General News Thread

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

 

And that's the point, we don't know.

 

She could be dodgy a/f, used a crap conveyancer (if such a thing exists...) or done nothing wrong.  Politics is very knee jerk and "sack them sack them sack them" rolls off the tongue so easily against politicians of parties people are partisan against.  Just wait and find out instead of making wild assumptions about what's happening without knowing the details.

 

If she did wrong, clearly she needs the boot given her role.  If they dump her without a genuine reason, it just emboldens an extremely partisan media against Labour who will then just smear people knowing it's effective.

Addendum: this is happening already and has done for a long time. Social media has helped accelerate it. 

[CornwallFox]

17 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

That all sounds lovely and probably applies to the 45-50% that come out of university and their degree is of use to the career they embark upon. 

You appear to have read, but not understood, what I've written.

[CornwallFox]

Jon the hat set out the AR position perfectly and it's fairly obviously a complicated set up. I don't doubt it was an honest mistake though yes any previous government minister would probably have gotten pelters for it. The facts around the trust and situation with the child probably has made it more complicated and I'm inclined to think she's got the wrong advice rather than intentionally evading the tax.

[StanSP]

49 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Doesn’t the fact that she is SoS for housing have to be considered in this? I get why people are trying to defend her on the basis of the scale in comparison to the transgressions of others, but there is no defined scale of acceptability and so this argument seems moot to me.

I guess everyone's scales are going to be different so moot to some and not others. 

[Salisbury Fox]

23 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

 

And that's the point, we don't know.

 

She could be dodgy a/f, used a crap conveyancer (if such a thing exists...) or done nothing wrong.  Politics is very knee jerk and "sack them sack them sack them" rolls off the tongue so easily against politicians of parties people are partisan against.  Just wait and find out instead of making wild assumptions about what's happening without knowing the details.

 

If she did wrong, clearly she needs the boot given her role.  If they dump her without a genuine reason, it just emboldens an extremely partisan media against Labour who will then just smear people knowing it's effective.

Politics is rightly or wrongly about optics and there is a sufficient lack of trust in our institutions now that whether it was intentional or not will not matter to many. However if she releases evidence that shows she was advised incorrectly then I personally would consider the matter closed. It’s worth noting that HMRC works on the basis that the onus is on the individual to get it right. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Politics is rightly or wrongly about optics and there is a sufficient lack of trust in our institutions now that whether it was intentional or not will not matter to many. However if she releases evidence that shows she was advised incorrectly then I personally would consider the matter closed. It’s worth noting that HMRC works on the basis that the onus is on the individual to get it right. 

You're absolutely right, and therein lies a key, damaging weakness. 

[Salisbury Fox]

15 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Politics is rightly or wrongly about optics and there is a sufficient lack of trust in our institutions now that whether it was intentional or not will not matter to many. However if she releases evidence that shows she was advised incorrectly then I personally would consider the matter closed. It’s worth noting that HMRC works on the basis that the onus is on the individual to get it right. 

Apologies for quoting myself, but it’s worth adding that the advice given may have been correct based on what Raynor told them. These advisors may well push back if she withheld information.

[CrazyKopCorner]

It doesn't seem to be that complicated to me and she could have looked it up herself and been aware that as there was a trust for her child minor and she still part owned her first home the full duty would be owed. Isn't that obvious? It's pretty basic law. It seems extremely unlikely that they advise she sought and obtained was by anyone competent. 

 

She is supposed to be the SoS for Housing. 

 

It's either negligent or dodgy. The fact she was so OTT in opposition makes it look even worse. 

 

She may well be likable, definitely the best of an atrocious bunch, but she has to go. 

Edited 4 September 2025 by CrazyKopCorner

[CornwallFox]

16 minutes ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

It doesn't seem to be that complicated to me and she could have looked it up herself and been aware that as there was a trust for her child minor and she still part owned her first home the full duty would be owed. Isn't that obvious? It's pretty basic law. It seems extremely unlikely that they advise she sought and obtained was by anyone competent. 

