| Rayner resigns 13:04 - Sep 5 with 6998 views | Mullet |
A feather in the cap for the hypocritical right and a loss to British politics. A shame she’s gone but it shows a moral fibre that’s rarer these days in politics. |  |
| |  |
| Rayner resigns on 22:29 - Sep 5 with 857 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Rayner resigns on 16:56 - Sep 5 by BlueForYou |
How are the right in any way hypocritical here? She's made her bed, she's made her decisions, she chose to bad mouth Conservatives in similar circumstances. She had become an embarrassment & had to go. A shame in that a young politician who clearly has passion for her party & beliefs, has had to receive such a public lesson in morality. Maybe she should have spent longer gaining experience in local government first? |
Angela Rayner was older when she became Deputy Prime Minister, than David Cameron was when he became Prime Minister. |  | | |
| Rayner resigns on 09:01 - Sep 6 with 464 views | Bangor31 |
| Rayner resigns on 22:07 - Sep 5 by DJR |
I am not sure where my answering that question would take us given it effectively appears to amount to the following.
"If she intended to evade tax, would this change your opinion to meet the evasion threshold?"
For my own part, there doesn't seem any indication that she intended to evade tax and indeed the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards said she acted with integrity. |
For someone who is in the legal profession I would have thought better than petulant frostiness.
My point is quite clear. Is your opinion, in your personal capacity, that if she were aware of this legislation at some point prior to this event this would meet your threshold you would require to say this goes from mistake to evasion. I think it plausible that she didn't remember this information given it was 2 years ago but not sure if this is a valid defence, i also imagine Labour were in full war room mode re election campaign being imminent.
I clearly didn't say if you could prove she did it deliberately did this, is that then evasion. [Post edited 6 Sep 9:07]
| | | |
| Rayner resigns on 09:24 - Sep 6 with 428 views | DJR |
| Rayner resigns on 09:01 - Sep 6 by Bangor31 |
For someone who is in the legal profession I would have thought better than petulant frostiness.
My point is quite clear. Is your opinion, in your personal capacity, that if she were aware of this legislation at some point prior to this event this would meet your threshold you would require to say this goes from mistake to evasion. I think it plausible that she didn't remember this information given it was 2 years ago but not sure if this is a valid defence, i also imagine Labour were in full war room mode re election campaign being imminent.
I clearly didn't say if you could prove she did it deliberately did this, is that then evasion. [Post edited 6 Sep 9:07]
|
I wouldn't' regard it as petulant frostiness but I just don't see where this is leading us.
Indeed, I think I have been fairly patient given I didn't understand what you were trying to ask me. I could, for example, have ignored your initial question and its follow up because of that but I did try to engage.
I am in any event not a tax lawyer or expert on tax evasion so am not really qualified to answer questions in this area.
All I would say is on the evidence I have seen, it doesn't appear to amount to tax evasion (which involves criminal intent), and I can't see HMRC pursuing her for that.
[Post edited 6 Sep 10:00]
|  | | |
| Rayner resigns on 12:11 - Sep 6 with 314 views | DJR |
Interesting to note that the Cabinet has moved to the right with Miliband the only member from the so-called soft left.
It looks like it's all or nothing. | | | |
| Rayner resigns on 12:43 - Sep 6 with 273 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Rayner resigns on 09:24 - Sep 6 by DJR |
I wouldn't' regard it as petulant frostiness but I just don't see where this is leading us.
Indeed, I think I have been fairly patient given I didn't understand what you were trying to ask me. I could, for example, have ignored your initial question and its follow up because of that but I did try to engage.
I am in any event not a tax lawyer or expert on tax evasion so am not really qualified to answer questions in this area.
All I would say is on the evidence I have seen, it doesn't appear to amount to tax evasion (which involves criminal intent), and I can't see HMRC pursuing her for that.
[Post edited 6 Sep 10:00]
|
She will presumably be in a difficult financial position even without a penalty charge.
She has £40,000 to finance on a salary that has just dropped £67,000. |  |
| |
| Rayner resigns on 15:16 - Sep 6 with 178 views | OldFart71 |
| Rayner resigns on 13:27 - Sep 5 by baxterbasics |
Also, even ignoring the rights and wrongs of the tax situation, how does someone in her position manage to accumulate that much wealth? Career as a union rep and then MP / minister shouldn't be quite so rewarding. Similar to the millionaire Jeremy Corbyn and his career as an agitator at taxpayer expense.
Realise it's not just about these individuals but the whole parliament / government gravy train. |
We all want to be on that train, but for some it never reaches a station. I think we can say with a large degree of certainty that many ministers and MP's have in the past and currently lined their pockets when in power or have come out of power with nice little earners afterwards.
I think the question has to be asked whether the right type of people are putting themselves forward to serve us and that their objectives have to be brought into question.
I also believe that the aims of government have to be questioned when a large proportion of what they are doing in no way benefits those that put them into power. | | | |
| Rayner resigns on 16:59 - Sep 6 with 109 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Rayner resigns on 12:43 - Sep 6 by Pinewoodblue |
She will presumably be in a difficult financial position even without a penalty charge.
She has £40,000 to finance on a salary that has just dropped £67,000. |
BUT salary is only part of political perks - the expense system means they don’t even need to spend much of their net income so disposable income is very high. In 2023 she claimed over 150k of expenses (admittedly some of which was staff costs). You’d also need to earn double that amount if you were to pay for those things out of a regular salary (ie it’s expenses are not taxable). Certainly means you can live a much more comfortable life than someone on an equivalent salary in the private sector- she’ll be fine I’m sure.
Not aimed at her specifically, but a general point around the net worth of politicians (that a couple have raised on here). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
