You seem to have missed that these "allegations" will have been fed to "the rabid right" by the top of the tree of the "nice left."
You don't think so? Its pretty clearly a hatchet job from her own side. Watch PMQs from yesterday. Watch Raynor's expression towards Reeves as Reeves reaches over to "console/reassure" her. "The eyes have it, the eyes have it"
To me, she hasn't tried to commit fraud (ie, willingly misrepresent to avoid paying tax), but has looked into ways of through 'clever' use of the rules mitigate her tax. Now if I did that, as a 'normal' person, then it would just be seen as me 'looking for a way to mitigate my tax and failing, so pay up'. I am not a MP, the deputy PM or the housing minister though. I will add though, that I am a 'normal' member of the public but i do work for a bank. If this came to light on me, i would face probably being fired by breaching my bank's code of conduct.
This is Angela Rayner’s full statement on the matter. FOLLOWING the substantial scrutiny surrounding my living arrangements, I wanted to set out the facts as openly and transparently as I can. Until now, an undertaking in a court order prevented me from disclosing information about certain aspects of my personal life. In the interests of public transparency, I applied to the court and I was last night released from this undertaking. Family life can be complicated, and it is no secret that, like many families across the country, my domestic arrangements reflect these complexities. Throughout my career, I have always tried to be the best mum to my children, while managing the demanding realities of public service. There has been a lot of speculation in recent days about my domestic arrangements and in particular the home I share with my ex-husband and my family. While I do not find it easy to publicly discuss personal and sometimes distressing family matters, I have always taken my responsibility as an MP and Deputy Prime Minister seriously and tried to be as open as possible while protecting my family. To address the allegations made against me I have now taken the difficult decision to explain why my arrangements are as they are. In 2023 my ex-husband and I divorced. As parents who have been through divorce will understand, the top priority for both of us during that process was the wellbeing of our children and helping them navigate this change. To provide maximum stability during this transition, we agreed to a nesting arrangement where the children remain in the family home full-time while we alternate living there. We also wanted to ensure that our child, who has special educational needs, was provided for as part of the divorce settlement. A court-instructed trust was established in 2020 following a deeply personal and distressing incident involving my son as a premature baby. He was left with lifelong disabilities, and the trust was established to manage the award on his behalf – a standard practice in circumstances like ours. To ensure he continued to have stability in the family home, which had been adapted for his needs, we agreed that our interest in the family home would be transferred to this court-instructed trust of which he is the sole beneficiary. Some of the interest in our family home was transferred to the trust in 2023. In January 2025, I sold the remaining interest in the property to my son’s trust. This will give him the security of knowing the home is his, allowing him to continue to live in the home he feels safe in and grew up in. We transferred the property because it was in the best interests of our child. I acted as any parent would. The sale of the property in Ashton-under-Lyne to the trust has not altered my family life. It remains my family home, as it has been for over a decade. It contains the majority of my possessions and it is where I am registered for most official and financial purposes ranging from credit cards to the dentist to the electoral roll. But, most importantly, it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college, and where I regularly live while caring for them. After I sold my stake to the trust, I bought a property in Hove in May 2025. Like many people, I used the lump sum from selling my stake in my Ashton home, which was the only property I owned and where my savings were, for the deposit on my new one. I obtained a mortgage to finance the rest. When purchasing the property my understanding, on advice from lawyers, was that my circumstances meant I was liable for the standard rate of stamp duty. However, given the recent allegations in the press, I have subsequently sought further advice from a leading tax counsel to review that position and to ensure I am fully compliant with all tax provisions. I have now been advised that although I did not own any other property at the time of the purchase, the application of complex deeming provisions which relate to my son’s trust gives rise to additional stamp duty liabilities. I acknowledge that due to my reliance on advice from lawyers which did not properly take account of these provisions, I did not pay the appropriate stamp duty at the time of the purchase. I am working with expert lawyers and with HMRC to resolve the matter and pay what is due. The arrangements I have set out reflect the reality that family life is rarely straightforward, particularly when dealing with disability, divorce and the complexities of ensuring your children’s long-term security. Every decision I have made has been guided by what I believe to be in my children’s best interests. I deeply regret the error that has been made. I am committed to resolving this matter fully and providing the transparency that public service demands. It is for that reason I have today referred myself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, and will provide him with my fullest cooperation and access to all the information he requires.
You’re right if it was the other way around there would be uproar but as we all know, there were countless times when Tory MPs were exposed as being economical with the truth, over tax matters and many other issues for 14 years (VIP fast lane for PE s just one example), and the government chose to generally ignore the speculation and take zero action. I am anti corruption, which is why I have never voted for the Tories. If her “oversight” is proven to be a deliberate act of corruption then she deserves and should be punished but, until then, why should the Labour Party be held to higher standards than the party that preceded it?
Have you forgotten that time you posted about setting up a fake company to reduce your tax burden, and then moaned about it only saving you £100 a month? I’m not sure that makes you a “normal” member of the public, tbh.
