X Close

Is this the end of Angela Rayner? Her housing crisis is seared in the nation's psyche

LONDON, ENGLAND - JANUARY 19: Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Angela Rayner leaves the Houses of Parliament after attending PMQs on January 19, 2022 in London, England. The Prime Minister faces MPs in the House Of Commons as speculation over a vote of no confidence in his leadership mounts. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

LONDON, ENGLAND - JANUARY 19: Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Angela Rayner leaves the Houses of Parliament after attending PMQs on January 19, 2022 in London, England. The Prime Minister faces MPs in the House Of Commons as speculation over a vote of no confidence in his leadership mounts. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)


April 13, 2024   4 mins

Why shouldn’t the Tories make the most of Angela Rayner’s personal housing crisis? When you’re short of electoral options, there’s nothing better than punching your opponent’s bruise. If the police investigation launched yesterday reveals anything, it will land Starmer with the exact sort of scandal he’s spent two years barracking the Tories for — and reopen ancient wounds within his own party.

Rayner maintains she has acted properly, making the right declarations to the right people at the right time. If that proves incorrect, she will have to be sacrificed to maintain Starmer’s claims to be the party of propriety. Even then, Labour will likely take some political flack and its Left will be enraged at her internal exile.

But even if she is vindicated, that will offer little respite. In politics, behaviour is often only incidental to the scale of the scandal. Boris Johnson showed us how, with a fair wind and an almost inhuman rejection of contrition, you can just plough on. William Wragg, despite resigning the Tory whip, has managed to spin being a fool and betraying his colleagues into a call for sympathy. Others have found being “technically innocent” insufficient to avoid public opprobrium: Sir Peter Viggers took the most public fall for the expenses scandal despite the fact the claim for his infamous duck house was never actually approved. Even if Rayner is exonerated, the stench of scandal could be just enough to stick around. Indeed, the issue contains all the ingredients for making political hay: the fairness of taxation, the private lives of politicians, and house prices.

It helps that this scandal is easy to understand. Where an MP has complex financial affairs, it can be impenetrable from the outside. Rayner’s predicament lacks that advantage. Her situation is simple: either she made wrong declarations about her primary residence or not. Even though the sums involved are small (experts have said the tax advantage might be £1,500 at most), the principle matters — and is easier for a voter to understand than, say, Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs. In politics, it’s rarely about the money, but the message.

This is all the more important when it comes to housing. The price of property is in some ways our national obsession. Daytime TV encourages people to rubberneck on those who are downsizing, trading up, moving to the country, or the sun and everything in between. News reports anxiously note whether property prices are up or down, while policy debates increasingly focus on the unaffordability of housing. It’s an issue not just of political salience, but of cultural import too.

Thus for Rayner’s critics, there is an edge here. Owning multiple properties is a signifier. Regardless of how you came by them, or even their exact values, that you have to worry about such a thing as the location of your primary residence means something. While we talk about the divide between the have-homes and the have-nots, the multiple property owners feel a class apart from everyone else.

This is where Rayner hits a snag. For decades, rising house prices have been seen as a boon, an increase of wealth to which one is almost naturally entitled. The tax system, which sees your home as tax-exempt, encourages this. To own one home — of any value — is simply good fortune. It’s something you’ve worked for and which the state could never claim a share of. Even inheritance tax treats main homes differently, with generous exemptions that don’t apply to other assets. Yet a second feels speculative, luxurious, and worthy of taxation. It’s absurd, but owning a one-million-pound home feels less rich than having two at a fraction of the value.

This attitude is informed and determined by the housing crisis. A lack of supply has given Britain a uniquely miserly approach to housing. The country has one of the lowest amounts of second homeowners in the Western world. There is no culture of keeping the family home in the old village ticking over, as our Mediterranean cousins might, or the forest-bound holiday homes of Scandinavia. Instead, second-home owners are derided. Either they are exploitative landlords, or wealthy blow-ins taking over countryside villages and seaside towns.

