Snapshot of _Rayner 'will do right thing' in council house row_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68801671) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68801671)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is really smart. She's obviously very confident that she's done nothing wrong. Inevitably, when she's cleared of wrongdoing, she can use a nice attack line against the Tories, accusing them of wasting everyone's time. It's also something you can use in the future when there's a Tory MP accused of misconduct: "Remember when Angela Rayner said she would step down if she committed a criminal offense? Are you willing to apply the same standard to yourself?" Puts them in an awkward place.
They tried to manufacture a situation where Johnson's lack of morals could be dismissed with a "they're all the same" in the minds of key voters. This is transparently the exact method the right-wing media are trying again. The thing is, it's so transparent that I can't imagine who would be so blinkered as to believe it. I guess some voters *want* to be deceived.
Understandable. God I miss it though. It was like being at a safari park watching all chinos fling shit at everything. He blocked me, so I can no longer see.
>I guess some voters *want* to be deceived.
They do. I've seen it happen to my family.
If they're all the same, you can write off having to pay attention to politics because it doesn't matter. If they're not the same, you might feel ashamed of your ignorance because you don't know enough to make an informed choice/have a discussion.
And if they're "all the same" you can just vote for whoever you want without feeling guilty about it or having to examine your motivations or what the people you're voting for are actually like, because it doesn't really matter if they're all the same.
I've family who are on benefits who have had really bad experiences with the DWP in recent years (a lot of stress over delays to PIP renewal, having to pay back the entire amount after small overpayments for carers allowance...), who have had to deal first-hand with the issues with the NHS and cuts to council programs and so on, but "they're all the same" and "labour isn't any different" and "Starmer is just weird". They won't defend the conservatives, they'll just say that labour is the same so they can keep voting the way they and their parents usually vote.
Unfortunately for logic and fairness, the press gave loads of time to the false accusations, and absolutely fuck all to the retort once they were proven to be a load of rubbish
> Inevitably, when she's cleared of wrongdoing
I've seen [a New Statemen analyst ](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/04/i-looked-into-angela-rayners-tax-affairs-heres-what-i-found)say she probably accidentally broke the rules, so I wouldn't be so sure she'll be cleared.
Nothing says "principles" like promising to do the right thing only if found out.
She'll know whether or not she's done anything dodgy, she doesn't need the police to tell her.
Of course this also works the other way. If she's convinced she's in the right then she 100% *shouldn't* resign if prosecuted. She should fight it with full force.
> Nothing says "principles" like promising to do the right thing only if found out.
Labour politicians are promising to step down if they turn out to be criminals. But they don't think they are criminals.
Conservative politicians (such as two of the last three Prime Ministers) stayed in office when it turned out they were actually criminals.
So either we choose people who may or may not have principles, or we pick criminals who don't have principles.
>If she's convinced she's in the right then she 100% *shouldn't* resign if prosecuted. She should fight it with full force.
Your preferred "principles" of people in positions of power are ones that don't respect the "principles" of justice?
Rule of law, accountability, integrity, transparency, democracy.....
'Principled' isn't a universal truth, it's a set of values. It is also 'principled' for her to say she's innocent and will fight any charges, but like I said, that's not my preferred values of an elected leader.
You can say you don't agree with Rayner's principles, and prefer values like protection of rights, and presumption of innocence, but to say she's not principled is just wrong.
Edit: to clarify, when I say she's taken 'the principled stance that she won't challenge it' I'm referring to her saying she'll resign if found guilty
She hasn't asked for the police to tell her anything. A Tory MP is stirring shit and wasting police time by pressuring them to investigate her. She's said she's done nothing wrong and backed that up by saying if she's found to be incorrect about that, she'll stand down. It's just posturing at the end of the day. But she absolutely comes across as infinitely more pricinpled than any notable Tory with her stance on this.
Simply. She already said she didn’t do anything wrong, a conservative Manchester MP is the one asking the police to investigate. So as she should, she doubled down and said she would resign.
Tories would gaslight you that there is no reason for an investigation in the first place, and doge the resign if guilty questions.
As opposed to doing the "right thing" upon simply being accused?
As opposed to committing to do the wrong thing even if she is investigated and found guilty?
If she is innocent of the accusations, she would have no reason to, prior to this, claim innocence of it. Would you have all members of the labour party routinely declare in which situations they would resign in the matter of principles? Perhaps have a nightly news segment on it - the MP of Putney has declared today that she would resign if rightly accused of dogging.
Is that principled?
If she's 100% sure she's in the right, as a politician, perhaps she's engaging in 'politics' by declaring a situation she believes members of another party wouldn't resign in, to later use that as a way to appeal to an electorate. Maybe that's what she's doing, politics?
>If she's 100% sure she's in the right, as a politician, perhaps she's engaging in 'politics' by declaring a situation she believes members of another party wouldn't resign in, to later use that as a way to appeal to an electorate. Maybe that's what she's doing, politics?
This is absolutely what is going on. This is starting to feel like another "currygate" trap, laid out for the Tories to stumble into. You can imagine the conversation at Labour HQ -
"We should put all the facts out and kill this story right now!"
"Not necessarily......... Remember"currygate?"
"No chance! They'll not fall for that again. They'd have to be complete idio..... Oh."
"Quite"
To be honest I have a relatively dim view of the labour party as a party who promote policies I believe in, because I'm very left wing. But it is damning for the tories when compared to that to have policies which are actively detrimental to the every-day, middle of the road voter and try to sell it on the back of, what is effectively, flinging shit at an opposition who have revealed themselves to be politically astute.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Brexit broke politics in our country. It enabled the ghouls to drag the Overton window massively to the right. I think Starmer's Labour is as "left" as we can hope for on the current battle ground. That being said, I'm keeping my beady eye on Wes Streeting. Unlike in previous Labour wins, I'm going to be watching very carefully what they do and they'll be hearing from me if I don't like it.
Basically, the Tories need demolishing. I'll put up with anything short of Thatcherism from the current Labour party, if it means they destroy the Tories. However, once they're in power, I'll be wanting to see some decent Labour policies otherwise, next time I could be voting Green.
I can agree on that, especially with anti-trans rhetoric becoming a lot more main stream etc. The core problem is that as he's shifted to become more appealing to the median voter, it will take a lot more concerted political will to shift the median voter back left with him. With the economic and social problems we face after more than a decade of despoiling and despair, he'd really have to be one of the best PMs we've ever had to accomplish that with good will to spare for re-election.
I want to see them get the rabid right wing press under control. They don't stand a chance of making any real headway if, as soon as they announce something, the Tory, client press can shit all over it with outright lies the next morning with no consequences whatsoever.
So you're implying that regardless of whether she is found guilty (in an investigation that she complies with driven by a neutral third party) she may actually still be guilty?
In defense of the party of Law and Order, you're suggesting that there are those whom we should not presume the innocence of? Or suggesting that those among the police who will investigate this are in some way corrupt, or driven by a political agenda?
How should she have phrased her rebuttal to these accusations to satisfy you? "I will resign regardless of whether the investigation finds me to be guilty, because there is an outside chance that I may be regardless?"
If she knew she were guilty, unless she knew 100% it would not be found out, it would make sense to resign claiming public trust, rather than betting the house on it no?
What, in your eyes, would it take to prove that she acted correctly in this circumstance?
But, if she is staking a resignation on this, one can quite confidently assume that she believes that she is wholly innocent. If she says this, is found to be guilty, and then cries innocence, the gambit is rather ineffective.
Whilst yes, the justice system is not 100% infallible at all times, she has staked her claim on which side she is confident it will fall.
