To think that surely Rayner has to go.

[Blankscreen]

Well well well.

So now it emerges that Rayner rearranged her property affairs and declared to HMRC that her new flat in Brighton is her main residence and saved £40k on the SDLT bill as a result.

She has then apparently declared to the local councils the complete opposite.

I'm sure slimeball Kier will defend and say it was perfectly legal blah blah blah.

Not to mention she has a grace and favour house funded by tax payers in London as her constituency office is so far away. Yet she 'lives' in Brighton - surely she could just commute that distance like may others do every day.

Surely she has to go.

This is the 2nd time she chopped and changed her main address which coincidentally leads to her paying the minimum and saving 1000’s on stamp duty or council tax
she grabs any donations clothes , holidays and money going
I couldn’t careless she’s a woman or northern and no idea about the comment she should stay in her lane

she’s set herself up for a fall as she’s banged on about how morally wrong tax avoidance and grabbing freebie is then does exactly the same in the public eye
hardly an example of practice what you preach is

MPs (quite rightly) are held to high standards. And she should practice what she preaches (as should all MPs). She is on the left and believes in higher taxation.

The high earners that you mention may well not be left wing, so minimising tax may not go against their political principles.

Cleared by HMRC of all wrong doing some time ago.... a smear story.

She hasn't chopped or changed her main address, she gave up the family home as part of her divorce settlement.... hence no interest in any property.

Buys new property, pays correct duty & 2nd home tax as she spends more time in her constituency... again correct, CT is levied on where you spend the majority of your time.

As Sky's Sam Coates has pointed out, Land Registry cannot charge her more.

Strange tax planning when you give up a 250k house to save 40k.....

On expenses, i agree, the whole Labour exp saga was wrong, even if they all played within the rules.

Starmer especially

Row back time. I broke my own rule & ranted without checking. The following are the facts & you cannot trust anything in the ordinary press.
https://open.substack.com/pub/monkdebunks/p/angela-rayners-so-called-property?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3q32va
It's pretty awful when you have to factcheck every story in the news from so called 'trusted providers'; in this case, either journalists couldn't be be bothered to check the facts or knew very well that they weren't true.

Folk tale would be a better description.
https://open.substack.com/pub/monkdebunks/p/angela-rayners-so-called-property?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3q32va

https://open.substack.com/pub/monkdebunks/p/angela-rayners-so-called-property?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3q32va

Wow, that’s a lot of repeat linking.

You are Emma Monk and I claim my £5.

I haven't read the thread and I'm sure this has already been said, but so much of what's written about Rayner is because of bias against her as a woman, and especially as a woman from a disadvantaged background and the jealousy that occurs when someone from that background has any success.

Why would we want to be governed by people who can't manage their own money successfully and yet the fact that she has is held against her?

The house arrangements are due to her marriage break up and we don't know the detailbecuaause of an injunction around that, but her ex husband live there with DC in a nesting arrangement. She no longer owns the house.

Anyway, the reason for posting was to share this article about the bias against her

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/01/why-are-the-tabloids-so-enraged-about-angela-rayner-class-warfare?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I absolutely agree that Rayner is targeted by the press, that's partly because she is a working class woman and because she is and always has been very very vocal on calling out unfairness in our society (or her view of what is unfair, on many occasions I have agreed with her). That does not appeal to many areas of the press.

She has also risen quickly in the party because of this, she appeals more to the left of the party and many have also likes her determination and drive. I personally do not feel she is a PM in waiting neither do I think she has always been impressive in her roles but she is determined and I have admiration that she has worked so hard.

But hypocrisy should always be called out, she always always has called this out particularly in the area of unfairness of how our society benefits the wealthier more than it does the working classes/poor. Of course there will be a back lash against her, she herself claims to be a socialist what do people really expect. This has been her whole spiel throughout her career

She has lost credibility even if she has not broken the law, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Isn't that something she has always said (or similar)

Here are some facts

https://open.substack.com/pub/monkdebunks/p/angela-rayners-so-called-property?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3q32va

😂 I wish! I just think it's important to get the facts right & not get carried away with the headlines. I speak as someone who did just that & want to put it right.

Facts? No no-one needs them 🤣

The fact is that Rayner is a woman who was born to be poor and disadvantaged, talks with a working class Northern accent and had no right to become successful.