For MPs, second homes are an even bigger vulnerability. Our political culture has never recovered from the expenses scandal. Nearly a decade and a half later, it still rankles with the electorate regardless of changes to the system. Across social media and vox pops, it is the go-to complaint against those we send to Westminster. Second homes are at the apex of that, widely regarded as a wheeze that enriches those who get elected.

The facts are different now. MPs are given a modest allowance, and can no longer pass mortgage interest onto the taxpayer, effectively gaining an appreciating asset for no real cost. For those elected after 2010, maintaining a home in London and the constituency is a burden rather than an opportunity for enrichment. Some have ended up living in canal boats due to the unaffordability of multi-home life. Little of that, however, has cut through.

Instead, the public memory is of those who enjoyed the pre-scandal high life. They were able to “flip” their homes, changing the designation between primary and secondary residences whenever it suited them. This often led to the taxpayers footing the more expensive mortgage before the designation switched back to Capital Gains Tax (CGT) purposes. Some made thousands and banked five-figure tax benefits. No current MP is so lucky, but the public memory lingers. For that, Rayner could hardly have chosen a worse position to be mired in.

“Rayner could hardly have chosen a worse position to be mired in.”

And yet, this applies to the Tories too, whose efforts to ensnare Rayner may still come to nothing. Many voters have already switched off. It’s hard to launch aggressive comms moves when your brand is already tarnished — just look at how the many attempts to push “Sir Beer Korma” floundered. If no smoking gun of deceit is found, Rayner will likely ride through the crisis and Sir Keir will avoid having to once again take on his Left flank.

That this is what the Right thinks will land a blow is, however, telling. Partygate was damning for Johnson in a way no other scandal was because it touched a national nerve. Almost everyone had endured lockdown to the best of their ability because they felt it was worth the sacrifice. Flaunting it was an affront to the national conscience. There’s every reason to believe a housing scandal might be the best mirror of this.

Of course, this latest scandal smacks of desperation on behalf of a Conservative Party doing anything to cling on. But sometimes, in politics as in life, the throes of desperation create collateral. The Tories are going down, and they might as well try and take Rayner with them.


John Oxley is a corporate strategist and political commentator. His Substack is Joxley Writes.

Mr_John_Oxley

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

90 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
j watson
j watson
1 month ago

Politicians have to appreciate they will be held to standards and must set a good example. The spotlight on this thus has benefit.
But it’s fairly obvious she won’t be deemed to have committed a crime. That requires proving ‘intent’. So this one could rebound a bit on the Tories – ‘the misogynistic hounding of a working class woman by the Tory boys of privilege’ might become the public memory given they are not well disposed to them at the mo.
And as we know ironic the trawling for the story emanated from Lord Ashcroft, Mr Non-Dom tax avoider himself, party to legislation in the HoL whilst failing to pay British taxes. Hmm one would not be surprised if Labour got half a dozen stories ready to use like this up their sleeve too. If politicians and key supporters going to have had their nose in the trough you can be fairly sure the Tories will have been ahead on that.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

There’s nothing “obvious” about her intent. Best wait for the investigation to conclude before jumping to conclusions – which i’m not doing either.

The author is right about the general impression it leaves. Labour has been doing this to Tory politicians for decades (with good reason in many cases) so they can have absolutely nowhere to hide when one of their own is wriggling on the hook, especially when she’s been a leading protagonist against “Tory sleaze”. Live by the sword… etc.

Finally, your claim of misogyny is… how shall we say?,,, a bit rich when the Labour party hounds its own females who refuse to toe the party line on transactivism; now that’s what misogyny looks like.

Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
1 month ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Agree. Should Ms Rayner be proven guilty, it’s her hypocrisy which will bring her down. With current levels of trust in institutions, I suspect no one is surprised when they see politicians “duck ponding” in whatever guise. What we’re heartily sick and tired of is the virtue signalling.

j watson
j watson
1 month ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Nothing ‘obvious’ about the intent does underline the point – proving intent is the threshold and that’s v difficult, but also take your point too.
As regards the misogyny bit – no doubt Labour already feels this is the case, but the point was trying to convey is not what they feel so much but what the public may come to feel. It’s true Lab far from unblemished record. Public already ‘gets’ that, but just might have more sympathy for Rayner when it comes to it than some think. The Right keeps thinking the issues it rages about hold the majority interest too. It does increasingly appear they’ve got that wrong in many areas. The Rayner thing could well end looking just like I suggest to a majority of opinion.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

According to the CPS guidance on fraud (which the right-to-buy discount would be) conviction requires only this for the mens rea: “knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading”. Might be misleading – not a very high bar for the prosecution.

Peter B
Peter B
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

What ???
There is no need to prove “intent” for financial fraud. Nor is ignorance of the law any defence.
And there is no “whataboutery” defence. That’s pathetic.
This is a legal matter. Not a political one.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter B

True, but have you not noticed the tendency of the judges/legal profession to make up the law as they go along IF it suits them?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 month ago
Reply to  j watson

Ignorance is no defence in law. 😉

Adrian C
Adrian C
1 month ago

Angela for PM please, she’s old labour not some Trotskyist, Marxist or any other ‘ist’ & an asset electorally. A lot of snobbery at play in these accusations from both the political left and right.
As for ‘Her housing crisis is seared in the nation’s psyche’ thats just rubbish, if anything it’s her Kung Fu Panda hight heals and that Celtic warrior queen red hair……

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian C

Seems more like her getting a taste of her own medicine that is gratifying to most. If this was Tory under scrutiny she would be all over it.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian C

Angela for PM?
Disgusting, uneducated, promiscuous, envious, dishonest, hypocritical and stupid (because she could had avoided the story by paying 1500 quid and saying sorry).

Peter Shevlin
Peter Shevlin
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew F

“Uneducated”? What, she didn’t have any formal schooling? I think if you had been educated sufficiently you might at worst have chosen ill-educated.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter Shevlin

Depends which comp she went to. 😉

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter Shevlin

“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” is the proverb, catalogued in the 16th Century. There is a more apposite and relevant, in this case, version.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
27 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

E Bevin had a tougher childhood and he was the greatest Foreign Secretary post WW2. What he possessed was judgement.
It could be argued his tough upbringing gave him sagacity which a more comfortable life would have not have done. Bevin saw through communists and had stood up to them in the Bristol Docks. Bevin was instrumental in Britain obtaining nuclear weapons, forming NATO and Britain leaving India before a full blown civil war devloped, the Punjab and Calcutta were bad enough. Bevin lacked a chip on the shoulder. When someone said there were too many public school types in the FO, he said they did all right in the Battle of Britain.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew F

You might want to gen up on her life story, which is a most inspiring tale of how to overcome an awful childhood. I suspect that if you compared it with yours then hers would be way more impressive. ‘Stupid’, ‘promiscuous’ – you might want to look a bit harder at yourself, pal.

Sheila Smith
Sheila Smith
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew F

Much like Johnson then!

Matt Woodsmith
Matt Woodsmith
1 month ago

As the Telegraph wrote, she’s probably done nothing illegal and almost certainly done nothing that the average financial advisor or upper middle class household wouldn’t regard as completely normal. But that’s the problem, isn’t it? She’s spent so long carefully cultivating her image as ‘Working Class Ange’, it’s going to instantly destroy that image once you can see her multiple sources of income, rental income, investment income, capital gains allowance, etc, etc… Add on to that the hypocrisy of literally referring to her opponents as ‘Tory Scum’ for these sorts of finances and that’s the real problem for her.