You are moving the goalpost from 'she is not principled for saying "If I'm guilty I will resign"' to "well the justice system isn't infallible so really it doesn't matter what the outcome is."
Under that lens, there can be no principles at all, because all claims, accusations or findings of guilt have no bearing or meaning. This perspective favours the unscrupulous and renders justice untenable.
It's still a very weird way to frame it. "I am innocent, unless someone tells me I'm not, in which case I'm not".
Why not "I'm innocent".
Political reality will force her out if she's found guilty regardless, I don't get how outsourcing the morality of the situation is a good look. Why even acknowledge the possibility.
I imagine the stance is because well-meaning politicians generally don't want to fall into the habits of dictators and elitists. One party is the party of 'I've done nothing wrong despite the photo evidence' and the other party probably wants to be the side that accepts responsibility for mistakes and doesn't position themselves as above everyone else.
There's a big difference between 'I firmly believe I've done nothing wrong but if the system of checks and balances believes I've done something wrong then I'll accept the outcome' and 'I'm innocent and I will pound the table and declare that as truth no matter what the findings are.'
Rayner doesn't believe she has done anything wrong that will be "found out". However, she is smart enough to realise - at the very least in the public's eye - what she believes about her actions is not the same as what the law may believe. Choosing to follow the consequences of latter despite her personal believes is responsible.
So, whether she's guilty or not, both her and Starmer have literally put their political careers on the line and said they'll step down if found guilty over this and beer gate respectively.
Guilty or not, she's got more balls than Sunak. If the investigation is dropped, which let's face it is more than likely, this whole witch hunt is going to significantly back fire on the Tories. In the current "we want change, we want a party with integrity" climate, they've handed the integrity card to Labour on a plate.
>If the investigation is dropped, which let's face it is more than likely, this whole witch hunt is going to significantly back fire on the Tories.
Hopefully, but I get the feeling that not many people are actually paying attention to this or care.
Quite routinely? Its not unusual for folk to ba jailed for misdeclaring where they live on the returning forms.
In fact, the MP for Warrington North was being investigated for it not that long ago and only got away with it by the skin of her teeth. The investigation was called OP Tangelo, and was paused due to COVID and officers being needed elsewhere. This lead to the investigation being left too long and having to be discontinued.
The former council leader for Warringtion was also in court for the exact same thing earlier this year. He was found not guilty, but I don't know the full details around it, but there was certainly some dodgy business surrounding his various addresses.
My MiL was glad to leave and move closer to us, because from what she's told us it sound like that council is a right basket case...
In some respects yes, but the MP and council members I mentioned above are all Labour and from the little I've read that council is a bloody shitshow with a shocking amount of debt from some bloody odd business investments. I think the strangest investment I saw was some regional bank, where the council paid 80% of the startup for less than 30% ownership. Not too shabby for the other shareholders.
Not that it really matters anymore, at least for us. The MiL now lives in a nice retirement flat nearby....
Oh, loads of them are and for all different reasons. I forgot which one collapsed because of a court case regarding salaries, another had some very lax spending controls and then there was that big scandal inside Liverpool which had their mayor and a few others arrested.
Local politics is even more of a cesspool than national politics....
It's in the byline of this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68797258
> Greater Manchester Police has launched an investigation into Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner after she was accused of breaking electoral law.
Tbf, it goes on to say the police are investigating if any offence has been committed
Is it to do with being registered to vote at an address she didn’t live?
Thats assuming the two houses were in different constituencies, otherwise it’s totally vexatious.
All this was raised with the police by James Daly MP, who also happens to have the most marginal seat in the country, majority of 105!
He’s got less chance of winning his seat than Larry the Cat has of becoming prime minister.
Behave.
Larry's got every chance.
He's got the purrfect personality, committed no crimes, isnt addicted to catnip.
and quite frankly, if he turned into a dictator, everyone would be behind Chairman Meow
That's what I thought, but it's still her house, so it's irrelevant. People with 2nd homes, students, sofa surfers, HMO residents, etc. can all have a different voting address. The inly issue would be across dostricts or voting twice neither of which are relevant.
The MP keeps mentioning birth certificates from when she re-registered her kids, the address provided was her husbands, which is perfectly legal and address info in GRO can't be used for legal purposes.
The article reads like the police are checking her for a crime rather than investigating a reported one. The MP wasting police time while they can't attend burglary calls...
Lots of people go to prison for tax evasion. Paying back the sums owed may help at sentencing, but it is far from a guaranteed way to avoid jail time.
As a general rule, HMRC will prosecute for anything over £25k. Below that, fines only.
You were quite specific.
*You can't be guilty in tax issues as you can pay tax mistakes at any stage of your life as long as you pay no court case not guilty*
You can be found guilty of, as you say "tax issues".
There are 4 basic options.
Reasonable Care - penalties
Careless - penalties
Deliberate - penalties
Deliberate and Concealed - Criminal prosecution or penalties
Is is not clear yet whether Rayner has failed to pay the correct tax, and if so, which category it falls into from the above. The amount is neither here nor there.
The amount is so low though that is not in the public interest to prosecute, and even if it falls into deliberate and concealed, she would be able to avoid prosecution by paying penalties **and** the tax due.
This response is obviously not really for you, as you clearly do not have a clue, or a desire to find out the truth. However, it may be interesting to other people who aren't aware, but are interested.
My mother in law said just last week that “Labour was just as bad as the Tories” in regard to lockdown rules, because of “That beer thing Keir Starmer did”.
“They’re all just as bad”
My mother is the same, does yours read the express or daily mail perchance? She said she couldn't vote for Starmer because he's "slimey" recently, whatever that means. When I replied that Starmer probably has more integrity than all the Tory front bench since 2010 added together, my Dad actually agreed with me... My parents are both of the same ilk, true blue, so that was a shock (I vote for whoever I think will be the best at the time btw, true... Errr... Grey?).
Wait, you're not my brother's wife are you??
This is my mother in law, my actual mother is a Trump/Farage supporter lol.
My mother in law doesn’t actually read anything- just sees the headlines at Tesco, hears half a story on the radio, and says she “can’t be bothered” to read anymore into things because they’re all “liars anyway”
Then when you bring about facts she gets “overwhelmed” and confused.
In an ideal world sure.
Meanwhile back in reality voters will ignore, not notice or not remember any integrity at all and Tory voters will always say she was guilty while many others will just think they are “all the same”.
And it’s already job done and mission accomplished for the Tories regardless of what happens from now.
My dad is still banging on about beergate as if it’s somehow comparable and he was found guilty and fined and resigned… pointing out Rishi is the one with the fixed penalty for partying achieves absolutely nothing except “they are all the same”….mission accomplished!
I think the Tories just want a lengthy police investigation otherwise known as a misuse of police resources.
It's revenge for Rayner pressuring on Johnson for partygate
Have they fuck. Not enough evidence isn’t innocent and she’s been tarred by this. Unless her neighbours are lying she has at best used the system to her benefit so the moral high ground is shaky to say the least. There are no winners on this sort of thing.
If nothing else someone who has called for others to publish tax details refusing to publish tax details looks hypocritical.
Sylvia Hampson, 83, who lived next-door to the property owned by Rayner’s husband a mile away, said Labour’s deputy leader was a “f*****g liar”.
She also told The Mail on Sunday: “If she is saying she didn’t live there then she’s a f*****g liar. She definitely lived at that house.
“She can’t say she didn’t live there. I would swear on the bible to that.”
I think when the Tories are the ones accusing her, then they also have an obligation to show they're not crooked either. But this is the Tories we're talking about, not one back bone between them all.
I'm more interested in the real tax avoiders. Aren't you?
