I think you have answered your own question. Much ado about nothing. I think it was Ian Hislop who pointed out that the instigator of this “investigation” has avoided more than £100m of tax payments through the use of the Non Dom scheme, which is something that is more worthy of scrutiny and attention, along with the dozens more who use tax loopholes and MP subsidies to rent homes in London when they already have one there. Esther McVey is a prime example. If Rayner has done wrong then she should admit her “error”, correct it and move on.
The sum is allegedly £1,500, she says she has done nothing wrong. She has the full backing of Keir, but don’t forget this is being driven by the Mail on Sunday. It will be interesting to see what the police investigation turns up if anything.
We're preparing for a GE so every issue no matter how important it really is get's blown up as a scandal. Even if she did avoid paying tax it's not a scandal, maybe a bit more serious if she knowingly did it but not the worst thing to happen. Afterall they were all fiddling their expenses not so long ago. But they all do it and it's interesting that where there's a will anything can be made to look like Watergate. Take Sunak's comments about Starmer not knowing what a woman was. There were some on here who thought it was a hanging offense, others saw it as contrived outrage. It depends on what side of the fence you sit, not whether it's a credible argument. And if any proof were needed Badger's on to confirm it's much ado about nothing .
All politicians are strangers to the truth, so as a voter you are choosing which lies you prefer to believe. If you don’t think politicians lie, then continue to enjoy living in the utopia they have created for you.
The thing I think is important here is intent. Did she willingly register herself at one address and her husband at the other to save tax, or was it a genuine error (of judgement?). The values may be low (i think it is mentioned £1500 compared to a Tory £100K), but to be honest that isn't the issue. A crime is a crime. Dishonesty is dishonesty. If I stole £100 from your wallet but Tory mate stole £1000 from your bank account, is what I did ok?
If there was a league table Rayner's alleged offence would place her bottom relegated before Christmas.
Whilst I agree, the value is irrelevant surely. There is no up roar on here because of the left wing bias I think. By the way I am not in uproar, but I think the fact she is a labour politician and hasn't done as bad a Tory does make it right if proven.
It is mud slinging. It has now being formally investigated by the police who will deem the legality of what was done at least 10 years ago. Not much to say until they report back. One thing I am sure of it is not worth the cost, both financially for the state, and the moral hypocrisy in Tory ministers like Grant Schapps jumping onto Mail headlines.
But my point is it is irrelevant of the moral hypocrisy. Just because she is 'on your side' it does make it right - even if the 'other side' do worse.
I think a crime is a crime and people should be held to account, even more so when they are in positions of public office, but it’s the sheer hypocrisy of people who avoid paying taxes trying to take the moral high ground when they themselves, through clever and maybe even dishonest accounting, are probably not paying their dues. I don’t think the Mail pays any taxes in the UK as I believe that they are registered in one of the Caribbean tax havens. I think the latest figures from HMRC state that the gap between taxes being paid and what SHOULD be paid has risen to about £36 billion. As I have said, if she is found to have done wrong, she should put it right and if she has committed a crime, she should be punished, but having seen what multiple Tory MPs have got away with, over the years, (Robert Jenrick admitting to helping/trying to help a construction company and Tory donor to avoid £45 million tax comes to mind - it didn’t do him any harm) it might be difficult to punish her without it being deemed prejudicial and unfair.
My point again is on here it is assumed that: There are only rich Tories There are only corrupt Tories There are only immoral Tories. There are, but taking a step back, there are also rich Labour, there are also corrupt Labour and there are immoral Labour. The degrees of these are not relevant and it doesn't make it less bad if the Tories have done it worse. That said, in this case it is IMO nothing. And I don't put her in any of the above categories. It may be difficult to punish her without it being deemed prejudicial, but I would say the same on here with anyone who dares to be a Tory. Guilty immediately. I am not making excuses, but this forum is so prejudiced and left leaning that it is a bit funny sometimes.
I don't think she held a public office when she sold her house. The latest is that the police are checking what her address was when she registered to vote is this has to be your main residence. That could open a can of worms for all those Tory second home owners who claim that their principal home is at the other end of the country so that they can claim maximum expenses. Meanwhile their children attend school in London because that is where they really live. You couldn't make it up FFS.
Confirmed my point above - is it only Tories that have second homes, or are there any Labour MPs? Are there only Tories that say they live in the country, but their kids go to school in London. The narrative on here is always that it is ONLY the Tories that do this and that. It really isn't. Both sides do. Degree of wrong is irrelevant. Wrong is wrong. You can't assume it isn't just because it is your side.
Something that strikes me as odd is that former deputy Tory chair Michael Ashcroft wrote an unofficial biography of her. Why? To what end? A bizarre obsession?
