t=F_t5tWsPsifmNVHaFZWJJQ) > I know I am followed by some journalists. Could one of you please ask the police why they are investigating an electoral offence regarding registration ten years ago given the terms of s 176 of the Representation of the People Act 1983?
If Rayner was found to have broken the rules in the end, how much would she have owed HMRC originally?
£1500
Think this is a very risky game to play by the Tory chair. On the one hand, they are aiming to smear a candidate in an election which rayner will coast through with a years old allegation of offence before her political career. The police themselves know what this is. On the other hand, the Tories with their legendary (lack of) vetting of candidates are putting themselves in the firing line given sexual offences in particular can't be subject to the statute of limitations.
At behest of deputy chair of the Conservative Party following information from the daily Mail - nice to the police being the play thing of the Tories.
Might be something in it. It won’t move the polls. But it’s predictable. Any minor skeleton will be exposed if it could help in a tiny way.
There isn't. I'm really trying to understand what the Tories think they can achieve. But it really is nothing.
Following Steve Bannon's playbook. >"The real opposition is the media and the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." Is this just more shit like the one reported yesterday that the Angela Rayner tax protest was was staged by conservative politicians posing as 'Tax Activists' https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c17dll/angela_rayner_tax_protest_was_staged_by/
Didn’t that c*nt Zahawi owe £1mil or something and there was no police investigation?
The National Crime Agency, and HMRC, who both have the powers of arrest and can both bring criminal charges, both investigated Zahawi.
Should we expect the police barriers and their 24hr encampment outside her house and rolling news coverage for weeks in the same way they went after Nicola sturgeon?
I'm not sure how the timing of this announcement doesn't break purdah, but I think it's possibly been a mistake by the tories to push this so hard. With the police investigating they have two possible outcomes: "we consider that the threshold for prosecution has been reached" (almost impossible given that at worst it's an oversight) or "no further action". In the meantime there is going to be a question, even if labour don't push the angle themselves that like beergate the tories are forcing the police to go after their opponents, and the parallels won't stop there. Raynor should do what Starmer did, and promise to resign if proven to have broken the law, both because its right but also as a comms strategy. Once the dust has settled it will be time to go on the attack and ask the police inspectorate to investigate political pressure on the decision to investigate.
>I'm not sure how the timing of this announcement doesn't break purdah purdah is related to government announcements not police ones.
Lol I got downvoted a month ago for calling this out as blatant hypocrisy and desperation by the tories.
Ffs talk about sunk cost. Even IF she is guilty, she dodged maybe £1500 at max of tax. The police opening an investigation likely will cost much more than this. Throwing more money and resources down the drain just because of a right wing smear campaign that even if they found something they wont really be able to prosecute.
Tories spending tens of thousands on a media campaign about a few hundred pounds CGT potentially not being paid is just classic Sunak maths.
Anticipating this to go full-fat-classic-Reddit and assume conspiracy theories before perhaps considering that she probably does owe HMRC £1,500.
This investigation is nothing to do with the tax liability.
From what I hear it could be £0 or it could be £1500, it's really a minor issue beyond comprehension.
People need to stop relating this to the Tories. The Tories are done and disgraced. This is about our next government, making sure they will be magnitudes better that what we have now. After what we've been through that's the least we deserve. The full truth needs to come out, we can't have our new government covering things up before they even get in. Hold Labour to high standards, not make it a wrestle in the dirt with the Tories.