Raynor's plan

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/05/i-looked-into-angela-rayners-tax-affairs-heres-what-i-found

I accept it is not a lot of tax, and the case is officially closed.  However, there were several people who were very clear she did not live there for much of the time and it was let (to a relative I think possibly?)

She has got away with it, and there may well have been 'mistakes', but I think there was also avoidance - as do many others.

 

[oowee]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I accept it is not a lot of tax, and the case is officially closed.  However, there were several people who were very clear she did not live there for much of the time and it was let (to a relative I think possibly?)

She has got away with it, and there may well have been 'mistakes', but I think there was also avoidance - as do many others.

 

I prefer to stick to the facts. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, oowee said:

I prefer to stick to the facts. 

Yes, the police investigated some of the facts and chose to dismiss other people with facts.  Water under the bridge - she - like many others has 'got away with it'.

[old man]

Calm down  dears.

Just a further illustration that politics is just a playground for them all?

Most seemingly don't give a rats rear once snouts in the trough?

[oowee]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

Yes, the police investigated some of the facts and chose to dismiss other people with facts.  Water under the bridge - she - like many others has 'got away with it'.

I think what would be interesting is if she had been guilty would she have survived the Starmer chop. She is in an interesting position given her union support.

Just now, old man said:

Calm down  dears.

Just a further illustration that politics is just a playground for them all?

Most seemingly don't give a rats rear once snouts in the trough?

Its a job that not many would do. Campaign for years to get to be chosen for a seat then try and win that uncertain seat. If you win you may be there for four years and have little sway in that decision. It's not a job many would want to apply for. 

The politicians I have worked for (both labour and conservative) have mostly need extremely hard working. 

[JohnfromUK]

13 minutes ago, oowee said:

She is in an interesting position given her union support.

Indeed she is - and I think it will be a thorn deeply in his side in time.  It is an utterly bizarre system that doesn't allow a leader to choose his or her own deputy.  I think Starmer cannot 'give her the chop' in her role as deputy leader of the Labour party - but he can choose which roles, Offices of Government and Government responsibilities are allocated to her.  At least that is my understanding.  The leader doesn't have power over who holds posts in "the Party", but as Prime Minister, he can choose who he puts in Government positions.

Edited Tuesday at 18:59 by JohnfromUK

[B686]

So if it  is true that all the asylum seekers that are here are going to be housed in villages towns etc , surely that’s going to encourage even more to come . That taxpayers are going to have to pay for . Where’s all these houses they are going to live in ? Sounds like a great start.

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, B686 said:

So if it  is true that all the asylum seekers that are here are going to be housed in villages towns etc , surely that’s going to encourage even more to come . That taxpayers are going to have to pay for . Where’s all these houses they are going to live in ? Sounds like a great start.

That was Robert Jenricks (Tory) plan in 2002 is it being continued? 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/16/immigration-minister-fears-rural-areas-will-be-asked-to-house-more-asylum-seekers

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11436871/Thousands-asylum-seekers-housed-rural-areas-bid-ensure-fairness.html

[B686]

I live in a small village and there aren’t any empty houses around here or the other surrounding villages. Just seems to me this country takes the **** out of it’s own people whatever government is in power.

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, B686 said:

I live in a small village and there aren’t any empty houses around here or the other surrounding villages. Just seems to me this country takes the **** out of it’s own people whatever government is in power.

Is it still in the plan? 

[B686]

Let’s hope they have a different one . Don’t ask me what I would do if I had my way as the thread will probably get locked😮

[ditchman]

2 minutes ago, B686 said:

Let’s hope they have a different one . Don’t ask me what I would do if I had my way as the thread will probably get locked😮

shall we link it with Farage's joke ? about having a referendum on the ECHR 

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, B686 said:

Let’s hope they have a different one . Don’t ask me what I would do if I had my way as the thread will probably get locked😮

Ah I see. I thought you knew something. 

 

[B686]

All I know is I don’t mind paying my taxes but its bad enough when you know your paying for this country’s own wasters but even worse when you’re paying for people from other countries. 

8 minutes ago, ditchman said:

shall we link it with Farage's joke ? about having a referendum on the ECHR 

I wouldn’t be joking 

[janner]

13 hours ago, Westward said:

Are yes... Denis Healey as chancellor used that exact phrase didn't he? Anyone remember how well that worked out? I certainly do. For those that don't, I'll enlighten you. Healey's cunning plan didn't work because the rich are either 10 times smarter than the average thicko politicians or they have access to people who are. The end result was that, since the usual spending spree had already started, it was working stiffs like me on PAYE got squeezed.

Read my lips: LABOUR ALWAYS DESTROY THE PUBLIC FINANCES BECAUSE TAX AND SPEND IS THEIR MANTRA.