 

She is supposed to be the SoS for Housing. 

 

It's either negligent or dodgy. The fact she was so OTT in opposition makes it look even worse. 

 

She may well be likable, definitely the best of an atrocious bunch, but she has to go. 

She doesn't part own the first property.

The trust owns the property. 

The issue is if her child died before her, technically she could end up a beneficiary of the trust. 

So she's bought the new house and says she doesn't own a house - which is true - but not advised about the trust situation.

[Jon the Hat]

I have to say HMRC site is pretty clear...

 

If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).

Include any residential property that:

• is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
• you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, CornwallFox said:

She doesn't part own the first property.

The trust owns the property. 

The issue is if her child died before her, technically she could end up a beneficiary of the trust. 

So she's bought the new house and says she doesn't own a house - which is true - but not advised about the trust situation.

In fact its even clearer than I thought, see above post.

[Jon the Hat]

I dislike looking at Stamp duty rules, the whole premise of it is nasty - its a pointless money grab of a tax.

[CrazyKopCorner]

6 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

She doesn't part own the first property.

The trust owns the property. 

The issue is if her child died before her, technically she could end up a beneficiary of the trust. 

So she's bought the new house and says she doesn't own a house - which is true - but not advised about the trust situation.

Is she not the trustee or one of the trustees of the trust? 

 

[CrazyKopCorner]

The kiss of death has been administered. 

 

Rachel Reeves has full confidence 

 

Any endorsement from that bumbling fool is enough to see anyone screwed. 

[CornwallFox]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I dislike looking at Stamp duty rules, the whole premise of it is nasty - its a pointless money grab of a tax.

I suppose I look at taxation a bit differently. 

If we're going to tax then we have to tax someone for something. Nobody likes any tax in theory, but also nobody suggests tax shouldn't exist at all. 

Stamp duty is at least a progressive tax - those that have more money pay more. 

If you get rid of it, fine, but what are you replacing it with? 

If reports are true Labour are possibly looking at replacing it with a different form of property tax, but I guarantee the same commentators (I don't mean you here, I mean paid for online/TV commentators) that complain about stamp duty will complain even louder about the new version - whatever it ends up being - as they're basically paid to complain about any progressive taxation.

[MaidstoneFox]

28 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I have to say HMRC site is pretty clear...

 

If any of you will own, or part own more than one residential property worth £40,000 or more, you will have to pay the higher rates on your new purchase (unless there is another reason why the higher rates do not apply).

Include any residential property that:

• is owned on behalf of children under the age of 18 (parents are treated as the owners even if the property is held through a trust and they are not the trustees)
• you have an interest in as the beneficiary of a trust

It's very clear and should be to any conveyancer. I've been through something similar myself.

 

I suspect that having come from humble beginnings she is enjoying the benefits of her success and is trying to maximise that. Given that this is a common issue for MPs as they often have more that one property to cover constituency and parliamentary needs, she should have been far more careful and however you defend it, for most people it comes across as ostentatious flaunting of wealth and opportunism.

 

The former Member of Parliament for Bristol South East and Chesterfield would not have approved. 

[Muzzy_no7]

2 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

You appear to have read, but not understood, what I've written.

Nope.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg0e485wwwo

 

Florida is aiming to become the first US state to cancel all of its vaccine mandates, many of which require children to get jabs against diseases like polio in order to attend public schools.

The state's top health official, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, likened the mandates to "slavery", in announcing the plans.

"Who am I to tell you what your child should put in your body?" he said. "I don't have that right. Your body is a gift from God."

Florida officials did not give a timeline or details on ending the mandates. Several may only be repealed through a vote by the Republican-led state legislature, while others can be scrapped by the state health department.

Ladapo, though, pledged several times during Wednesday's news conference to end "all of them, every last one of them".

 

MTDDGA - Make Transmissible (and) Debilitating Diseases Great Again. 

[Tommy G]

32 minutes ago, MaidstoneFox said:

It's very clear and should be to any conveyancer. I've been through something similar myself.