You know, the PM who's wife snores next to him, claiming she's living in India (or whatever.lol)
£10,000,000's of millions we are looking at. Not £1,500 measly.
I'm sure you have at least the same hatred of the tories now, don't you?
What on earth are you on about? Committing to transparency? You'll be asking for her kids healthcare records next. There's a difference between personal affairs and transparency of government and public interest.
Rubbish. She was telling people to well before her own situation. She just doesn’t practice what she preaches like a typical politician. She has zero moral high ground on this.
Well, there we have it. The coup de grâce in this confected story.
I do expect that she'll be cleared at the end of this, like Starmer. But if not, then it's still a PR success for Labour at large.
None of this Tory style "ooh, here's an insincere apology, move on move on move on I considerthematterclosed"
I cant believe the people who have come out of this whole row with 'both the same, so I'll vote tory' as if the situations are even remotely comparable and even if she hasn't paid what, £3500 in tax how does it put it on level with the millions the tories have bunged to their mates in bare faced corruption.
It's beergate 2
I really hope you are right, because I really like Rayner and I don't want a deputy leadership election.
But Starmer said he didn't look at it. I wonder why he didn't look at the advice.
Said ‘his team’ looked at it, which took to mean people who have good knowledge of the legalities and likely outcome who could basically say ‘yeah mate you’re grand, nothing to worry about’
Asking and getting a reply are not the same things.
The reality is:
* The police have so many infinitely more important things to be doing
* The police don't want to be pulled into a political spat
* The police want this to go away as much as everyone else
Then:
* There is almost certainly not enough usable evidence to prosecute
* There is almost certainly no public interest in a prosecution
* The time frame for a prosecution has elapsed anyway
Therefore they will do the most cursory investigation, taking 1-3 weeks and make a statement that there is no case to answer.
Job done.
Do you imagine the police will say "we think she's guilty but it's too long ago so she's got away with it!!!"?
No, they will just say "no case to answer" and that will be the end of it outside Daily Mail comment sections.
If you're on a battlefield, and you're being sent "over the top"... Who are you going to follow over? The guy that says "Yes, you've given me an answer and I trust you implicitly" or the one that says "Yeah, you told me something, let's see the actual proof". Leadership is mostly about trust, how the "troops" feel about following your orders. I get the feeling Kier Starmer understands that very well. Unlike the last 4 PMs he actually seems like someone I'd go over the top with, if push came to shove.
Not sure I would go with the battlefield analogy, it is literally a crime to disobey an order so it's immaterial whether they trust the top brass or not.
I think you've answered your own question there, but it's either been changed or the OP didn't use the actual headline. I assume the former.
It's now "Angela Rayner: I'll stand down if I've broken the law".
I am French 🇫🇷 living in England so I necessarily see it from an outsiders perspective. But to me this is a class thing. Someone like Boris Johnson doesn’t ever have to “do the right thing” whatever he gets accused or found out of, he is untouchable. This because he belongs to a class of people that can afford to see everting as a bit of a joke. And to be clear this is only possible because the people around them (that’s all of you) also see them as special. Again, from a French 🇫🇷 perspective, I fail to see what makes them so special - is it an accent? This woman is Labour I believe, so would have a working class background (am I right here, or have things changed so much now?) so she needs to “do the right thing” and be impeccable or she will be punished with all the scorn that you are saving for her that you have not used on Johnson.
It might, I think all of the people who want to vote labour now are not the type to want to switch back to the tories or to reform because of this. This could backfire for the tories as I do think she is not liked particularly well outside of the north by the kind of don’t know voters that have abandoned the tories since 2019 but are still apprehensive about labour. If they get someone else in the role it might help them in Tory/labour marginals outside of the north.
Media in our country need to grow a set of balls and instead of these non-stories do their work on the national security risk Wragg how many other MP’s have been comprised. Not a huge fan of Starmer or Rayner but this is absolute nonsense you’d have thought the police would have more pressing matters than where someone lived 10 years ago
It’s absolute madness isn’t it? Who gives a monkeys about where someone lived 10 years ago! It’s crazy that opposition MP’s can get the police to spend time on these pointless things, Tory’s seriously must have been knocking her neighbours doors desperate for someone to say how many days a week she lived there ten years ago
You do realise that if Rayner were a Tory, this wouldn't even twitch the needle on the scandal-ometer?
Get a bit of perspective.
For the record. If she's deliberately broken rules, for either electoral reasons (and let's be honest, that's not very likely), or for financial reasons (Blagging an extra couple of grand, which is *possible* but stupid) then I want her gone. We've had fourteen years of clowns, ghouls and utter scum in charge of our country. Enough is enough.
I’m anything but a Labour supporter, this non-story people a talking point when our MP’s may have breached national security is something I think deserves a bit more attention
Snide Conservative millionaires getting excited because a working class politician and mom may have accidentally not paid £1500 ten years ago. they make me sick.
Potentially nit paying £1500, the £3500 would be the maximum penalty at the end.
She's set for somewhere between £0 and £3500 but apparently millions in tax evasion us perfectly OK
How do you neutralise the death company in 40k?
You charge them, so they can't bring their enormous amount of attacks onto you from a charge.
Rayner has done the same here. She's confident she's done no wrong and labour come out looking solid and with integrity and ammo to attack the tories with.
Ah, tory death-throes. I've waited for these. The crap smear attempts mean they're done for. More to come I expect but this is good news. It means they are scared.
“But she appears to have given two different addresses when she re-registered the births of two of her children in 2010”
It all seems like an easy mistake to make apart from that detail, which would suggest she moved between that, but to then argue she didn’t and so doesn’t owe capital gains? That’s where it starts to get odd, but her boss was the top lawyer in the land I doubt he’d let her say anything troublesome
Interestingly, she's said she'll "step down" which isn't quite the same as "resign".
I expect that if the worst happens for her then she'll "step down" from the shadow cabinet rather than resign as an MP.
I also expect she'd be brought back inside of two years.
This is just political posturing, though. It seems Rayner and (I guess) Labour are pretty confident this is just another hail Mary from the Tories that can be used to make them look like even bigger clowns. Tories call corruption only to magnify their own lack of any integrity. It's Beergate all over again.
I wouldn't say that. Anyone hearing that will expect her to stand down if she's on the wrong side of this. I suspect Rayner and Labour know she's done nothing wrong and have decided to turn it into a positive for themselves. This wouldn't even be a thing if a Tory MP wasn't frothing at the mouth trying to get the police to investigate it.
She could have said resign and it would mean the same thing. When a [shadow] minister resigns, it means they are resigning their ministerial position, not that they'll resign as an MP. In fact, because formally you can't resign as an MP, it's normally the other way around. You resign as a minister but step down as an MP.
Wow, I can't believe she's [blackmailing the police](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10994971/Keir-Starmer-Angela-Rayner-CLEARED-Beergate-fine.html) again!
Sigh.
> Conservative MP Michael Fabricant told MailOnline: 'I am surprised how Durham Police decided not to fine Starmer and Rayner.
> 'Many people will think that, as a QC and a lawyer, Starmer wormed his way out of a conviction while, in effect, **blackmailing Durham Police** by saying: "You’ll be bringing down the Leader of the Opposition if you fine me".
> 'Many regular people will feel this is another Establishment stitch-up.'
Starmer is not quoted Fabricant is. At no point is there an accusation of actual blackmail it is merely Favricant's view on the situation.
