The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

ChatGPT can tell you which posters are the funniest 🤣 

.

Edited 11 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

ChatGPT can tell you which posters are the funniest 🤣 

.

Edited 11 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

ChatGPT can tell you which posters are the funniest 🤣 

  

 .

Edited 11 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

ChatGPT can tell you which posters are the funniest 🤣 

.

Edited 11 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

ChatGPT can tell you which posters are the funniest 🤣 

  

 It just confirmed I'm the best looking and Chat GPT is always right😆 

[tdmickey3]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

@tdmickey3 get the camera the right way round mate. Try again.😆

Apologies, my mistake this one is more of a true reflection of you

[tdmickey3]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

.

 

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

.

 

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

  

 It just confirmed I'm the best looking and Chat GPT is always right😆 

 

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 It just confirmed I'm the best looking and Chat GPT is always right😆 

 

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

  

 It just confirmed I'm the best looking and Chat GPT is always right😆 

Oh Dear, mr clever has made a bit of a mess of it

[AlexLaw76]

As the Labour front bench used to howl…

you can’t stay in the job if you are a rule maker and a rule breaker.

 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

Apologies, my mistake this one is more of a true reflection of you

I think thats the most words I've ever seen you post. Have you started using Chat GPT too?

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

 

 

 

 

Oh Dear, mr clever has made a bit of a mess of it

I did - maybe its just a coincidence but I signed up to Labour Party membership immediately before. It cant be linked surely😆 Also talking of lightening things up, if you hadnt understood - I was doing just that. I know your level of debate involves sending pictures of bums but its ok, theres a special place in the world for all of us

Edited 11 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I think thats the most words I've ever seen you post. Have you started using Chat GPT too?

 Where as you post lots of words but most of them are garbage and you post the same thing 5 times your desperation for attention is hilarious 🤡

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, tdmickey3 said:

 Where as you post lots of words but most of them are garbage and you post the same thing 5 times your desperation for attention is hilarious 🤡

You are absolutely correct my friend.

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I did - maybe its just a coincidence but I signed up to Labour Party membership immediately before. It cant be linked surely😆 Also talking of lightening things up, if you hadnt understood - I was doing just that. I know your level of debate involves sending pictures of bums but its ok, theres a special place in the world for all of us

Well, you and your mate nutty nic are certainly special...

Have a nice afternoon

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, tdmickey3 said:

Well, you and your mate nutty nic are certainly special...

Have a nice afternoon

You too. Have a good rest of your day. I think I'll need to rest my head after that particularly challenging encounter.

 

 

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

Rayner has to go.

We had 14 years of ministers refusing to step down after committing some horrendous offences, and Johnson and his supporters protected sex offenders, tax dodgers and corrupt cabinet ministers.

We need some integrity back in politics and if she's made that tax 'mistake', she should be gone.

But Badenoch and Farage can say nothing, they have both protected colleagues who should not have been protected, some of whom should be in jail.

Agreed, if you do something illegal, you go. 

[Saint86]

Rayner surely in trouble here... she's essentially admitted to deliberately avoiding 40k tax and the 2nd home council tax hike. Starmer / Labour have (rightly) banged the tax avoidance consistently over the years in opposition and government... which makes it all the more disappointing to see one of their key figures mired in one of the worst examples of it that i can recall from a minister. It is an utterly appalling lack of integrity and hypocrisy from Rayner given the various tax hikes and general policies of the government to date. I see Clive Lewis has been trying to defend/excuse her over lunch today, acting like this was a minor misdemeanour and an error on her part... i'm sorry, but i think its just straight up inexcusable - reeks of one rule for the elites (tax is optional unless caught out) and one rule for the rest of us, and its mental how detached some of them seem to be from the rest of the country where people are really starting to struggle now from general costs hikes over the years and economic stagnation. Rayner/Starmer/Lewis can't just get a pass because they aren't Tories.

Some choice quotes on it...

Starmer as PM in the 2024 Labour party conference - "we will go after tax avoiders" and "introduce a new fraud, error, and debt bill" (to help recover fraud and tax evasion).

Guardian Starmer interview in the guardian - "tax evasion involving dishonest fraud is not a sort of fraud, it is fraud. It is criminal and it should be treated as all other fraud is treated".