Michael Askew
Michael Askew
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt Woodsmith

Not so sure that she has probably done nothing illegal. False declaratoins about residence is a breach of electoral law and the police are rightly investigating. Angela Rayner gave a powerful speech in the House of Commons demanding that Boris Johnson resign because he was being investigated by the police. Looks like the chickens have come home to roost.

R Wright
R Wright
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt Woodsmith

“She’s spent so long carefully cultivating her image as ‘Working Class Ange’, it’s going to instantly destroy that image”

It’s Diane Abbott’s privately educated kids all over again.

Peter B
Peter B
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt Woodsmith

Hold on. She’s either made a false tax declaration. Or she’s voted somewhere she wasn’t registered. At least that’s how I’ve seen the matter explained. Both criminal offences as I understand it.
What am I missing ?
All this other stuff is just noise.

Liakoura
Liakoura
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter B

The Government’s guide to completing the form to register to vote ends with the warning:
“If you knowingly give false information in your application, you could go to prison for up to 6 months, or be fined”. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bfc10fb40f0b65b14fc6605/Easy-Read-Guide-to-Registering-to-Vote.pdf

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter B

Your missing her alleged failure to pay back part of her right-to-buy discount. That would be fraud, maximum sentence 10 years imprisonment.

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago

Nobody cares.Seeing as more people than you’d imagine are doing all that too.

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter B

Like everybody else.

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt Woodsmith

Ms Rayner ( I didn’t know she had a husband,I hope he’s rich and handsome) worked as an.actual Care Worker,she left school at 12 to care for her Mother. Angela knows what hard work is. As far as I’m.concerned she can shout Tory Scum from the rooftops.
Addenda:.we have a very odd.attitude to wealth and poverty in this country. I think it’s a relict of our defunct Christianity but even then it was always a misreading then.
On the one hand we publicly at least despise and condemn rich people,unless they are drug taking,taboo busting rock stars with a predatory.sexual past ” I know your fifteen you don’t have to show me your passport” now,why does SIR Mick not sing that anymore? And we idealise people with,at least seemingly no money,they are pure,virtuous and uncorrupted. (Yeah right).
But actually in reality it’s the other way round,in REAL real people to people contact life.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
28 days ago
Reply to  jane baker

Left school at 12 ? The leaving age is 16 years and has been above 12 years since WW1.So she played truant for three years, ignored by the school.
Potentially Rayner could be Prime Minister in time of war, she is not a shop assistant being questioned about expenses.
Rayner should have had sufficient judgement and avoided getting into this mess. She is another politician who is unaware that leadership requires the ability to take life or death decisions after days without sleep when there is not enough information.
It is time that leaders of British organisations accepted the same responsibility of any captain of a ship or pilot in the time of war.
Operation Pedestal
World War II: Operation Pedestal-Malta (Full Documentary) (youtube.com)
Compare Rayner with D Healey, considered the finest Sec of Defence since WW2 and D Lammy with E Bevin, considered the finest Secr State For Foreign Affairs since WW2.
It is about character, not class.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
1 month ago

Does anyone really care, apart from the Westminster bubble?
She has designated a house as her main residence for CGT purposes. So what? She is legally allowed to do so…and has done.
Politically she’s one of the few Socialists left in Labour and it certainly needs some.
Btw, and yes it’s nitpicking, the correct word is “flout”, as in rules are flouted, not flaunted which has almost the opposite meaning.

Anthony Loftus
Anthony Loftus
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

I thought the police investigation was concerned with breaches of electoral law.
Apologies for nitpicking.
With respect to the CGT question, which house in the marriage was designated?
Was relief claimed on only one? These socialists and their multiple properties…
And then there is the hypocrisy.

Peter Shevlin
Peter Shevlin
1 month ago
Reply to  Anthony Loftus

You don’t seem to understand english my friend. You were not being accused of nitpicking. Far worse you use words without understanding their meaning. Why should we take any notice of your drivel?

