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.

Is she vaping there or sucking a pen ???

I expect that all shall have to pay more the MC and those wealthier

The working classes have been left to fall behind for years, that others now also have to share the burden of finances being tighter until the country is in a better place I have no issue with

I’m not inclined to bash Rayner. I have a soft spot for her, limited as she is.

But comparisons with dodgy Tories is a bit rich in support of this government of freebie grabbers (and hiders); tenant evictors; and resignations from the minister for combatting corruption on suspicion of, er, corruption, and a previously convicted fraudster. And all in a year!

Not to mention all the policy hypocrisy and appalling fibs.

When you say others. Do you mean ALL others !
Or just SOME others.
?
because I think you’ll find the tax burden and lack of benefits have been met by higher earners more than anyone else

So by ALL do you mean finally ALL
so higher earners can get
30 free hours of childcare
there’s no lower exempt threshold for stamp
every penny earned over £1 is taxed
full time doesnt mean 18 hours for a couple to get UC it means full time for each of them
everyone pays for a prescription
etc etc etc

To me that means fare to ALL

But MC are not only being told to pay more, they are also being excluded from accessing certain things purely because they are MC. So paying much more but receiving much less

I think his views are very well known.

If you arent bothered by immigration, crime and don't care about how taxes are wasted then he probably isn't someone you would support anyway.

If you like criminals, transexuals using female toilets, unfettered immigration and locking people up for not being woke on social media then i imagine you would prefer Angela Raynor.

You’d have absolutely hated Bessie Braddock - who was an actual Victorian, born 1899.

I don’t like her but putting that aside it’s clearly one rule for her and another for the rest of us. It epitomises how politicians behave when in power. I was hopeful when labour got in but all they’re interested in is taxing anything that moves and now anything that doesn’t. Not interested in promoting growth. I really despair

The fairer thing would be that those on a minimum wage or average wage did not have to receive benefits so they could make ends meet because that is what the majority are doing in this bracket

this status quo has continued to keep tax down, keep small businesses happy, keeping lower taxes there is a compromise and those on average wages/minimum wage are kept in their place, now the burden is shared more

I know what situation I would rather be in and what is easier to live with and it is certainly not being in the situation where you need to rely on top ups

When you’re on one hand bemoaning the unfairness of legal tax avoidance and proclaiming the need to close loopholes, and on the other availing yourself to benefit from those loopholes, it’s not a good look.

she isn't highly respected for her intelligence, negotiating skills and certainly not for being able to deal with heavy debates or questioning

Actually I think you’ll find she is. I recommend her episode of The Rest is Politics Leading. It’s a real eye opener. The highly intelligent Rory Stewart was blown away by her.

Demure?! I.e quiet, shy and well-behaved. Is it the 1970s!? Trump is never criticised for being loud. Johnson was never criticised for being loud. You’re being sexist. End of.

I agree
but then all services and products that we buy would increase in price to reflect the higher wages
I don’t have a problem with this as it means people’s wages increase for those working a full working week

It won’t increase disposable income though.
It will mean the UC bill will drop substantially which will help the country
and the increased amount of income tax and national insurance paid to the Government will of course also help improve our services.
That we all enjoy

So is that a no? You can’t point me to any policy commitments that demonstrate he’s on the side of the people (which was your initial claim).

All legal, but not a good look for her.

Vaping I think, in between a bucket of cheap plonk.

Wow
and some think she’s a great role model. 🥴

You're holding her to a standard that very few of our MPs meet.

There was this one too - there are others.

Not quite Diane Abbott, but nevertheless…

100%…

I don’t think she’s thick either. I think she knows that in 3 or 4 years time she’ll be an opposition backbencher at best and unemployed at worst so she’s grasping what she can as quickly as she can.

The right wing press hate her. She has done nothing wrong

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/angela-rayner-brighton-flat-stamp-duty-boris-tories-b2816458.html