Labours' 2024 policy document, "plan to close the tax gap", states "labour will relentlessly pursue the money that is owed", and "directly tackle tax avoidance and evasion" - guessing Rayner somehow avoided inputting or reviewing that document 😄

Starmer speech 2024 - One of the ways his labour government would reduce NHS waiting times is "by cracking down on tax avoidance and non-doms"... just not his deputy PM i guess.




 

[whelk]

Lots of overreaction I think. I wonder how many have looked into the detail 

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

Lots of overreaction I think. I wonder how many have looked into the detail 

I wonder what the Court injuction that stopped her talking about it was.

[Saint86]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

Lots of overreaction I think. I wonder how many have looked into the detail 

Mate, she has actively tried to dodge a 40k tax bill and fiddled her primary residences to dodge both stamp duty taxes and increased council taxes. This from a government that is going after every form of tax they bloody can under a leader who has called tax evasion fraud. Now she's trying to go, "oops, I haven't paid the right tax, but whilst trying to actively avoid paying taxes I made a mistake and shouldn't have done that". It ain't gonna wash. If she somehow survives she'll be damaged, Starmer will be damaged, and labour will be damaged.

Edited 11 hours ago by Saint86

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Mate, she has actively tried to dodge a 40k tax bill and fiddled her primary residences to dodge both stamp duty taxes and increased council tax. This from a government that is going after every form of tax they bloody can. Now she's trying to go, "oops, I haven't paid the right tax, but whilst trying to actively avoid paying taxes I made a mistake and have paid the wrong tax".

Its completely indefensible from a Housing Minister too and they want to preach the property tax strategy. .

Edited 11 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[iansums]

If it is true that the advice she was given was inaccurate, then I do feel some sympathy for her. However, I think she does have to resign.

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Mate, she has actively tried to dodge a 40k tax bill and fiddled her primary residences to dodge both stamp duty taxes and increased council taxes. This from a government that is going after every form of tax they bloody can under a leader who has called tax evasion fraud. Now she's trying to go, "oops, I haven't paid the right tax, but whilst trying to actively avoid paying taxes I made a mistake and shouldn't have done that". It ain't gonna wash. If she somehow survives she'll be damaged, Starmer will be damaged, and labour will be damaged.

Sounds like you don’t know too much about it. 

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I wonder what the Court injuction that stopped her talking about it was.

It was about her disabled son and his residence 

[whelk]

Poor Nic has run out of posts. Bless, he’ll always have his emojis though

[Saint86]

20 minutes ago, whelk said:

It was about her disabled son and his residence 

Separate issue, but why did she need a court injunction for an amicable divorce from a husband and the setting up of shared trust? 🙄

End of the day, she's paid for legal advice to minimise stamp duty and council tax, changed her residences around to suit both stamp duty and council tax payments across her 3 properties, at best - her solicitors have fucked it all up, and she's got caught, and is now having to hold her hands up. Will be her dog's fault next...

Lets ignore the fact that that would mean she is also ignorant about the implications of council tax, primary residences, and stamp duty, whilst at the same time publicly vowing to clamp down on tax avoidance and hike taxes on property and council tax. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Saint86

[Sir Ralph]

30 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Separate issue, but why did she need a court injunction for an amicable divorce from a husband and the setting up of shared trust? 🙄

End of the day, she's paid for legal advice to minimise stamp duty and council tax, changed her residences around to suit both that and council tax payments across her 3 properties, at best - her solicitors have fucked it all up, and she's got caught, and is now having to hold her hands up. 

Apparently people that legally move to low tax economies from the UK to reduce their tax liability are “selfish” (quoted many times on here).

Applying some posters logic, at best what Rayner did was hypocritical and “selfish” (she tried to avoid tax), otherwise it’s worse. I suspect the “selfishness” only applies one way though.

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Saint86]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Apparently people that legally move to low tax economies from the UK to reduce their tax liability are “selfish” (quoted many times on here).

Applying some posters logic, at best what Rayner did was hypocritical and “selfish” (she tried to avoid tax), otherwise it’s fraudulent. I suspect the “selfishness” only applies one way though.

Mate, she's either incompetent, or a hypocrite of no integrity who has committed tax avoidance. I very much doubt she sought financial advice without the intention to minimise tax in this instance - you'd just pay the default (dare we just say correct) tax otherwise.