Eleanor Barlow
Eleanor Barlow
1 month ago

Rayner has said she will resign if found to have withheld tax payable on her house. So I think she must be pretty confident there will be nothing for the police to find, otherwise it would be a rash promise to make. She’s probably checked and checked again that she hasn’t broken any rules.
However, we shall see what comes out of the police investigation.

Mark Phillips
Mark Phillips
1 month ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

Does anyone really believe that the Police will investigate properly? They refused once and only took it on after pressure. Now if it was hate speech…

Peter B
Peter B
1 month ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

I think her words (“if found guilty”) actually mean “if I am convicted of a criminal offence”, rather than “if I am guilty of a criminal offence”.
That is not at all the same thing as claiming to be innocent.
Presumably she is betting on not actually being prosecuted. Or bluffing.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter B

It’s the tactics of double(down) or quit.

Haydn Pyatt
Haydn Pyatt
1 month ago
Reply to  Eleanor Barlow

Forget breaking the law or tax rules, it is the moral code that should not be broken. Just because registering in one house but living in another enables the house to remain as your principle private residence doesn’t mean you should do it. If there was no economic advantage in doing it, you wouldn’t register it would you ?

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
1 month ago

For me the depressing aspect of this is the asinine, petty mudslinging by politicians of all parties as our country turns into a decaying wasteland of lost hope and failing services and infrastructure.

The author seems to positively revel in this, rather than focusing on the damage that is occurring to our country while they squabble and bicker over pathetic pettiness.

I completely accept that it matters whether Rayner broke the law or not. But this is not about that at all – it’s about point scoring, and we all know it.

I speak as a former Conservative member and voter when I say that our entire political and administrative class really has become the most disgusting sewer of human detritus.

We need Reform. I for one, shall be voting for it.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 month ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

Is this the same Reform that don’t know if their candidates are alive or dead?
Besides, politics was always like this.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 month ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Is this the potential next deputy PM who doesn’t know either the tax laws ore the electoral laws? One only has to look at all the empty seats in Westminster on some days to wonder IF anyone knows how many MPs are dead or alive. Come to think of it, watching some of them live still makes it difficult to decide.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

The labour Party, from E Bevin to D Lammy, J Callaghan to J Corbyn now D Healey to A Rayner.

Martin M
Martin M
1 month ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

….I say that our entire political and administrative class really has become the most disgusting sewer of human detritus.
Don’t beat about the bush. Tell us what you really think.

denz
denz
1 month ago

Its the stories from the neighbours that interest me.
The “broken window” tale – That a local lad broke one of her windows with a football, and that she went round demanding a large amount of money (£500). Apparently the neighbours’ refusal, lead to Angela repeatedly sitting outside their house in her car with the lights on in an attempt to intimidate them into paying. There is possibly no truth at all in this, on the other hand, it may have happened. You decide.

Hugh MacDiarmid
Hugh MacDiarmid
1 month ago
Reply to  denz

Just taking issue with your “large amount of money”, implying, I think, that Rayner wanted more than the window was worth. A friend recently had to pay over £1000 to replace a cracked pane of glass following a bird strike.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago

What, do they live in a cathedral?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Bird strike suggests it was a Private Jet window.

Martin M
Martin M
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Yes, the friend was the Archbishop of Canterbury.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

Can I have your friend’s email address please? My father, a Prince needs some assistance with getting his money out of Nigeria.

0 0
0 0
1 month ago

That’s not how it’s playing out so far. Rayner’s getting bags of mentions and lots of extra airtime. Her name recognition has shot up as has interest in her. Likes and approvals all up too in most places. So it’s all working for her and for Labour so far.

