Is Angela Raynor a liar or is it all anti Labour media bias?

[CormorantStrikesBack]

I’m well aware how anti Labour a lot of the main stream media seem to be so I wasn’t paying much attention previously to all the stuff about how she should have paid capital gains tax on her house, etc. she was adamant that she didn’t need to.

So it seems like she said it was her main residence so not liable for capital gains tax. But her husband and kids lived in a house a short distance away apparently for the first five years of their marriage which is unusual. A neighbour who lived next to her “husband’s” house said it was the main family home and Angela definitely lived there.

I’ll be sad if she has lied. Always thought she was on the side of the ordinary person. I guess the police/tax man might have a hard time proving anything though regardless of the neighbour’s statement. If all bills, etc were in the individual names there’s no evidence.

Angela Rayner can do no right in some people's eyes. Why is she hated so much?

I don't see the applicability of the word 'hate'. It's a very overused word currently.
In fact, although I know little about Angela Rayner, one of the things that brought her to my attention is that she signed the charter that labelled A Woman's Place, ie women campaigning to maintain their legal protections, a hate group.

I've just looked up A Woman's Place and I'm baffled as to why you think it's a hate group. Could you please clarify?

I've just looked up A Woman's Place and I'm baffled as to why you think it's a hate group. Could you please clarify?

I don't. You've misread my post.

She won’t be found guilty of fraud.

If you think she is a hypocrite (I agree she would be making hay out of this if the tables were turned - that is politics) you can of course take that into account when you vote.

It was originally a pressure group opposed to reform of the Gender Recognition Act. To that extent given the way stuff about trans people was stirred up it wasn't wholly unreasonable for AR to describe it in those terms.

It's since spread its wings more widely though it's still to GC for my liking.

@Merrymouse the issue being investigated is, so far as we know as Manchester Police are being less than open, whether she was registered to vote at her place in Vicarage Road or his on Lowndes Lane.

Unless she voted twice, which I think is unlikely, or knowingly gained some pecuniary advantage, then chances of her being prosecuted are vanishingly small. The CPS guidelines have been posted upthread and I think there's also a time limit for prosecuting registration offences which is long passed.

Unless the Hon Member for Bury North as a trump card up his sleeve it's just mischief.

@Merrymouse they're all just out for themselves.. the trick will be to vote for the least awful.

The least awful 🤔

Rayner may not have paid £1,500 or £3,500 at the max

Donelan's libel cost the taxpayer £34,000

Some people really do hate her, though. So the word is appropriate.

Sums the whole thing up nicely:

twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1779432243171057739

The least awful 🤔

Rayner may not have paid £1,500 or £3,500 at the max

Donelan's libel cost the taxpayer £34,000

That doesn't make Raynor fit for office

But Donelan is?

Not at all, no.

So who is the least awful?

I wish I knew!

I have no idea who to vote for.. they're all a bloody shambles imo

or based on the types of political activities in house of cards, party politics ?

Dunno. It doesn't happen if you're a Tory MP but I would hope Labour would have more integrity.

I doubt very much whether AR would say she would resign unless she was 100% sure of her case.

Someone somewhere is going to have to prove she voted twice in the same election, given its a secret vote, how do you do that?

However, it is rather refreshing to hear a politician say this rather than the usual "there is an independent investigation going on, its inappropriate for me to comment" bullshit.

@Alexandra2001 They can tell who voted and who did not. The clerks at the polling station cross you off the list and enter the number of the voting paper you were given on it. Thus, in fact, the secrecy of the ballot can be broken as the slip can be matched to the voter it was issued to, though that will only be authorised where serious allegations have to be addressed.

To vote twice you'd need to be on the register at two different addresses or with multiple identities. The issue with Rayner is not that; she's alleged to be registered at one address while her residence was elsewhere.

Clavinova made the point upthread that AR might have been liable for repayment of discount on the council house purchase. I still think this whole story is a storm in a thimble. But the exposure of AR’s hypocrisy will have done her great damage.

Summing it up, it's Rayner's 'hypocrisy' that is the issue?

Well, yes. People detest hypocrisy. It’s been true of the Tories and will be true of Labour.

I'm no expert on Right to Buy but I can't find anything other than selling after a short time, less than five years, that requires repayment of discount. AR had owned it for eight years when it was sold.

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-04-13/rayners-former-aide-contradicts-her-housing-claims-in-police-statement

The row over Angela Rayner’s previous living arrangements has deepened as her former aide reportedly wrote to police contradicting her claims.
Ex-staffer Matt Finnegan said there was “no doubt in my mind that this was Ms Rayner’s family home” when he visited her at what she says was her husband’s address in 2014.
Officers are investigating whether Labour’s deputy leader broke electoral law after Tory allegations that she may given false information about her main residence a decade ago.

...

Mr Finnegan left Ms Rayner’s employment with a £20,000 payout and non-disclosure agreement after accusing her of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal and has told police he “vividly” remembers her home was elsewhere, the Sunday Times reported.

Not sure what to think about it all.

But she broke no rules if she was registered to vote at two properties. That is allowed. And her ex council house could at that point have been nominated as her PPR, regardless of whether she actually lived there. That is not against the rules.

So I am not sure what the aide's point is?

This is getting desperate.