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Mate, she's either incompetent, or a hypocrite of no integrity who has committed tax avoidance. I very much doubt she sought financial advice without the intention to minimise tax in this instance - you'd just pay the default (dare we just say correct) tax otherwise.

I agree, benefit of the doubt she is a hypocrite who the PM is happy to support and sit alongside. I can’t see how her position is tenable but it says a lot that the PM thinks that’s ok. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

26 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Separate issue, but why did she need a court injunction for an amicable divorce from a husband and the setting up of shared trust? 🙄

End of the day, she's paid for legal advice to minimise stamp duty and council tax, changed her residences around to suit both stamp duty and council tax payments across her 3 properties, at best - her solicitors have fucked it all up, and she's got caught, and is now having to hold her hands up. Will be her dog's fault next...

Lets ignore the fact that that would mean she is also ignorant about the implications of council tax, primary residences, and stamp duty, whilst at the same time publicly vowing to clamp down on tax avoidance and hike taxes on property and council tax. 

To be fair, if her advisors have told her to do it this way, then she may well have been badly advised. If that is true, and she pays back the tax, that should be the end of it. If it is proved to be malicious, then she needs to resign.

We all get badly advised, some of Sir Ralph's mates were told if they moved to Dubai they wouldn't be charged tax on assets and businesses owned in the UK, and that they wouldn't have to pay Inheritance Tax. I mean, it clearly happens to the best of us when it comes to professional advice.

Edited 10 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[egg]

Just now, Saint86 said:

Mate, she's either incompetent, or a hypocrite of no integrity who has committed tax avoidance. I very much doubt she sought financial advice without the intention to minimise tax in this instance - you'd just pay the default (dare we just say correct) tax otherwise.

On the main thread, we have a thread about footballers and other professional sports people taking and relying on professional advice, then coming a cropper and being exposed to tax after the event. 

Here we have a politician who's followed legal advice which has been wrong. 

I appreciate that she needs to maintain the highest standards given her public office, but, it's interesting to read support for footballers being given duff advice (but may have been aware that they were trying to avoid tax) and mass criticism of a politician who claims that she was negligently advised and sought specialist Counsel when a potential issue came to light. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Mate, she's either incompetent, or a hypocrite of no integrity who has committed tax avoidance.

Tax avoidance isn’t a crime, what do you think ISA’s are? 
 

Nobody should be forced from office for avoidance, it’s evasion that’s an offence. 
 

If this lot had to resign for incompetence or hypocrisy, Starmer & Rachel from complaints would have gone months ago…

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

On the main thread, we have a thread about footballers and other professional sports people taking and relying on professional advice, then coming a cropper and being exposed to tax after the event. 

Here we have a politician who's followed legal advice which has been wrong. 

I appreciate that she needs to maintain the highest standards given her public office, but, it's interesting to read support for footballers being given duff advice (but may have been aware that they were trying to avoid tax) and mass criticism of a politician who claims that she was negligently advised and sought specialist Counsel when a potential issue came to light. 

These politicians are preaching at us about the need to pay tax and how they want to tax us till we are bled dry. It’s hypocritical at best. She also holds public office.

If this was a Tory or Reform MP would people hold the same view and defend them? I wouldn’t

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

These politicians are preaching at us about the need to pay tax and how they want to tax us till we are bled dry. She also holds public office.

its very very different 

That makes zero sense in this context. 

We all have to pay tax. As someone who claims to mix with high rollers, you ought to know that professional advice is taken and relied upon. 

SDLT is complex. I'd hazard a guess that the lawyer may not have had full information about the Trust, especially if she had to obtain court approval to provide the information. 

She's as entitled to rely on professional advice as the sports people who people have sympathy for, and anyone else. 

It's neither incompetent nor dishonest to rely on advice from a professional who ought to have given the correct advice. 

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

That makes zero sense in this context. 

We all have to pay tax. As someone who claims to mix with high rollers, you ought to know that professional advice is taken and relied upon. 

SDLT is complex. I'd hazard a guess that the lawyer may not have had full information about the Trust, especially if she had to obtain court approval to provide the information. 

She's as entitled to rely on professional advice as the sports people who people have sympathy for, and anyone else. 

It's neither incompetent nor dishonest to rely on advice from a professional who ought to have given the correct advice. 