The response to everything she does is entirely down to misogyny, and the fact that even the poor/working class subconsciously believe they should be governed by the ruling classes.

How about countering the 'haters' arguments instead of throwing around childish insults?

I think Rayner draws more than her fair share of fire but things like this are just handing out the ammunition. No rules are broken but the optics of it are terrible. It’s nuts that she can list two addresses as primary residence for CT and SDLT purposes. Even the Guardian says she lives in her constituency house some of the time https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/01/angela-rayners-hove-flat-five-questions-for-the-deputy-pm

ETA Have just read the link by the pp and that does make things clearer - if that’s the case then I’m switching sides to ‘nothing to see here!’ 😛

They’ve been countered several times on this thread. None of her adversaries are interested in the facts though, they’re far more concerned with the “optics”. I wonder how many of them are cramming their pension or cutting their hours to minimise their tax?

That article, interesting as it is (although not completely correct) doesn’t tackle the key optics issue which is her constant and prolific criticisms of tax dodgers, a label she attached to people who used legitimate tax planning tools while using them herself.

She is now an agressive user of the same tools she has castigated others for, while the government looks at taxing you all more. I realise that the left don’t see anything wrong with this behaviour, but the majority do. And, for the avoidance of doubt that’s not because she’s a women, as many of us are, northern, as many of us are, or working class, as many of our family backgrounds were. It’s because she says one thing, for headlines, and does another.

It’s also worth noting that the article was written before the use of such an agressive trust structure was known…so read into that what you will.

Rich
Poor
Who cares

She’s either crap, taking away democracy ( see her planning policy ) and a hypocrite
or she’s not.

Most of us have moved on in the last century

She aggressively used a trust? so what? so did my mum, a retired SRN nurse, done to stop the sale of house unless all in agreement..

But this house is now in the sole ownership of her ex husband....

So pls tell me how Rayner could have paid the 2nd home duty even if she had wanted too?

Yes the majority do disagree with her.... but thats because they are told she has a "property empire" "tax dodger" all false but the Tory press wont apologise.

It’s interesting that, 19 pages into this thread there’s been no link to any of her alleged castigation. All I can find is this Thanks to those who keep pointing out the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, I tend to concentrate on tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal.

Exactly this

the Labour keep thinking up,ways exhorting money out of their constituents who have a property or savings else but greedily accumulating wealth for themselves

I know all politicians tend to do this but why aren’t they representing working people and giving them a fair deal

Yes, but the point is that Rayner had constantly described those that avoid tax as dodging it. Even though it’s legal. But as it now appears that she has admitted not only dodging it, but evading it it’s a moot point. And a rather more serious matter..

Angela Rayner admits she failed to pay enough stamp duty on property

https://www.thetimes.com/article/f81e3b67-8f0d-46f7-910e-e5396be7aee4?shareToken=0a55cd9669e268ca8311d4ff65ee83a1

Came to post the same article. Presumably those who have been accusing us of being jealous, misogynistic snobs are happy to apologise...?

The ‘so what’ is because of the hypocrisy of it. She has been very very vocal about those that use legitimate tools to minimise tax as tax dodgers.

Anyway, so now she’s admitting evading the tax. Which does demonstrate that those of us that actually understand how our tax system works were correct…There was no legal way of using a trust for her children to avoid stamp duty / IHT while continuing to claim a principle residence in the constituency for council tax purposes and having an interest in that property.

On the plus side, it clears up the issue of her council tax, and she’s in the clear on that front :) £2k up, £40k down ;)

And sorry, but as matter of accuracy the whole issue is the constituency house was not 100% owned by her ex husband. Her share was held in trust for her children, and due to the nature of the trust and the age of her children Rayner did still have an interest in that property. Which means she acted legally in respect of council tax. But broke the law in respect of the SDLT. She could, by keeping things simple have legally avoided the SDLT, but she’d have been liable for the council tax in London. She wanted to have her cake and eat it, and thought no one would realise.

But many of us understand tax better than she does. She was, I believe, advised by Shoosmiths who are a legal firm with a tax advisory practice. Not a tax specialist with a legal arm. That’s wouldn’t be my choice for UHNW tax advisory work.

Given she’s now admitted she didn’t pay enough tax and referred herself to the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, I do hope that all those who’ve been bleating that there’s nothing to see here will come back and admit they were wrong. Like Ms Rayner has finally deigned to do.