Should be no surprises here. First, there’s no such thing as bad publicity, especially if you’ve as broad a popular appeal as she does. Plus, the minority who look into the circumstances find her situation sympathetic and the alleged infringement something most people would have done themselves

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago

This is not about a piffling CGT payment alone. She had a 25% discount when she bought the house and to qualify for it had to live in the house for 5 years afterwards. Additionally she will have had a single person’s discount on her council tax as she claims to be the only adult there; similarly her now ex-husband on his house. Apparently her brother was living there so he will have been paying rent which doesn’t sound like it was declared; either that or he received a benefit in kind which is taxable. About that single person’s discount…? It is unlikely he declared that either. Was she “living” there as an MP and claiming expenses for it? Why did she claim grants to have her husband’s house adapted for her disabled son if they were not living there? She has frequently called other’s integrity into question and demanded they reveal their tax affairs but has benefitted from an army of Labour MPs making excuses and obfuscations “the rules are different for us”. It is a disgrace and she should resign.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Your analysis was much more enlightening than the article.

Sheila Smith
Sheila Smith
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

I don’t think she was an MP at the time

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Sheila Smith

No she wasn’t; she moved in with her husband very quickly before she entered parliament. One has to wonder though, why they were previously “living apart” prior to that? What can possibly have changed?
I think she was scamming benefits, tax discounts and, up until 2012, the reduction in the purchase price of her house. I mean; a union representative and member of a party which routinely campaigns against the disaster of selling off council houses! I have, and admire, several very leftie friends that refuse to buy their council houses because they think it is wrong.
Not for Angela do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do..

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

If she was taking full advantage of her situation then not only was she doing what all my life everybody around me has been doing,it’s being working class and using your wits to keep afloat or even get ahead. It also proves she’s smart. Or do you want dumpkoff Tatterdemalion back again who can’t even count how many kids he’s spawned and lives on subs from pals.

glyn harries
glyn harries
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Do you feel so passionate about all the Tories on the make?

Peter B
Peter B
1 month ago
Reply to  glyn harries

Pathetic whataboutery.
Either she’s commited a crime (or crimes) or she hasn’t.
It’s about the law, not the politics.
End of.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  glyn harries

I feel passionately about do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocrites.

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

We all love a good hypocrite.

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago
Reply to  glyn harries

They all want to be Tories on the make but they’re not clever enough. Theyre.scared of Angela because shes smart,as this.proves.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Are you suggesting that the UK tax system is way too complicated?

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago

Yes it is. However I think she knew exactly how the tax, and benefits, system worked in the area which was most pertinent to her needs.

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Well,thank goodness for that. We need administrators who actually.KNOW something and don’t reply in radio interviews(when they even deign to go on the radio) I don’t have those figures on me,they’re back at the office. Remember when Barbara Castle or Michael Heseltine or lovely but bonkers Tony Benn could be asked any random question about the cost of this or that policy and they would immediately answer,”our cost analysis taking into account the level of taxation and comcomittant allowances this policy will raise eighteen thousand four shillings and two and a half pence annually.” For all I know they were making it up as they went along but they sounded knowledgeable! Remember the days when the BBC could virtually SUMMON the Prime Minister or another Minister to be on the Today programme. Now,the occasional back bencher might deign to do a short interview but like I said,all the data will.be “back at the office”.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Well said. It’s the right-to-buy discount that, if proven, is by far the most serious aspect. It’s fraud, a serious criminal offence.
In contrast, there is zero possibility of HMRC prosecuting over her tax affairs, just pay the missing tax plus some penalties for carelessness.

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Mmnah,nah,nah,nah,envy,jealousy. And she’s better looking than you too.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 month ago

If it was a Conservative MP in the crosshairs on this issue good old Angela would be baying for blood

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 month ago

Exactly, another disgusting lefty parasite.
Do as I tell you, but I ignore my own advice.
Dianne Abbott, Tony Blair, Harriet Harman etc were telling us that comprehensive miseducation is great while sending children to private or selective schools.
She is supposed to be lefty but took advantage of Thatcher right to buy?
Complete hypocrite lecturing others.
Obviously, woke rozers will do nothing, like they did nothing about Starmer beer party.