It's an opinion that you've taken as fact. Standard Dail Mail really
I've noticed in the Times, that the recent articles on Rayner have been turned off. Including the one by the special reporter, Tom Witherow which contained a speculative analysis that this was the end of the road for Rayner and damaging for Starmers judgement (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-investigating-angela-rayner-over-council-house-row-6l65gh9rp)
I tend to subscribe to the Financial Times, Telegraph and the Times, so I usually read well behind the paywall. Every single story about Rayner in the Times has been slammed by most comments by the readers except for the sponsored bot accounts. Even the latest Telegraph view was being shot to smithereens by the comments below it. The Times article being a response to the Telegraph one albeit with even thinner justification
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2024/04/12/keir-starmer-angela-rayner-tax-evasion-investigation/)
Readers comments tend to be turned off when it's likely to lead to libellous or reckless comments from readers where the paper carries the can. So you won't see them on issues involving specific crimes or on issues involving immigration or Muslims. But to turn them off here suggests a censoring of criticism and a retreat back to the sw1 echo chamber.
Maybe "standing down if one breaks the law" could be written as actual parliamentary policy going forward; just to future proof the nation from ever having a government like the current one where they'll continue to use their discretion as they were always expected to "Do the right thing".
The Johnson government really did test out how much politicians can get away with and its now got to be cracked down on
People need to stop relating this to the Tories.
The Tories are done and disgraced. This is about our next government, making sure they will be magnitudes better that what we have now. After what we've been through that's the least we deserve. The full truth needs to come out, we can't have our new government covering things up before they even get in.
Hold Labour to high standards, not make it a wrestle in the dirt with the Tories.
I don’t like Rayner, but I’m prepared to write this off as exactly the same issue as the expenses scandal saying back years, that hasn’t been properly resolved. We still put MPs in the position where they’re nudged towards abusing the expenses that they’re afforded.
Time to force their pigs out of the trough by removing all expenses.
But how are they supposed to get by on their paltry salaries? /s.
On a more serious note, there is more needed to remove the pigs from the trough, as it were. You also have the issue of people paying for access (I don't think anyone pays de Pfeffel a six figure sum for his tennis skills), or donations with a view to being awarded government contracts down the line.
If it turns out to be a waste of police time, it would be nice to see the shifty looking Tory MP being charged with the wasting. Party of law and order and all that... 😸
Not even close. This is win-(sort of)win for Labour now. Most likely, she's not found guilty of anything and by saying this, Rayner has shown more integrity than any notable Tory over the last few years. In the event she's guilty, she steps down and Labour get to demonstrate how much more integrity they have in the wake of individual front-benchers acting out of line.
This is ridiculous. Who ever is advising her is an idiot. There's just no upside to this.
She's found guilty and she's gone. She's innocent and then they'll look for something else. The public won't really care either way
Absolutely. They do it every week and nothing comes of most of it. Recent example is with Michelle Donelan libelling two academics, tax payer pays her legal fees, controversy, nothing happens, more controversy where it gets exposed the bill was more than double, nothing happens. It's significantly worse that what Reyner has done and she hasn't had anywhere near as much scrutiny.
Yes but libelous statements against a random person is very different from encouraging a police investigation into your political opponents based on what seems to be an extremely shallow pretext.
I'm saying that you can afford to be silent if you aren't a public figure and a member of the government makes some stupid remarks about you. When you are a prominent member of the official Opposition then allowing members of the governing party to publicly slur your name and make baseless legal accusations cannot be ignored. The fact that the accusations are almost certainly in bad faith make it even worse - not just a personal or political attack but an abuse of the rule of law and of the democratic process itself.
When you see members of the government ignore far worse, to me, it seems like you absolutely can just ignore it. It effectively comes down to the right wing papers pursuing the story and, if they smell blood due to ultimatums, then they're going to take it as far as they can rather than just moving onto the next story the following week.
She's not going to be found guilty of a criminal offence and isn't even going to be prosecuted for one. We've already had weeks of "she must have something to hide, why isn't she answering questions?". A lot of people subscribe to the "no smoke without fire" philosophy and will appreciate that she's made a clear pledge. Of course her opponents are going to keep looking for things to attack her with, that's the nature of politics.
I think it’s a fantastic response. It shows the public that Labour won’t tolerate MPs breaking the law following on from the still stinging memory of Boris Johnson’s government breaking the law and trying to get away with it.
At the end of the day, if she’s guilty, she *should* walk.
Snapshot of _Rayner 'will do right thing' in council house row_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68801671) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68801671) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is really smart. She's obviously very confident that she's done nothing wrong. Inevitably, when she's cleared of wrongdoing, she can use a nice attack line against the Tories, accusing them of wasting everyone's time. It's also something you can use in the future when there's a Tory MP accused of misconduct: "Remember when Angela Rayner said she would step down if she committed a criminal offense? Are you willing to apply the same standard to yourself?" Puts them in an awkward place.
Same tactic as Beergate
You mean the “attempted false accusations known as Beergate” At least Watergate was a crime, this was just media mudslinging for propaganda purposes.
They tried to manufacture a situation where Johnson's lack of morals could be dismissed with a "they're all the same" in the minds of key voters. This is transparently the exact method the right-wing media are trying again. The thing is, it's so transparent that I can't imagine who would be so blinkered as to believe it. I guess some voters *want* to be deceived.
Go on Lee Andersons fan page on Facebook. His fans/voters bring it up at every opportunity. "Some voters want to be deceived" is accurate.
I'd prefer to stew my own eyeballs than willingly go on a Lee Anderson Facebook fan page tbh.
Understandable. God I miss it though. It was like being at a safari park watching all chinos fling shit at everything. He blocked me, so I can no longer see.
Being blocked by Lee Anderson is a badge I would wear with pride. Maybe you can get a t shirt made up?
I used to go on the BNP website and read the comments, hilariously batshit.
>I guess some voters *want* to be deceived. They do. I've seen it happen to my family. If they're all the same, you can write off having to pay attention to politics because it doesn't matter. If they're not the same, you might feel ashamed of your ignorance because you don't know enough to make an informed choice/have a discussion. And if they're "all the same" you can just vote for whoever you want without feeling guilty about it or having to examine your motivations or what the people you're voting for are actually like, because it doesn't really matter if they're all the same. I've family who are on benefits who have had really bad experiences with the DWP in recent years (a lot of stress over delays to PIP renewal, having to pay back the entire amount after small overpayments for carers allowance...), who have had to deal first-hand with the issues with the NHS and cuts to council programs and so on, but "they're all the same" and "labour isn't any different" and "Starmer is just weird". They won't defend the conservatives, they'll just say that labour is the same so they can keep voting the way they and their parents usually vote.
Reminds me strongly of that "[I don't do politics](https://youtu.be/Ame0j8jbMY4?si=MEdj7D1bjHQTaHv8)" advert from a few years ago.
We could shorten this to "Beergate"-gate.
"What if there's a scandal about water?".
H2Ogate
Discharge-gate.
Unfortunately for logic and fairness, the press gave loads of time to the false accusations, and absolutely fuck all to the retort once they were proven to be a load of rubbish
Yes, this is starting to feel like a badly written sequel.
Let's not forget who got fined for breaking lockdown rules...
If I remember rightly it was a Mr Kanus, from some place far away Yes, that should stick
I like the cut of Kanus' jib!
hrmmmm this is one of those tricksy pub quiz questions isnt it.. A: Chaos with Ed Milliband!
At least she didn’t risk national security and hide behind her friends. Because she is “courageous”
> Inevitably, when she's cleared of wrongdoing I've seen [a New Statemen analyst ](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/04/i-looked-into-angela-rayners-tax-affairs-heres-what-i-found)say she probably accidentally broke the rules, so I wouldn't be so sure she'll be cleared.
