To think Farage surely has to go

[OneKookyShark]

So Farage has some dodgy private company set up to avoid paying tax. Is he being pressured to resign as head of Reform? Of course not. Because he’s an entitled privileged man.

The double standards are incredible really. Here’s the story https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/05/nigel-farage-uses-private-company-to-pay-less-tax-on-gb-news-earnings

While I think Rayner had to resign, why are the same standards not being applied?

I am not a fan of Farage but he has made sensible, legal, tax decisions. Most of us don’t want to pay more tax than we legally should.
Rayner on the other hand has not paid the tax that she legally should. And honestly, it is not that complicated. A quick google shows that, even if a property is held in trust for a child, second home stamp duty is still payable on any further property purchased. It’s crystal clear on gov.uk.

Yes, the ethics report says it was a breach of the new beefed up code. The report also said she “acted with integrity and with a dedicated and exemplary commitment to public service”.

From his report

''She believed that she relied on the legal advice she had received, but unfortunately did not heed the caution contained within it, which acknowledged that it did not constitute expert tax advice and which suggested that expert advice be sought.

I am conscious of the acute challenges ministers face – perhaps uniquely – in managing the demands of their personal lives and their public responsibilities. However, the responsibility of any taxpayer for reporting their tax returns and settling their liabilities rests ultimately with themselves''

Someone doesn’t know the difference between avoidance and evasion, eye roll.

So you are ok with Rayner's hypocrisy of calling out tax dodgers and being one herself

ok

She didn't make a mistake she made a choice to pay less tax

Call out Farage on many things but using advantages to pay less tax is something he would support as its legal

I know it would be hugely unpopular but I’d look at Singapore ……. they appear to be a hugely successful stable country. Someone with far more w per tide than me will probably come along in a minute and point out all the ways I am wrong but I think there must be something in that approach. People like money and want to be well off - you can’t change that or pretend that isn’t the case. So they pay their politicians something like £1M a year so it attracts the brightest and best. They aren’t allowed any job outside of being a politician so they are more immune to bribery or ‘gifts’ or being influenced and they are paid enough so that are well off even when out of office so they are less likely to be trying to feather their nest for afterwards. They have a ruthless anti corruption dept that investigates everyone all of the time. And they require actual education and expertise so Nigel wouldn’t get a look in.

May they should be compensated with say the average of their last 5 years earning before coming an MP. Then good people could be well paid.

Not a fucking chance Uncle Nigel gets into number 10

AR has not been found to have committed tax evasion. If she had wanted to legally avoid tax there are ways she could have done that. She didn’t enter into a trust to avoid tax as many people do. She didn’t incorporate a limited company to buy her flat in Hove. She didn’t get a partner to buy it.

She entered into a trust for her disabled child. Her marriage ended.

It was the fact that she didn’t get specialist tax advice about the trust and buying another property whilst having no financial interest in her former home whilst being a trustee to an under 18 son that caused complexity. And this was related to ministerial code of conduct. Not tax illegal tax avoidance. To prove that you have to prove intent. The ethics committee felt she was acting in good faith but as a government minister should have taken advice from an expert tax minister.

You or I would not be held to the same high standards. Trusts for disabled or vulnerable people are not the same as normal trusts for tax evasion. and tax laws are complicated.

Ethically I don’t believe that AR’s intent was to evade tax given this is made easy. Ethically NF intent is clearly to evade tax and he had taken advantage of all legal means to do so.

Her crime appears to be not legally evading tax. Because she sees this as morally and ethically wrong.

She made a mistake. She didn’t ask for extra advice. That’s all.

You don't need to be afraid, because it will never happen.

The grifter will shit his pants if he ever got anywhere close to real power.

100000x agree

I cannot bear him. He is nothing but terrible for the UK. There is literally zero benefit to him

She didn’t. The ethics watchdog report is very clear on that. She gave all the right info. She got advice and followed it, apart from taking note of the caveat that she should check it with another expert. You hating her doesn’t make your opinion more important than the facts I’m afraid.

The current polling says 1 in 3 people will vote for him, and momentum is still growing. Highly likely he will become PM with a whole fresh group of MPs.

Have you read the actual report from the independent advisor?

*proven

I think we need to be very careful with this line of thinking. No one EVER thought Trump would be president of the US. It was a joke. No one took it seriously enough and now look where we are.
It could easily happen here. He’s straight out of the fascist play book …run down the country to spread discord, find a minority to pin the blame on, provide ‘simple’ sounding solutions to what are incredibly complex problems to a population that are generally just tired and worn down and want to believe there is a simple answer and a better future.
it’s entirely possible he could be the next PM and we should be fighting that eventuality every step of the way.

The thing is, they can’t vote for him unless they live in Clacton. Elsewhere they’ll have to vote for a different Reform candidate. I’m not saying this to be pedantic, but to point out that they really struggle to find (and vet) candidates. It’s a massive job to get a candidate in place for every constituency, even given 4 years, and the short history of the Reform party tells us that even if they manage it a significant number will be found to be unsavoury or will just immediately resign.

Yes the lie was she got ‘bad advice’

She didn’t. They clearly said ask for specialist advice which she didn’t.

I agree @Skipthisbit. It’s a case of prepare for the worst, hope for the best or we’ll sleepwalk into it. 2016 taught me a valuable lesson - I never thought we’d be stupid enough to vote for Brexit or that Americans would be stupid enough to vote for Trump. Never underestimate human capacity for stupidity.

Just as there was a tactical voting campaign to get the Tories out last year, another one will be required to keep Reform out and some of us will have to hold our noses at the ballot box.

Two different companies told her the same tax figure, which she paid.
It’s not a lie to say that advice was bad.
There is, perhaps, a lie of omission in not saying they had also advised getting a third opinion, but honestly, most legal advice comes with a heap of caveats.

I've just seen Andrea Jenkyns at the conference. If that's what the country really wants then I'm leaving now.

No need to explain the system. There will obviously be some bumps and bruises but it is hardly like the other parties get candidates who are free of lies and corruption. Labour have only been in a year and have literally fallen apart. Starmer's busy moving the deckchairs today yet is powerless against the Reeves iceberg. The Conservatives are falling into oblivion.