Matt M
Matt M
1 month ago

If they play their cards right, they could remind the public that Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper and her husband Ed Balls flipped three houses to make huge profits in the heyday of the old expenses regime.

Amy Harris
Amy Harris
1 month ago

Anything that can scupper the chance of these maniacs getting into power is welcome. They are authoritarian puppets, serving a sinister agenda coming from foreign powers that openly state they want to undermine and destroy our democratic conventions. They already had a darn good go in 2020, but we fought back. If “Labour” (what a joke of a name – we haven’t had a party that represents the interests of working people since 1997 when Blair’s true colours were revealed after his victory) got into power, it could be curtains for this country. It could take a couple of generations to undo the damage they would do.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 month ago
Reply to  Amy Harris

IF they get into power, it will be curtains for this country by 2030 – that’s when they aim to have completed the destruction oops sorry I meant ‘decarbonisation’ of the Grid.

Martin M
Martin M
1 month ago
Reply to  Amy Harris

But why? Aren’t they “Tory-lite”?

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 month ago

I think the author overestimates the duration and detail of “public memory”.
For those are actually paying attention, at least for a little while we can dine on a delicious dish of Flan Gela.

Micheal MacGabhann
Micheal MacGabhann
1 month ago

Comments confirm that the UH intellectual commentators do fall for clickbait. Pretty low resolution stuff.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 month ago

Leave defender her to Labour’s professionals – mind you they aren’t doing much better than you either.

JOHN KANEFSKY
JOHN KANEFSKY
1 month ago

It’s the hypocrisy, not the quantum of the capital gain or giving the wrong address for voting that’s the issue.
She and her colleagues were demanding that Tories publish their tax affairs.
As always, politicians of all parties want the rules to be observed when its the other side transgressing, but say they don’t matter when its their side.
 if you let off your mates because people you don’t like are worse, then you lose the moral high ground.  It was the same with Starmer’s curry, just because Boris, Cummings and co are ar**eholes, that doesn’t mean what Starmer and co did wasn’t a breach of the rules – it clearly was, as political meetings were expressly ruled out under lockdown.
If Ange hadn’t demanded that Jill Mortimer and Zahawi publish their returns, she could have ridden this out easily, as all agree it wasn’t a biggie; but if you sanctimoniously attack opponents you can’t be surprised when they return fire.
I have no sympathy for any of them, regardless of the colour of their rosette.  All this tribal politics sickens me.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
1 month ago
Reply to  JOHN KANEFSKY

It’s the illegality first, plus the hypocrisy. She may face prosecution for breaking electoral law.

Rachel Taylor
Rachel Taylor
1 month ago

Does anyone imagine, for one minute, that the Labour guardians would let it pass if a Conservative MP were in exactly the same position? The difference is that, in that case, they would have the full and enthusiastic support of the BBC.

edmond van ammers
edmond van ammers
1 month ago

isn’t it better that she’s a capitalist under the skin?
Rather than a true blooded socialist (such as Jacinta Adern), who could turn out to be a wrecking ball.

Martin M
Martin M
1 month ago

I’m not sure that Jacinda (with a “d”) Ardern could be said to be a “true blooded socialist”.

John Howes
John Howes
1 month ago

Hoist by her own petard. Nothing quite as nauseous as an elected Politician who takes advantage of a policy introduced by a Party she despises and describes as scum, amongst other epithets. Then proposing to pull up the drawbridge when in power. It would appear this falls within the purview of class war against her former ‘class’ in which she proudly proclaims her humble origins.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 month ago

It’s great that the police have finished investigating the Tory snouts in the Covid trough and can now turn their attention to Rayner.