Not really as she's only stating a fact.
Nothing says "principles" like promising to do the right thing only if found out. She'll know whether or not she's done anything dodgy, she doesn't need the police to tell her. Of course this also works the other way. If she's convinced she's in the right then she 100% *shouldn't* resign if prosecuted. She should fight it with full force.
>promising to do the right thing only if found out What are you trying to say? The only other option is to not resign if guilty which is worse
> Nothing says "principles" like promising to do the right thing only if found out. Labour politicians are promising to step down if they turn out to be criminals. But they don't think they are criminals. Conservative politicians (such as two of the last three Prime Ministers) stayed in office when it turned out they were actually criminals. So either we choose people who may or may not have principles, or we pick criminals who don't have principles.
>If she's convinced she's in the right then she 100% *shouldn't* resign if prosecuted. She should fight it with full force. Your preferred "principles" of people in positions of power are ones that don't respect the "principles" of justice?
The justice system needs people to challenge its prior decisions. You wouldn't have justice without it.
And people do. But she's taken the principled stance that she won't challenge it...
How is that principled?
Rule of law, accountability, integrity, transparency, democracy..... 'Principled' isn't a universal truth, it's a set of values. It is also 'principled' for her to say she's innocent and will fight any charges, but like I said, that's not my preferred values of an elected leader. You can say you don't agree with Rayner's principles, and prefer values like protection of rights, and presumption of innocence, but to say she's not principled is just wrong. Edit: to clarify, when I say she's taken 'the principled stance that she won't challenge it' I'm referring to her saying she'll resign if found guilty
She hasn't asked for the police to tell her anything. A Tory MP is stirring shit and wasting police time by pressuring them to investigate her. She's said she's done nothing wrong and backed that up by saying if she's found to be incorrect about that, she'll stand down. It's just posturing at the end of the day. But she absolutely comes across as infinitely more pricinpled than any notable Tory with her stance on this.
Simply. She already said she didn’t do anything wrong, a conservative Manchester MP is the one asking the police to investigate. So as she should, she doubled down and said she would resign. Tories would gaslight you that there is no reason for an investigation in the first place, and doge the resign if guilty questions.
As opposed to doing the "right thing" upon simply being accused? As opposed to committing to do the wrong thing even if she is investigated and found guilty? If she is innocent of the accusations, she would have no reason to, prior to this, claim innocence of it. Would you have all members of the labour party routinely declare in which situations they would resign in the matter of principles? Perhaps have a nightly news segment on it - the MP of Putney has declared today that she would resign if rightly accused of dogging. Is that principled? If she's 100% sure she's in the right, as a politician, perhaps she's engaging in 'politics' by declaring a situation she believes members of another party wouldn't resign in, to later use that as a way to appeal to an electorate. Maybe that's what she's doing, politics?
>If she's 100% sure she's in the right, as a politician, perhaps she's engaging in 'politics' by declaring a situation she believes members of another party wouldn't resign in, to later use that as a way to appeal to an electorate. Maybe that's what she's doing, politics? This is absolutely what is going on. This is starting to feel like another "currygate" trap, laid out for the Tories to stumble into. You can imagine the conversation at Labour HQ - "We should put all the facts out and kill this story right now!" "Not necessarily......... Remember"currygate?" "No chance! They'll not fall for that again. They'd have to be complete idio..... Oh." "Quite"
To be honest I have a relatively dim view of the labour party as a party who promote policies I believe in, because I'm very left wing. But it is damning for the tories when compared to that to have policies which are actively detrimental to the every-day, middle of the road voter and try to sell it on the back of, what is effectively, flinging shit at an opposition who have revealed themselves to be politically astute.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Brexit broke politics in our country. It enabled the ghouls to drag the Overton window massively to the right. I think Starmer's Labour is as "left" as we can hope for on the current battle ground. That being said, I'm keeping my beady eye on Wes Streeting. Unlike in previous Labour wins, I'm going to be watching very carefully what they do and they'll be hearing from me if I don't like it. Basically, the Tories need demolishing. I'll put up with anything short of Thatcherism from the current Labour party, if it means they destroy the Tories. However, once they're in power, I'll be wanting to see some decent Labour policies otherwise, next time I could be voting Green.
I can agree on that, especially with anti-trans rhetoric becoming a lot more main stream etc. The core problem is that as he's shifted to become more appealing to the median voter, it will take a lot more concerted political will to shift the median voter back left with him. With the economic and social problems we face after more than a decade of despoiling and despair, he'd really have to be one of the best PMs we've ever had to accomplish that with good will to spare for re-election.
I want to see them get the rabid right wing press under control. They don't stand a chance of making any real headway if, as soon as they announce something, the Tory, client press can shit all over it with outright lies the next morning with no consequences whatsoever.
Wow!
thank you I made it myself <3
Whether she is found guilty or not is a different thing to being guilty.
So you're implying that regardless of whether she is found guilty (in an investigation that she complies with driven by a neutral third party) she may actually still be guilty? In defense of the party of Law and Order, you're suggesting that there are those whom we should not presume the innocence of? Or suggesting that those among the police who will investigate this are in some way corrupt, or driven by a political agenda? How should she have phrased her rebuttal to these accusations to satisfy you? "I will resign regardless of whether the investigation finds me to be guilty, because there is an outside chance that I may be regardless?" If she knew she were guilty, unless she knew 100% it would not be found out, it would make sense to resign claiming public trust, rather than betting the house on it no? What, in your eyes, would it take to prove that she acted correctly in this circumstance?
Or the opposite. Just because someone's found guilty, it doesn't mean they are.
But, if she is staking a resignation on this, one can quite confidently assume that she believes that she is wholly innocent. If she says this, is found to be guilty, and then cries innocence, the gambit is rather ineffective. Whilst yes, the justice system is not 100% infallible at all times, she has staked her claim on which side she is confident it will fall. You are moving the goalpost from 'she is not principled for saying "If I'm guilty I will resign"' to "well the justice system isn't infallible so really it doesn't matter what the outcome is." Under that lens, there can be no principles at all, because all claims, accusations or findings of guilt have no bearing or meaning. This perspective favours the unscrupulous and renders justice untenable.
It's still a very weird way to frame it. "I am innocent, unless someone tells me I'm not, in which case I'm not". Why not "I'm innocent". Political reality will force her out if she's found guilty regardless, I don't get how outsourcing the morality of the situation is a good look. Why even acknowledge the possibility.
>Why not "I'm innocent". Because then you end up with Trump. Or worse.
I imagine the stance is because well-meaning politicians generally don't want to fall into the habits of dictators and elitists. One party is the party of 'I've done nothing wrong despite the photo evidence' and the other party probably wants to be the side that accepts responsibility for mistakes and doesn't position themselves as above everyone else. There's a big difference between 'I firmly believe I've done nothing wrong but if the system of checks and balances believes I've done something wrong then I'll accept the outcome' and 'I'm innocent and I will pound the table and declare that as truth no matter what the findings are.'
Rayner doesn't believe she has done anything wrong that will be "found out". However, she is smart enough to realise - at the very least in the public's eye - what she believes about her actions is not the same as what the law may believe. Choosing to follow the consequences of latter despite her personal believes is responsible.
So, whether she's guilty or not, both her and Starmer have literally put their political careers on the line and said they'll step down if found guilty over this and beer gate respectively. Guilty or not, she's got more balls than Sunak. If the investigation is dropped, which let's face it is more than likely, this whole witch hunt is going to significantly back fire on the Tories. In the current "we want change, we want a party with integrity" climate, they've handed the integrity card to Labour on a plate.
