I feel sad about Angela Rayner

[Neededa]

OK, I am left leaning so maybe I am already biased, BUT, I do feel sad that a woman who overcame early issues, who was “proper” working class, who didn’t speak the kings English, but rather with a proper local dialect, and achieved a high office without a single spoon in her working class mouth, has gone.

i do understand that many people will agree with what has happened. I would have been fuming if the story played out the way it had as a different party, and I understand that Angela had to go, BUT as a woman who believes in holding up other women, particularly those who aren’t born to certain families, or have expectations placed on them from word go, I do feel a bit sad this morning.

There was a working class woman in the House of Commons. A working class woman was the deputy prime minister of this country. It is not even 100 years since working class women could vote. I feel sad.

"But, did she set up her son’s trust without legal advice?"

No. As I understand it the trustees are Rayner, her ex and the law firm Shoosmiths (according to The Guardian).

It appears that Shoosmiths acted for her in setting up the trust but they have come out publically and said that they had nothing to do with the Brighton flat.

Typical hypocrisy. If she hadn't been told to get advice and hadn't hidden that fact then perhaps you could feel sorry for her. No, she's just a fiddling politician happy to cheat on her taxes. Oh, the irony of her calling others "scum".

I don’t feel sorry for her - I feel disappointed she’s done this. Just as I’d feel sorry if a colleague I got on well with was sacked for having their fingers in the till. I definitely don’t think she should stay on.

They told her to take specialist advice.

Like I said upthread, not everyone can give SDLT advice, most tax advisors won’t even advise on it.

It is sad another woman has left government. And sad that she achieved all of that and now it is all gone.
However, I just cannot understand how she had been so either utterly stupid, or underhand or both. It is absolutely incredulous that the Minister for Housing has done this. No excuses for this. Either she does not know or understand the laws for which she is effectively in charge, tax laws on property should very much be something the Minister for Housing understands, or she has deliberately tried to shaft the tax payer by putting her property in trusts and then hoping noone notices. Either way, shes a fucking idiot for this. And I am angry with her, as I do not agree with her policies but I do want more female voices in government and she was a great role model for social mobility and women, but has now ruined it for herself and tarnished the way for others in her situation to make it up the ladder.

Based on information provided by the client. If they client says they don’t have an interest in another property then that’s what they calculate the liability on.

For those banging the “poor woman” drum - the conveyancing firm she was quick to try to blame (incorrectly) was an all-woman run and owned one.

Knowing how complex this area of law is around trusts I feel desperately sorry for her, and think this was a genuine mistake. I didn’t much care for her politics but feel like she’s being unnecessarily hung out to dry so feel really sad about this.

They calculate SDLT based on the information that you give them.

This firm are not solicitors (they're licensed conveyancers) and are there to take instructions on buying and/or selling a property.

They are not there to give any sort of advice.

If you instruct them that you will only own one property for the purposes of SDLT then they will act on that basis.

They do.

MPs earn over £90k a year. Ministers even more. You can afford reputable advice on that salary.

People on a lot less have to find a way to pay for it. Because Legal Aid has been cut to the bone.

Do you think it’s right she tried to scapegoat Joanna Verrico the MD of a small conveyancing firm?

Agreed.

Surely she should have got specialist advice then. Which she chose not to.

She the housing minister. She can’t afford to be sloppy. And she’s perfectly capable.

I agree.

But it's not complicated!

A simple search of the right terms brings up GOV.UK/ HMRC where it says very simply what you owe.

If your child is a minor (under 18) and you leave your home to them in a Trust, it is still regarded as your home, even if you aren't living there all of the time and the home is owned by the Trust.

Anyone who can read and is of average intelligence can understand it.

When the news broke it took me about 10 minutes to find that info.

She was also advised by the estate agents/ conveyancers, to take more advice.

Yes such a terrible shame. No matter what your politics surely the fall of a working women with a disabled kid who has surpassed all odds is quite sad from a feminist point of view. The report looked like it was misjudged rather than malicious

Im not sorry for her at all. She was the minister for housing ffs as well as DPM. She was told to get specialist tax advice, she didn't do so and broke the ministerial code.
Also her constituents are pissed off that her main residence is in swanky Hove and not in her own constituency as would I be.
I didn't vote Labour at the last election because the candidate didn't live anywhere near where I live. He lives about 50 miles away.
If you have a job like this especially if you are hard left you need to dot every I and cross every t.

She doesn’t “own numerous properties”

The advice was not wrong. The advice was to seek a specialist and she did not. I have sympathy for her in that that this was a complex case but she tried to discredit the law firm which is factually wrong as has been determined by the report.

I agree is sad to see someone with real life experience go but she herself said that if you break the rules you need to go. People who are saying ‘but Jeremy hunt did blah blah’ - he used a legal loophole. She broke the law.

Whilst I can't say I am a fan of the woman, I do feel some element of sympathy towards her given that the purpose was to protect her son. I do think she was set up to be the fall guy. Many politicians are less than transparent with their business dealings and tax affairs but it is glossed over.

Imagine how the majority of comments would go if she was the Tory or (look away if you are of a sensitive nature) Reform deputy PM.
😆

She lied, she was happy to throw others under the bus and she deserved to go, she would have been sacked if she didnt resign.

How was selling her share of the family home (at a profit) to the Trust set up for her disabled son to use as a deposit on a luxury flat hundreds of miles from the family home or her constituents in any way for the benefit of her disabled son?

She worked as a carer as a young single mum. Are you saying that caring isn't a job?

What about the morals of Conservative politicians? The eternally priapic Boris Johnson, the ridiculous Matt Hancock with his almost comedic infidelity, the tractor porn guy, Nadhim Zahawi and his multi-million pounds tax-dodging, the convicted rapist Andrew Griffiths who raped his own wife. All fine, upstanding men with high morals?

The bit that's even more concerning is that several members of the cabinet including the PM went on national TV backing Rayner, saying she had followed the rules correctly and effectively 'nothing to see here'.

Did any of them think to check the veracity of her claims?

Mind you, the clip of RR offering her support was embarrassing. She could barely get a word out.