I take your point and agree if you take legal advice and it’s incorrect that it means there is an explanation for what you did, if indeed that was the case. I find it unusual that she then took subsequent legal advice that contradicted that only after she got caught. As Deputy PM I would make sure that the advice I received was 100% certain and probably seek second opinions. It appears that the second opinion was obtained once she got caught.

However, whatever happened she went to lengths to minimise her tax bill in relation to stamps duty otherwise owed. She is the housing minister in a government who has barked on about the need for everyone to share the tax burden and now wants to rinse people through a property tax. However she wants to avoid it. As someone in public office surely you then agree that’s hypocritical?

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

16 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

To be fair, if her advisors have told her to do it this way, then she may well have been badly advised. If that is true, and she pays back the tax, that should be the end of it. If it is proved to be malicious, then she needs to resign.

We all get badly advised, some of Sir Ralph's mates were told if they moved to Dubai they wouldn't be charged tax on assets and businesses owned in the UK, and that they wouldn't have to pay Inheritance Tax. I mean, it clearly happens to the best of us when it comes to professional advice.

This is spot on...

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

These politicians are preaching at us about the need to pay tax and how they want to tax us till we are bled dry. It’s hypocritical at best. She also holds public office.

If this was a Tory or Reform MP would people hold the same view and defend them? I wouldn’t

You seem keen to play the partisan card but you seem far more anti-Labour than anyone on here is pro-Labour. 
 

I have no interest in defending Rayner but I do have a sense of fair play when the crowd are baying for blood.  It’s not like Telegraph or others will let this go and she may have to resign if it gathers more steam but from what I can see not as dramatic as many want us to believe.

It’s is funny seeing how desperate many are though to bring down as hypocrites. Why politics is so toxic and camps gun for anyone for anything. All depressing

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

You seem keen to play the partisan card but you seem far more anti-Labour than anyone on here is pro-Labour. 
 

I have no interest in defending Rayner but I do have a sense of fair play when the crowd are baying for blood.  It’s not like Telegraph or others will let this go and she may have to resign if it gathers more steam but from what I can see not as dramatic as many want us to believe.

It’s is funny seeing how desperate many are though to bring down as hypocrites. Why politics is so toxic and camps gun for anyone for anything. All depressing

I said before I hope they do well. I would even vote for them if i thought they were up to it. It’s not about being partisan. When they got in I wasn’t enamoured but not overly concerned.I’ve become more anti Labour because they are terrible.

My response above acknowledged the relevance of the legal opinion but it doesn’t remove the hypocrisy. 

Its always depressing when you get caught for doing the wrong thing but that doesn’t get you off the hook

Edited 10 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

I said before I hope they do well. I would even vote for them if I liked their policies. It’s not about being partisan. I’ve become more anti Labour because they are terrible.

Its always depressing when you get caught for doing the wrong thing but that doesn’t get you off the hook

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I take your point and agree if you take legal advice and it’s incorrect that it means there is an explanation for what you did, if indeed that was the case. I find it unusual that she then took subsequent legal advice that contradicted that. As Deputy PM I would make sure that the advice I received was 100% certain and probably seek second opinions. It appears that the second opinion was obtained once she got caught.

However, whatever happened she went to lengths to minimise her tax bill in relation to stamps duty otherwise owed. She is the housing minister in a government who has barked on about the need for everyone to share the tax burden and now wants to rinse people through a property tax. However she wants to avoid it. As someone in public office surely you then agree that’s hypocritical?

Why should anyone  have to doubt the professional advice that they are given, and seek a second opinion? The suggestion that she should so because of her job is ridiculous. She took advice, as she should, and relied on it as much as anyone else. 

The second opinion came after it was suggested that she took a misstep. 

The only hypocrisy I'm reading today is that sportspeople shouldn't pay tax based on poor advice whereas politicians should, and also get the sack. 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Why should anyone  have to doubt the professional advice that they are given, and seek a second opinion? The suggestion that she should so because of her job is ridiculous. She took advice, as she should, and relied on it as much as anyone else. 

The second opinion came after it was suggested that she took a misstep. 

The only hypocrisy I'm reading today is that sportspeople shouldn't pay tax based on poor advice whereas politicians should, and also get the sack. 