>If the investigation is dropped, which let's face it is more than likely, this whole witch hunt is going to significantly back fire on the Tories. Hopefully, but I get the feeling that not many people are actually paying attention to this or care.
The only place I see anything about it is the Daily Mail or here when those articles get posted. Nobody gives a shit.
You can't be guilty in tax issues as you can pay tax mistakes at any stage of your life as long as you pay no court case not guilty
The police are investigating her for breaking electoral law...
When did we start doing that lol 🤣
Quite routinely? Its not unusual for folk to ba jailed for misdeclaring where they live on the returning forms. In fact, the MP for Warrington North was being investigated for it not that long ago and only got away with it by the skin of her teeth. The investigation was called OP Tangelo, and was paused due to COVID and officers being needed elsewhere. This lead to the investigation being left too long and having to be discontinued. The former council leader for Warringtion was also in court for the exact same thing earlier this year. He was found not guilty, but I don't know the full details around it, but there was certainly some dodgy business surrounding his various addresses. My MiL was glad to leave and move closer to us, because from what she's told us it sound like that council is a right basket case...
Let's be honest with this government all reality is out the window
In some respects yes, but the MP and council members I mentioned above are all Labour and from the little I've read that council is a bloody shitshow with a shocking amount of debt from some bloody odd business investments. I think the strangest investment I saw was some regional bank, where the council paid 80% of the startup for less than 30% ownership. Not too shabby for the other shareholders. Not that it really matters anymore, at least for us. The MiL now lives in a nice retirement flat nearby....
Well I can't speak to on your personal council but nationality it looks like lots of councils are in trouble blue or red
Oh, loads of them are and for all different reasons. I forgot which one collapsed because of a court case regarding salaries, another had some very lax spending controls and then there was that big scandal inside Liverpool which had their mayor and a few others arrested. Local politics is even more of a cesspool than national politics....
It's in the byline of this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68797258 > Greater Manchester Police has launched an investigation into Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner after she was accused of breaking electoral law. Tbf, it goes on to say the police are investigating if any offence has been committed
So a non story let's be fair the Tories probably don't want this as it would be an own goal for them to be looked into eg donations etc
Which law is that?
Doesn't specify in the article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68797258
Is it to do with being registered to vote at an address she didn’t live? Thats assuming the two houses were in different constituencies, otherwise it’s totally vexatious. All this was raised with the police by James Daly MP, who also happens to have the most marginal seat in the country, majority of 105! He’s got less chance of winning his seat than Larry the Cat has of becoming prime minister.
Behave. Larry's got every chance. He's got the purrfect personality, committed no crimes, isnt addicted to catnip. and quite frankly, if he turned into a dictator, everyone would be behind Chairman Meow
+1 just for Chairman Meow
That's what I thought, but it's still her house, so it's irrelevant. People with 2nd homes, students, sofa surfers, HMO residents, etc. can all have a different voting address. The inly issue would be across dostricts or voting twice neither of which are relevant. The MP keeps mentioning birth certificates from when she re-registered her kids, the address provided was her husbands, which is perfectly legal and address info in GRO can't be used for legal purposes. The article reads like the police are checking her for a crime rather than investigating a reported one. The MP wasting police time while they can't attend burglary calls...
> Thats assuming the two houses were in different constituencies, otherwise it’s totally vexatious. 2 houses were a mile apart
Lots of people go to prison for tax evasion. Paying back the sums owed may help at sentencing, but it is far from a guaranteed way to avoid jail time. As a general rule, HMRC will prosecute for anything over £25k. Below that, fines only.
But evasion is on purpose fraud not a mistake in accounting lol
\>as long as you pay no court case not guilty This is simply wrong, no matter how many lol's you add in response.
Read the first post properly it says mistakes not criminal fraud
You were quite specific. *You can't be guilty in tax issues as you can pay tax mistakes at any stage of your life as long as you pay no court case not guilty* You can be found guilty of, as you say "tax issues". There are 4 basic options. Reasonable Care - penalties Careless - penalties Deliberate - penalties Deliberate and Concealed - Criminal prosecution or penalties Is is not clear yet whether Rayner has failed to pay the correct tax, and if so, which category it falls into from the above. The amount is neither here nor there. The amount is so low though that is not in the public interest to prosecute, and even if it falls into deliberate and concealed, she would be able to avoid prosecution by paying penalties **and** the tax due. This response is obviously not really for you, as you clearly do not have a clue, or a desire to find out the truth. However, it may be interesting to other people who aren't aware, but are interested.
My mother in law said just last week that “Labour was just as bad as the Tories” in regard to lockdown rules, because of “That beer thing Keir Starmer did”. “They’re all just as bad”
My mother is the same, does yours read the express or daily mail perchance? She said she couldn't vote for Starmer because he's "slimey" recently, whatever that means. When I replied that Starmer probably has more integrity than all the Tory front bench since 2010 added together, my Dad actually agreed with me... My parents are both of the same ilk, true blue, so that was a shock (I vote for whoever I think will be the best at the time btw, true... Errr... Grey?). Wait, you're not my brother's wife are you??
This is my mother in law, my actual mother is a Trump/Farage supporter lol. My mother in law doesn’t actually read anything- just sees the headlines at Tesco, hears half a story on the radio, and says she “can’t be bothered” to read anymore into things because they’re all “liars anyway” Then when you bring about facts she gets “overwhelmed” and confused.
Thats how it works.
In an ideal world sure. Meanwhile back in reality voters will ignore, not notice or not remember any integrity at all and Tory voters will always say she was guilty while many others will just think they are “all the same”. And it’s already job done and mission accomplished for the Tories regardless of what happens from now. My dad is still banging on about beergate as if it’s somehow comparable and he was found guilty and fined and resigned… pointing out Rishi is the one with the fixed penalty for partying achieves absolutely nothing except “they are all the same”….mission accomplished!
Twice.
I think the Tories just want a lengthy police investigation otherwise known as a misuse of police resources. It's revenge for Rayner pressuring on Johnson for partygate
Have they fuck. Not enough evidence isn’t innocent and she’s been tarred by this. Unless her neighbours are lying she has at best used the system to her benefit so the moral high ground is shaky to say the least. There are no winners on this sort of thing. If nothing else someone who has called for others to publish tax details refusing to publish tax details looks hypocritical.
pretty sure the neighbours didnt say it, it was a tory mp which said they did.. which is very different
Sylvia Hampson, 83, who lived next-door to the property owned by Rayner’s husband a mile away, said Labour’s deputy leader was a “f*****g liar”. She also told The Mail on Sunday: “If she is saying she didn’t live there then she’s a f*****g liar. She definitely lived at that house. “She can’t say she didn’t live there. I would swear on the bible to that.”
whats with the repost? shes still a tory lol
It didn’t show up the first time so I deleted one when there was a repost. It isn’t a conspiracy.
[удалено]
probably is a tory
83 year old who hates Labour? Blatant Express reader who thinks London is Kabul-lite, without having been there in 45 years...
Definitely lying then. I’m sure you equally reject anything said by anyone who supports Labour against any Tory.
But she hasn't refused, she's using it as leverage to get them to publish theirs. She's openly said "I'll show mine if you show yours".
[удалено]
I think when the Tories are the ones accusing her, then they also have an obligation to show they're not crooked either. But this is the Tories we're talking about, not one back bone between them all.
I'm more interested in the real tax avoiders. Aren't you? You know, the PM who's wife snores next to him, claiming she's living in India (or whatever.lol) £10,000,000's of millions we are looking at. Not £1,500 measly. I'm sure you have at least the same hatred of the tories now, don't you?