I remember thoses days well, the working class in the house of commons and a working man could buy a house with a 3x annual salary mortgage,

What went wrong,

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:45 by janner

[oldypigeonpopper]

11 hours ago, B686 said:

So if it  is true that all the asylum seekers that are here are going to be housed in villages towns etc , surely that’s going to encourage even more to come . That taxpayers are going to have to pay for . Where’s all these houses they are going to live in ? Sounds like a great start.

Hello, Where indeed 🤔,

[oowee]

1 hour ago, janner said:

I remember thoses days well, the working class in the house of commons and a working man could buy a house with a 3x annual salary mortgage,

What went wrong,

 

Gross simplification. The house owners did not like other people buying houses near to them so they put up barriers to stop them. It's in the interest of homeowners and developers to push prices the construction and land holding model relies upon it. Those with bigger houses closer to the green spaces, that have more influence had the biggest impact. Result housing shortage and prices have gone up. 

This is why I cannot see labour being able to build enough houses to make a difference unless they build directly and then there is a shortage of trades. 

[Vince Green]

14 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I accept it is not a lot of tax, and the case is officially closed.  However, there were several people who were very clear she did not live there for much of the time and it was let (to a relative I think possibly?)

She has got away with it, and there may well have been 'mistakes', but I think there was also avoidance - as do many others.

 

I believe that when the police said they were "not pursuing the matter" it was because it was more than seven years ago and seven years is the normal statute of limitations for tax matters.

That's why you have to keep your tax records for seven years.

The truth is the police were looking for a way out because they were going to be piggy in the middle if they took her to court. Remember Starmer had already come out and said she was not guilty before the investigation had even got underway. That is impartiality for you!

But she was not cleared or exonerated as she and her supporters like to claim.

The police were intimidated. Which ever way it went they were going to get a kicking

[Vince Green]

16 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Raynor is already way out of her depth. Thick as two short planks.

This ^^^

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I believe that when the police said they were "not pursuing the matter" it was because it was more than seven years ago and seven years is the normal statute of limitations for tax matters.

That's why you have to keep your tax records for seven years.

The truth is the police were looking for a way out because they were going to be piggy in the middle if they took her to court. Remember Starmer had already come out and said she was not guilty before the investigation had even got underway. That is impartiality for you!

But she was not cleared or exonerated as she and her supporters like to claim.

The police were intimidated. Which ever way it went they were going to get a kicking

Agreed.  She was never 'cleared'.  They just decided not to proceed because it needed a bit of effort.  Basically she 'got away with it'.  There were plenty of locals who knew full well that it was not her 'main residence' and she was living nearby with her partner and someone else (a relative?) living in the property she sold.

[Rem260]

17 hours ago, janner said:

If she is thick, which i dont think she is then it doesnt say much for the opposition that she beat in debates time and time again,

shes honest tho which is important to me in an m.p but then i am not a tory,

Didnt she and starmer both say that they would resign if the police found anything illegal in the snidey complaints made by the tory front bench, thats called putting your career on the line if you know you are in the right, a moral compass if you will

 

Would that be honest Ange who categorically denied being at a covid drinks party. Continually denied it until presented with video/photo evidence. What was her excuse

"OH I FORGOT."

Which you are telling us is a true account.

Edited Wednesday at 10:36 by Rem260

[Gordon R]

Rayner was never cleared of any wrongdoing and I note that she doesn't appear to be taking action against former neighbours who accused her of lying.

Whilst clearly not in the same (or anywhere near) league as Jimmy Savile, Keir Starmer swiftly said Rayner was innocent. This is the same Keir Starmer,, who was head of CPS, when  Savile was  "cleared" of any wrongdoing.

Lack of a prosecution does not equate to innocence. It can merely be down to lack of a realistic prospect of a conviction.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Gordon R said:

Lack of a prosecution does not equate to innocence. It can merely be down to lack of a realistic prospect of a conviction.

/\  Very true.

[Vince Green]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

Agreed.  She was never 'cleared'.  They just decided not to proceed because it needed a bit of effort.  Basically she 'got away with it'.  There were plenty of locals who knew full well that it was not her 'main residence' and she was living nearby with her partner and someone else (a relative?) living in the property she sold.

I don't see why it was left to the police

 The inland revenue are perfectly capable of having investigated it themselves. They clearly didn't want to go after a politician that might well end up in charge of them a couple of years down the line.

Civil Servants are inherently lazy, anything that stops them sitting at their desk drinking coffee and doing the crossword is to be avoided if possible 

[Vince Green]

Just now, Gordon R said:

 

Lack of a prosecution does not equate to innocence. It can merely be down to lack of a realistic prospect of a conviction.

Or a fear of reprisals. They would have been effectively prosecuting their future boss. Not the best career move