It’s not unreasonable to seek a second legal opinion at all. It happens regularly and not even in the context of being Deputy PM on a matter that that will be scrutinised so I respectfully disagree.

 

The point about footballers is largely irrelevant to what happens to Rayner. If you can’t see it’s hypocritical then I’m surprised but we will leave it at disagreeing on that

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Politically, it's a big stick to repeatedly hit Labour with. Not only on housing or tax matters. They will use it on integrity and double standards too. Your Housing Minister caught avoiding property related tax is a rubbish look.

Behind this, she did receive legal advise. Due to unusual circumstances, trusts weren't correctly factored in. I've no idea if she went to get the advice cackling about her avoidance plan, or simply trusted her legal advisor to sort it out for her. The benefit of the doubt indicates the latter, unless there's evidence to the contrary.

Sadly, her party have done little to impress on integrity after preaching about it in opposition. Not to mention having common decency to represent without troughing. So, it's a mark regardless of the circumstances.

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

To be fair, if her advisors have told her to do it this way, then she may well have been badly advised. If that is true, and she pays back the tax, that should be the end of it. If it is proved to be malicious, then she needs to resign.

We all get badly advised, some of Sir Ralph's mates were told if they moved to Dubai they wouldn't be charged tax on assets and businesses owned in the UK, and that they wouldn't have to pay Inheritance Tax. I mean, it clearly happens to the best of us when it comes to professional advice.

Stepping back for a moment, and playing devil's advocate, what's unclear is:

What she told the conveyancer.

What the conveyancer actually advised. 

Whether the conveyancer suggested that she seek external tax advice (I don't know any conveyancers who don't). 

What her intentions were re tax, ie to seek to minimise her obligations. 

She's thrown the conveyancer under the bus. I think much depends on what they have to say, although lawyer/client privilege means we won't hear their side of the story. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

It's neither incompetent nor dishonest to rely on advice from a professional who ought to have given the correct advice. 

That depends on what she told the professional. 
 

We bought a property with an annex at the end of the garden. In those days you could get multiple dwellings relief and pretty much half your stamp duty. The separate building had to be self sufficient with a kitchen & bathroom. Ours only had bathroom, but I told solicitor it was self sufficient. Acting on that he advised us that we qualified for multiple dwellings relief. I’m sure he knew we didn’t, but that’s not the point. On the information I gave him, his advice was correct. 
 

 

 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That depends on what she told the professional. 
 

We bought a property with an annex at the end of the garden. In those days you could get multiple dwellings relief and pretty much half your stamp duty. The separate building had to be self sufficient with a kitchen & bathroom. Ours only had bathroom, but I told solicitor it was self sufficient. Acting on that he advised us that we qualified for multiple dwellings relief. I’m sure he knew we didn’t, but that’s not the point. On the information I gave him, his advice was correct. 
 

 

 

Our posts crossed mate. 

[iansums]

It's not unusual for a lawyer to fuck up. Many years ago there was an error on the land registry document for my property which my solicitor left for me to sort out. As a side note, my daughter qualifies as a lawyer tomorrow 🫢

Edited 10 hours ago by iansums
typo

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, iansums said:

It's not unusual for a lawyer to fuck up. Many years ago there was an error on the land registry document for my property which my solicitor left for me to sort out. As a side note, my duaghter qualifies as a lawyer tomorrow 🫢

Congratulations and good luck to her - Tell her to avoid advising politicians on property transactions though 😆

[iansums]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Congratulations and good luck to her - Tell her to avoid advising politicians on property transactions though 😆

She doesn't suffer fools gladly, she was well pissed off earlier this year when someone in her own firm messed up on her house purchase.

[Lord Duckhunter]

12 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Your Housing Minister caught avoiding property related tax is a rubbish look.

Their anti corruption minister resigned after being accused of corruption, so it’s hardly a surprise. 

[egg]

31 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Congratulations and good luck to her - Tell her to avoid advising politicians on property transactions though 😆

I'd tell her to avoid residential conveyancing completely. No real law involved, full of admin, they're the front line of money laundering, etc. All for shit fees. 

[iansums]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

I'd tell her to avoid residential conveyancing completely. No real law involved, full of admin, they're the front line of money laundering, etc. All for shit fees. 

Thankfully she won't be doing that.