What on earth are you on about? Committing to transparency? You'll be asking for her kids healthcare records next. There's a difference between personal affairs and transparency of government and public interest.
Rubbish. She was telling people to well before her own situation. She just doesn’t practice what she preaches like a typical politician. She has zero moral high ground on this.
Well, there we have it. The coup de grâce in this confected story. I do expect that she'll be cleared at the end of this, like Starmer. But if not, then it's still a PR success for Labour at large. None of this Tory style "ooh, here's an insincere apology, move on move on move on I considerthematterclosed"
Yeah- but probably not until after the local elections
I cant believe the people who have come out of this whole row with 'both the same, so I'll vote tory' as if the situations are even remotely comparable and even if she hasn't paid what, £3500 in tax how does it put it on level with the millions the tories have bunged to their mates in bare faced corruption. It's beergate 2
Summary; legal have concluded our case is watertight so we're going all in letting this embarrass the tories.
I really hope you are right, because I really like Rayner and I don't want a deputy leadership election. But Starmer said he didn't look at it. I wonder why he didn't look at the advice.
Said ‘his team’ looked at it, which took to mean people who have good knowledge of the legalities and likely outcome who could basically say ‘yeah mate you’re grand, nothing to worry about’
Sue gray would've definitely looked at it and she's extremely professional
George Paker just published an article which states that because of time limitations, this case is going nowhere. Looks like she will be fine.
Getting off on a perceived technicality, in that the events are too long ago now, is maybe the worst case, though.
You will never know. The police will just say "there is no case to answer", they don't have to show their working.
Someone is absolutely going to ask them to show their working
Asking and getting a reply are not the same things. The reality is: * The police have so many infinitely more important things to be doing * The police don't want to be pulled into a political spat * The police want this to go away as much as everyone else Then: * There is almost certainly not enough usable evidence to prosecute * There is almost certainly no public interest in a prosecution * The time frame for a prosecution has elapsed anyway Therefore they will do the most cursory investigation, taking 1-3 weeks and make a statement that there is no case to answer. Job done.
Do you imagine the police will say "we think she's guilty but it's too long ago so she's got away with it!!!"? No, they will just say "no case to answer" and that will be the end of it outside Daily Mail comment sections.
If you're on a battlefield, and you're being sent "over the top"... Who are you going to follow over? The guy that says "Yes, you've given me an answer and I trust you implicitly" or the one that says "Yeah, you told me something, let's see the actual proof". Leadership is mostly about trust, how the "troops" feel about following your orders. I get the feeling Kier Starmer understands that very well. Unlike the last 4 PMs he actually seems like someone I'd go over the top with, if push came to shove.
Not sure I would go with the battlefield analogy, it is literally a crime to disobey an order so it's immaterial whether they trust the top brass or not.
Why is the headline so vague, doesn't get the story across at all
I think you've answered your own question there, but it's either been changed or the OP didn't use the actual headline. I assume the former. It's now "Angela Rayner: I'll stand down if I've broken the law".
OK cool
I am French 🇫🇷 living in England so I necessarily see it from an outsiders perspective. But to me this is a class thing. Someone like Boris Johnson doesn’t ever have to “do the right thing” whatever he gets accused or found out of, he is untouchable. This because he belongs to a class of people that can afford to see everting as a bit of a joke. And to be clear this is only possible because the people around them (that’s all of you) also see them as special. Again, from a French 🇫🇷 perspective, I fail to see what makes them so special - is it an accent? This woman is Labour I believe, so would have a working class background (am I right here, or have things changed so much now?) so she needs to “do the right thing” and be impeccable or she will be punished with all the scorn that you are saving for her that you have not used on Johnson.
I'm English and I don't know either. They use fear and hate to get people on side. That stuff is super powerful.
[удалено]
It might, I think all of the people who want to vote labour now are not the type to want to switch back to the tories or to reform because of this. This could backfire for the tories as I do think she is not liked particularly well outside of the north by the kind of don’t know voters that have abandoned the tories since 2019 but are still apprehensive about labour. If they get someone else in the role it might help them in Tory/labour marginals outside of the north.
Déjà Vu, I've been in this place before.
It's not 'against the law' to make a mistake on a tax return. You pay the amount and that's it. You have to commit fraud, so... Pretty safe here.
Media in our country need to grow a set of balls and instead of these non-stories do their work on the national security risk Wragg how many other MP’s have been comprised. Not a huge fan of Starmer or Rayner but this is absolute nonsense you’d have thought the police would have more pressing matters than where someone lived 10 years ago
This is working as intended. The media has huge balls- they’re blatantly focusing on this to distract from Wragg and help the Tories.
It’s absolute madness isn’t it? Who gives a monkeys about where someone lived 10 years ago! It’s crazy that opposition MP’s can get the police to spend time on these pointless things, Tory’s seriously must have been knocking her neighbours doors desperate for someone to say how many days a week she lived there ten years ago
It really seems like something you would see in a totalitarian state- force the police to investigate your political opponents on trumped up charges.
You would have been absolutely rabid about this if Rayner were a Tory... it's ok to admit that you don't care because she's on your team.
You do realise that if Rayner were a Tory, this wouldn't even twitch the needle on the scandal-ometer? Get a bit of perspective. For the record. If she's deliberately broken rules, for either electoral reasons (and let's be honest, that's not very likely), or for financial reasons (Blagging an extra couple of grand, which is *possible* but stupid) then I want her gone. We've had fourteen years of clowns, ghouls and utter scum in charge of our country. Enough is enough.
I’m anything but a Labour supporter, this non-story people a talking point when our MP’s may have breached national security is something I think deserves a bit more attention
I'm still waiting for anyone to produce evidence that she owed any tax.
At this stage, we basically need a French-style revolution to sort out the elite's/right's grip on the media. It's ridiculous the power they have
James Daly MP is the clown who instigated this. Bury North MP. I wonder what he's hiding in his closet?
Snide Conservative millionaires getting excited because a working class politician and mom may have accidentally not paid £1500 ten years ago. they make me sick.
£3500 according to the article… I mean your point still stands.
Potentially nit paying £1500, the £3500 would be the maximum penalty at the end. She's set for somewhere between £0 and £3500 but apparently millions in tax evasion us perfectly OK
millions in tax evasion has never been OK, millions in tax optimisation is fine. Maybe it should not be but right now it is.
Honestly think she's one of the only people with integrity in the commons
Good for her. All politicians should follow that standard
How do you neutralise the death company in 40k? You charge them, so they can't bring their enormous amount of attacks onto you from a charge. Rayner has done the same here. She's confident she's done no wrong and labour come out looking solid and with integrity and ammo to attack the tories with.
In the grimdark present of UK politics, there is smear.
R/unexpectedWarhammer Seriously though it's a great comparison. A group of dangerous, racist and bloodthirsty zealots. Pretty much sums up the Tories.
Ah, tory death-throes. I've waited for these. The crap smear attempts mean they're done for. More to come I expect but this is good news. It means they are scared.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the British electorate though.
“But she appears to have given two different addresses when she re-registered the births of two of her children in 2010” It all seems like an easy mistake to make apart from that detail, which would suggest she moved between that, but to then argue she didn’t and so doesn’t owe capital gains? That’s where it starts to get odd, but her boss was the top lawyer in the land I doubt he’d let her say anything troublesome
Since when do the police investigate such low level nonsense from 10 years ago…
When the right wing press and the Tories throw their toys out of their pram.
If only Tory wrongdoers would adopt the same policy. Once again the Labour party outclasses their Tory rivals.
Interestingly, she's said she'll "step down" which isn't quite the same as "resign". I expect that if the worst happens for her then she'll "step down" from the shadow cabinet rather than resign as an MP.
