Labour isn't working - Thread 7

[TheNuthatch]

A chat thread for those who don't like this Labour government.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Previous thread
www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5396643-labour-isnt-working-thread-6?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

I think it would be on the lawyers. They take responsibility for the advice they give. If they don’t know much about tax, it’s down to them to say its a question they are not qualified to answer.

The tax lawyer on the clip seemed to politely imply that she was blaming her lawyers, and they are unlikely to fall on their swords for her.

We are just getting started.

It’s telling that the supporter of labours hypocrisy are crying ‘Misogyny’!!! at Rayners critics. I mean - aren’t we beyond that. Loads of Male and female Tory MPs have been harassed and criticised loudly and aggressively, by Labour over the years. No one cried misogyny! Racism! Because apparently it’s ok if the subject of rage is Tory.
As we see now, it’s a female Labour mp and all criticism is personal. It ‘misogynist’ or it’s ‘classist’. Or both. Really it’s pathetic. Makes me despise them even more.

I will admit to scoffing pre-election when KS and RS were debating and KS got all stroppy, insisting Labour were not going to increase taxes. Honestly, did anyone in their right mind believe that?
But I am surprised about the sleaze and the freebies and the tax avoidance. They’ve just shot themselves in the foot, in a way that could be so easily avoided??

Yeah, no she didn't! The wording from gov.uk is so clear, that nobody who's an expert would have got it wrong.

The freebies seemed like an obvious own goal - I wasn’t expecting to rush so many policies in without any consideration or timelines either.

It totally depends on what information she gave them. They work with what they have.

So is this 'bad advice' defence something that she will not be able to prove? I'm not sure which area of law you work it, so apologies if this is an inappropriate pick of your professional brain.

Just a little point of order. If we on this thread go poking the bear on the other thread, that is an open invitation for those posters to do the same here. If that happens, both threads are ruined and pointless for all.

In anticipation of my little friend popping up to remind me, I have posted once on the Labour chat thread. It was an article about Reeves lying on her CV. I regretted it instantly and will never do so again. I value the courtesy that both sides adhere to, which is to not intrude and leave each other alone. There are plenty of open threads for arguing our different points.

True. But I can't see how, if you're asked about a trust (and she says she sought advice re the trust), the advice would be anything other than what is on gov.uk.

@TheNuthatch, if she released the advice, I imagine it would describe the instructions she gave to them. Which would likely drop her in it.

I just can't see a way around any questions regarding the trust not revealing the true situation and the provision of accurate advice!

Yes it’s bread and butter stuff and entirely traceable if advice was actually given.

Added to that I’ve now learnt about PEP, practices don’t muck around with high profile advice as if wrong it can take them under.

Is that politically exposed person?

I'm pretty sure they'd have been given advice from Shoosmiths (or their conveyancer) when the first half of the property was put into trust that it would have SDLT implications in the future for them.

yes, and I can corroborate the pp’s assertion.

I just listened to today's Politics at Sam and Anne's.
Sam Coates was saying that he thinks Rayner will survive. He thinks that having a deputy leader contest now would be too damaging for Starmer, as the winner would likely run on a ticket of 'Starmer is shit, so elect me to hold him to account'.
The caveat was that if the weekend papers find more dirt, then Starmer may have no choice but to sack her.

Sounds plausible to me.

@TheNuthatchI wouldn’t be surprised. A bit like Reeves they’ll both have been damaged politically, and Labour generally. But Starmer will try to keep them for various reasons.

Just hope (if she stays) we will never again hear her bawling “I’ll take no lectures!” at her opponents in the HOC

Or will she be even more cocky because she survived the unsurvivable 😳

Hmmm. I posted this morning agreeing with one of the posters there. I’d gone on to see what the thinking was about Rayner. Of genuine interest, as it should be. That didn’t fit their mental model and they’ve been having a go at me ever since, insist on tagging my name. In fact the poster who I agreed with has since retracted their thinking about AR. Says it all. Bizarre really. But no surprises.
And now this.. Still I should get on with proper work and stop trying to make sense of this pickle we are all in thanks to bad politicians.

On reflection probably yes, I don’t think she does humble does she.

Bank of England's recent survey asking businesses how they have responded to the NI hike. Almost half have said they've cut jobs, over a third say they've raised prices a fifth have said they've held back on planned wage raises.

I just did a search, since I didn't know which was the other thread. I'll make sure to stay off there.

But am I allowed to pull out just one comment from your conversation there without falling foul of TAAT?

"Labour has to hold itself to much higher standards... but Rayner has to hold herself to impossible high standards."

😂😂😂

It's not really an impossible standard to pay your tax is it?!?

Honestly most of what is posted there is complete twaddle but it does give me plenty of entertainment.

Marking my place as I think I may have found my tribe. I'm a right-leaning centrist who has committed, in the eyes of some, the cardinal sin of sending my eldest child to independent school 😜

I’m loving that Angela Rayner’s evasion has given this thread a bump, welcome @CaveMum

Ah join the club and welcome 💪 it is truly and unforgivable sin!