The thing is she has been very vocal when attacking others "entirely legal" tax avoidance: Yet now its the "I / She did nothing illegal" so back then "bothered?" about the difference between the legality of tax evasion and tax avoidance..........Nope. Atack on the principle of it. This week? Well at least Rachel Reeves was uber happy yesterday. She got what she wanted. Labour have something to keep their policies off the news for a week or 2. Leadership candidate eliminated. 10 birds with 1 stone.
This isn’t a left/right thing for me. No problem agreeing that this is all a clusterfuck. I can’t stand the upper echelons of Labour. Or the Tories. Or Reform. Bollocks.
They're not. They are being held to the standards they said they would be ushering in when saying they would be different to the former lot!
Maybe maybe not, why would they, to what end? I've better things to do than search for and draw conclusions from expressions in parliament. It's all conjecture driven by the rabid right wing gutter press so far as I can see.
Well that’s a stretch. It wasn’t a fake company, but a real limited company that took the payments I got from the States and paid me by PAYE from it. I then took dividends on the profit. Not fake and not even remotely illegal or even immoral.
Because this side of politics is as bad, if not worse, than it always has been. Politicians vying for position with big ambitions pushed by different circles. The whole "collective" thing is a charade in reality with them all defending their positions against their own. In this era it is worse as we saw with the Tory party in the past 9 years. Once Cameron was gone, they fought like rats in a sack to get themselves or their man in. Like it or not, Cameron/Osborne and Blair/Brown were strong leadership partnerships despite their personal internal battles with each other over "succession." Labour politicians were already jostling for position this time last year when they'd only just got in. Burnham has already been batted off with his own lot happy to mention when asked that he had said he would serve his full term as King of the North and also "helpfully" pointing out that he is not an MP. Most political "scoops" are not the result of investigative journalism despite being presented as such. they are the result of deliberate leaks and 99% of the time from the same side to damage their own. The greasy pole and one's own ass being defended is all that matters to them. That's why a site like Guido has done so well because he got, and now his team, the leaks and he didn't hang about trying to present them as some "scoop" from hard work. He "printed" it as soon as it was backed up! This story hasn't been brewing since May. It came quickly and fed directly to a Tory paper for maximum damage. They even managed to bypass Guido for once it seems.
While not suggesting you doing anything wrong the reality of how most businesses in this country are run seems to escape anyone's notice. If people really hammered home the "moral argument" we would all be out of work, bar state jobs, and begging bowl to the IMF laughed away already. Chinese companies (or any other country) selling stuff from their own factories to "UK companies" that use "holding houses" in the UK to store and do their work for them using "agency workers" rather than employing their own and the customer services on their online marketplaces (including Amazon / ebay / Mano Mano / OnBuy etc.) are in China accessing the UK platform accounts via VPN! So all of the above is actually one big company squirrelling the profits away to the best option to pay the least and make the most money for the "China arm" Most companies these days are setup in a similar fashion paying the least tax as possible and maximising profits for an overseas operation. It is (one of the reasons) why we are in such deep ****. There are so many jobs tied up in companies that would just not bother with this country if they had to pay tax properly like you or I do.
I think we should keep discussion of taxation and things hypothetical, without bringing anyone here up. No need to make things murky.
The sad part is I can't even be bothered to get annoyed by Rayner, who was possibly trying to avoid paying the higher rate of stamp duty but also inheritance tax by placing the family home in a trust. Personally, I don't think it was an honest mistake and there are other questions about her ethics around using her sons trust money to buy her property in Hove. But despite all of that, my feelings about this is resignation. Not her resignation unfortunately, but the other meaning "the acceptance of something undesirable but inevitable" or "a shrug of resignation". This is because I'm not surprised by what our politicians will do when there's a chance to get their grubby fingers into the pot. It doesn't seem to matter that their position warrants they should be above tax dodges, non dom, conflict of interests, expenses, lobbying, free suits and holiday accommodation, they in fact use their position for their financial advantage. I've read on here some posters saying they are not all like that, and that might be true, but evidence suggests that a high proportion are. The expenses scandal was a revelation. So many of them squeezing out every last drop of public money to pay for their privileged lifestyle. It wasn't all against the rules though (loads of them squealing "I haven't done anything wrong") but the rules certainly helped them to line their own pockets. It wasn't so long ago that they could claim the mortgage interest on their second home through expenses. ****ing shysters, the lot of them.
They are trying to bring the flag shagging rubbish into public scrutiny in Ireland now. It's a load of crap as no one bar a few nutjobs care either way. It's a non issue and something you don't actually see a lot of except at far right demonstrations which are much smaller here. I'm maybe being cynical but the media and the government themselves are delighted to have these conversations to deflect from the shambles the way certain things are in the country at the moment, most notably housing and health. The tanaiste (deputy PM) is under a lot of pressure for not keeping promises he made when health minister. A young child passed away with Scoliosis recently after having to wait so long despite promises broken by Simon Harris. Suits an under pressure government to try make us fight against ourselves instead.
Well the headlines tonight means she is toast. Her law firm has denied giving her any advice on this subject! she'll be gone either tonight or tomorrow morning.