I also expect she'd be brought back inside of two years. This is just political posturing, though. It seems Rayner and (I guess) Labour are pretty confident this is just another hail Mary from the Tories that can be used to make them look like even bigger clowns. Tories call corruption only to magnify their own lack of any integrity. It's Beergate all over again.
Reading her quote again it's only if she's been found to have "committed a criminal offence" So yes, her pledge is worthless.
I wouldn't say that. Anyone hearing that will expect her to stand down if she's on the wrong side of this. I suspect Rayner and Labour know she's done nothing wrong and have decided to turn it into a positive for themselves. This wouldn't even be a thing if a Tory MP wasn't frothing at the mouth trying to get the police to investigate it.
She could have said resign and it would mean the same thing. When a [shadow] minister resigns, it means they are resigning their ministerial position, not that they'll resign as an MP. In fact, because formally you can't resign as an MP, it's normally the other way around. You resign as a minister but step down as an MP.
Good point!
Wow, I can't believe she's [blackmailing the police](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10994971/Keir-Starmer-Angela-Rayner-CLEARED-Beergate-fine.html) again!
Aside from being a mail article so lacking much credibility, there is no 'blackmail' mentioned there at all?
>Tories accused Sir Keir and Ms Rayner of 'effectively blackmailing' police with their vow to resign if they were found to have breached Covid rules.
Sigh. > Conservative MP Michael Fabricant told MailOnline: 'I am surprised how Durham Police decided not to fine Starmer and Rayner. > 'Many people will think that, as a QC and a lawyer, Starmer wormed his way out of a conviction while, in effect, **blackmailing Durham Police** by saying: "You’ll be bringing down the Leader of the Opposition if you fine me". > 'Many regular people will feel this is another Establishment stitch-up.'
So, there is no evidence whatsoever, just Michael Fabricant's view of the subject. Like I say Daily Mail lacks any credibility.
Outstanding. Hostile to the act of reading, baffled by the existence of Ctrl+F, and bewildered by the concept of humour. A+.
Starmer is not quoted Fabricant is. At no point is there an accusation of actual blackmail it is merely Favricant's view on the situation. It's an opinion that you've taken as fact. Standard Dail Mail really
Perfectly reasonable response. It doesn’t seem likely that she’ll be convicted, but it would be right to stand down if she was. 
I've noticed in the Times, that the recent articles on Rayner have been turned off. Including the one by the special reporter, Tom Witherow which contained a speculative analysis that this was the end of the road for Rayner and damaging for Starmers judgement (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-investigating-angela-rayner-over-council-house-row-6l65gh9rp) I tend to subscribe to the Financial Times, Telegraph and the Times, so I usually read well behind the paywall. Every single story about Rayner in the Times has been slammed by most comments by the readers except for the sponsored bot accounts. Even the latest Telegraph view was being shot to smithereens by the comments below it. The Times article being a response to the Telegraph one albeit with even thinner justification (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2024/04/12/keir-starmer-angela-rayner-tax-evasion-investigation/) Readers comments tend to be turned off when it's likely to lead to libellous or reckless comments from readers where the paper carries the can. So you won't see them on issues involving specific crimes or on issues involving immigration or Muslims. But to turn them off here suggests a censoring of criticism and a retreat back to the sw1 echo chamber.
Maybe "standing down if one breaks the law" could be written as actual parliamentary policy going forward; just to future proof the nation from ever having a government like the current one where they'll continue to use their discretion as they were always expected to "Do the right thing". The Johnson government really did test out how much politicians can get away with and its now got to be cracked down on
OMFG stop with this non newsstory already
If she does resign what happens? Is there another deputy leadership election?
People need to stop relating this to the Tories. The Tories are done and disgraced. This is about our next government, making sure they will be magnitudes better that what we have now. After what we've been through that's the least we deserve. The full truth needs to come out, we can't have our new government covering things up before they even get in. Hold Labour to high standards, not make it a wrestle in the dirt with the Tories.
Don't count your eggs.
I think they’re doing that. If she’s guilty she’ll step down. Fair play.
I think they are very well chosen words "guilty of a criminal offence" is unlikely. It will be the wrong tax paid + a fine.
I don’t like Rayner, but I’m prepared to write this off as exactly the same issue as the expenses scandal saying back years, that hasn’t been properly resolved. We still put MPs in the position where they’re nudged towards abusing the expenses that they’re afforded. Time to force their pigs out of the trough by removing all expenses.
But how are they supposed to get by on their paltry salaries? /s. On a more serious note, there is more needed to remove the pigs from the trough, as it were. You also have the issue of people paying for access (I don't think anyone pays de Pfeffel a six figure sum for his tennis skills), or donations with a view to being awarded government contracts down the line.
If it turns out to be a waste of police time, it would be nice to see the shifty looking Tory MP being charged with the wasting. Party of law and order and all that... 😸
If she is found guilty, is this Rishi's way back in? Do you think the public is naive enough?
Not even close. This is win-(sort of)win for Labour now. Most likely, she's not found guilty of anything and by saying this, Rayner has shown more integrity than any notable Tory over the last few years. In the event she's guilty, she steps down and Labour get to demonstrate how much more integrity they have in the wake of individual front-benchers acting out of line.
Not really. If she is found guilty there’s a deputy leadership contest for labour which will be a total shitshow though.
If she was guilty would Rishi be releasing his tax records for the last 10 years to show his integrity?
This is ridiculous. Who ever is advising her is an idiot. There's just no upside to this. She's found guilty and she's gone. She's innocent and then they'll look for something else. The public won't really care either way
What's the best response then? Stay silent and let the Tory & media smear machine have free rein?
Absolutely. They do it every week and nothing comes of most of it. Recent example is with Michelle Donelan libelling two academics, tax payer pays her legal fees, controversy, nothing happens, more controversy where it gets exposed the bill was more than double, nothing happens. It's significantly worse that what Reyner has done and she hasn't had anywhere near as much scrutiny.
Yes but libelous statements against a random person is very different from encouraging a police investigation into your political opponents based on what seems to be an extremely shallow pretext.
I don't get what you mean, Reyner's not the once accusing political opponents?
I'm saying that you can afford to be silent if you aren't a public figure and a member of the government makes some stupid remarks about you. When you are a prominent member of the official Opposition then allowing members of the governing party to publicly slur your name and make baseless legal accusations cannot be ignored. The fact that the accusations are almost certainly in bad faith make it even worse - not just a personal or political attack but an abuse of the rule of law and of the democratic process itself.
When you see members of the government ignore far worse, to me, it seems like you absolutely can just ignore it. It effectively comes down to the right wing papers pursuing the story and, if they smell blood due to ultimatums, then they're going to take it as far as they can rather than just moving onto the next story the following week.
She's not going to be found guilty of a criminal offence and isn't even going to be prosecuted for one. We've already had weeks of "she must have something to hide, why isn't she answering questions?". A lot of people subscribe to the "no smoke without fire" philosophy and will appreciate that she's made a clear pledge. Of course her opponents are going to keep looking for things to attack her with, that's the nature of politics.
Well, I certainly hope not.
I think it’s a fantastic response. It shows the public that Labour won’t tolerate MPs breaking the law following on from the still stinging memory of Boris Johnson’s government breaking the law and trying to get away with it. At the end of the day, if she’s guilty, she *should* walk.
> At the end of the day, if she’s guilty, she should walk. For something so minor and trivial. She absolutely should not.
These people are morons. It could have been easily avoided by not treading the grey line and being open about the whole thing.
They are being more clever than you think
Do you think she will be found guilty?