 

I suspect that having come from humble beginnings she is enjoying the benefits of her success and is trying to maximise that. Given that this is a common issue for MPs as they often have more that one property to cover constituency and parliamentary needs, she should have been far more careful and however you defend it, for most people it comes across as ostentatious flaunting of wealth and opportunism.

 

The former Member of Parliament for Bristol South East and Chesterfield would not have approved. 

Even if it isn't clear - I suspect if a solicitor/legal firm have advised her, given her profile, it would have gone through MULTIPLE checks to make sure it was watertight.  

 

If it had been negligence on their behalf wouldn't she have a claim against them? Either way she is staring down the barrel of finding a further £40K and a penalty on top. 

 

If she hasn't sought proper advice that is on her, she has the means to, more than most of the working class she represents. 

 

She could quite easily publish proof it wasn't her fault, that isn't forthcoming yet, as labour PR are spinning it first. It's really that simple. 

 

EDIT: She has demanded resignations from other politicians in the past so I'm not sure why she thinks she is any different. 

Edited 4 September 2025 by Tommy G

[urban.spaceman]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg0e485wwwo

 

Florida is aiming to become the first US state to cancel all of its vaccine mandates, many of which require children to get jabs against diseases like polio in order to attend public schools.

The state's top health official, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, likened the mandates to "slavery", in announcing the plans.

"Who am I to tell you what your child should put in your body?" he said. "I don't have that right. Your body is a gift from God."

Florida officials did not give a timeline or details on ending the mandates. Several may only be repealed through a vote by the Republican-led state legislature, while others can be scrapped by the state health department.

Ladapo, though, pledged several times during Wednesday's news conference to end "all of them, every last one of them".

 

MTDDGA - Make Transmissible (and) Debilitating Diseases Great Again. 

These people are ****ing evil. 

[urban.spaceman]

5 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Just imagine the uproar if this was Kemi Badenoch, Farage etc - the double standards. 
 

The only positive is this will keep her well away from any leadership role when KS has to step down. 

Yes, imagine the uproar if a Tory did anything remotely similar or even far, far worse, there'd be wall-to-wall coverage especially proportionate to the scale of the alleged misdeed. 

 

18 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

£40,000 vs £20m and £3.7m.

 

 

The coverage has been overwhelmingly disproportionate and unlike the other two, Rayner's coverage has been inherently vitriolic and personal. 

 

I wonder why. 

As you were

Edited 4 September 2025 by urban.spaceman

[Tommy G]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Yes, imagine the uproar if a Tory did anything remotely similar or even far, far worse, there'd be wall-to-wall coverage especially proportionate to the scale of the alleged misdeed. 

 

As you were

You can parrot your graphs all you want, but its deflecting from the real issue here, and you know that.

 

If you think something is only punishable if its rubbed up against a previous example of another wrongdoing on a larger scale then what precedent does that set for public office? 

 

''Yes officer I did assault someone in the street but I definitely didn't hit him as hard as somebody else did a year ago''

 

It's still assault. 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

These people are ****ing evil. 

Nah, acceptable work to "stick it to the libs/lefties", apparently. 

[CornwallFox]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You can parrot your graphs all you want, but its deflecting from the real issue here, and you know that.

 

If you think something is only punishable if its rubbed up against a previous example of another wrongdoing on a larger scale then what precedent does that set for public office? 

 

''Yes officer I did assault someone in the street but I definitely didn't hit him as hard as somebody else did a year ago''

 

It's still assault. 

The question here is did she intentionally lie. Ie is it potentially fraudulent, or was it an error, so not fraudulent. 

She's likely to have to give more information but her initial explanation doesn't sound unreasonable. 

Edited 4 September 2025 by CornwallFox

[Guest Bilo]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nah, acceptable work to "stick it to the libs/lefties", apparently. 

The performative cruelty of the populist right, here and in the US, is a real problem. They don't pretend to focus on making their supporters' lives better, just making the lives of those their supporters consider to be enemies, or below them in the social hierarchy, worse.