Kasandra H
Kasandra H
1 month ago

Same old same old. Come election time everywhere, there will be mudslinging. It’s sad that we’re so gripped by individuals’ lives than their party policies and whether they really do good for the electorate. Not an excuse for Angela but it’s a distraction from our lives and their policies. X

Andy Simpson
Andy Simpson
1 month ago

Not ‘flack’ but ‘flak’ – fliegerabwehrkanone

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy Simpson

Kudos for your flaktivism.

Martin Goodfellow
Martin Goodfellow
1 month ago

Comparing her to Johnson is an unfair, but useful smear tactic. (Notice too, Starmer’s ‘beergate’, from which he was acquitted is also being mentioned, as if he shouldn’t have been.) I’m not a fan of Angela Rayner, but I hope she will be exonerated. Others have got away with much more serious tax fiddles.

Mark Cornish
Mark Cornish
1 month ago

I remember when Jack Straw was Home Secretary and he claimed for his accountant’s fees on parliamentary expenses. He said he didn’t realise that he had done anything wrong and he paid it back. He was the Home Secretary, for Christ’s sake!!! Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law; unless you are the Home Secretary who helps to make them. If he had filed an expenses claim like that for a company, he would have been held to account and probably sacked. It’s called ‘fraud’ and is a criminal offence.

Champagne Socialist
Champagne Socialist
1 month ago

This is the best the Tories and their media lapdogs can manufacture?
They need to be put out of their misery as soon as possible and let Britain move on to the sunny uplands that Labour will deliver.

Martin M
Martin M
1 month ago

It’s like the article says though. If the Tories are indeed doomed (as they well may be), why shouldn’t they drag down Rayner (a leading light of the Left) with one of their final blows? Who could begrudge them?

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago

She is a hypocritical, hectoring, hate-speaking loud-mouth who deserves being subject to her own brand of “justice”.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 month ago

I suspect the Tories know it won’t help them in any significant way, but are going all in on revenge for the ludicrous manner in which Labour leveraged Partygate for all it was worth simply because it was the only means by which they could deal with the stubborn and enduring popularity of Boris Johnson.

Partygate was a political assassination, nothing more. So is this. Both are/were nasty, dirty politics that are of no benefit to democracy. But whatever the rights and wrongs of it, Rayner can hardly claim unfair treatment.

Matthew Freedman
Matthew Freedman
1 month ago

It’s a pity angela rayner has got herself into this mess. The rules are too complicated. I think if you move out of your only home and you temporarily move in with a partner and let out that previous home you should have decent leeway until its called an investment, At moment in 9 months of moving out you will have to pay capital gains tax which is too soon. As for her using the right to buy, it’s a symptom of ludicrous homes prices. I do think local authorities should be given the power to stop the right to buy in their domain.

jane baker
jane baker
1 month ago

Angela for Prime Minister. I love her. I want her running the country. NOBODY could do worse now. Even I couldn’t run the country worse. I work cheap too. I was brought up on the Give All Your Money to Jesus mantra so I’ll do it for one meal a day and the occasional trip to Paris. So what? Practically EVERYONE I KNOW has done all that stuff,or would if they could. I was unlucky in belonging to an “all property is theft head of household” home. But why would you not buy your Council House so the next tenant can and get all “your ” profit. Especially if you’ve lived there 20+ years and you want your adult kids to have it or the money off selling it. It’s like the old lady who sells her rundown country cottage to them wealthy Londoners for a million quid not to Wayne + Stacey for a few thou. Because she knows they’ll sell it to them wealthy Londoners and got all that money AND her local council will refuse her,the old lady,care services because they will say she deliberately (what’s the term) got rid of or didn’t take care of assets. They do that. Everyone I KNOW buys their Council house if they can,lives in it the required time,does it up,and sells it on. But the days of the huge profits are over. And lots of people are on the electoral roll at two addresses. I’ve often wondered if that means you can vote twice. I bet you can,lol.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
29 days ago
Reply to  jane baker

Top comment. You run the country and I’ll be your editor.
We’ll do it all for Jesus.