UK General Election 2024

[TheSmiths82]

Police to take no further action over Angela Rayner housing allegations


Greater Manchester Police is taking no further action over allegations concerning Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner's living arrangements before she was an MP.

Questions had been raised over whether she owed tax on a house she sold in 2015, and if she registered to vote at the correct address.

She had promised to step down if she was found to have committed a criminal offence, and insisted she had followed the rules at all times.

Greater Manchester Police launched an investigation earlier this month into whether "any offences have been committed". The force has not said exactly what it has been investigating.


BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69063295

I am glad this has been resolved before the election, I always thought this is was a none story planted by the Tories, but if the investigated had gone the other way it would have been damaging. This removes any doubt.

 

[Howardh]

There would probably be a few hundred million saved from admin costs, although its not clear how big IHT admin costs are.

It represents less than 0.7% of government tax receipts.
There is likely scope for increasing gambling, tobacco or similar duties, and obviously the fiscal drag from not raising income tax thresholds would make it good pretty quickly.

On a large scale, we could knock a couple of percent off national insurance and put it onto income tax instead. Which would be a move towards the abolition of National Insurance, which probably needs to happen anyway.

That wouldn't go down well with the senior vote! they/we have already paid income tax and national insurance all our lives, and suddenly (despite the threshold promised to be level with the state pension) we would have to pay extra tax on other pensions/interest/dividends? No thanks!!

But I agree, if you lower NI then the balance has to be found somewhere otherwise income tax has to be raised. I'm all for a "luxury tax" on expensive goods where cheaper alternatives are available, jewelry, huge TV's, big cars etc. Thinking if someone can afford a £2000 (inc VAT) state-of-the-art TV, they can afford another £250 luxury tax on top.

 

[dgl]

Angela Rayner not getting in trouble will really annoy the Conservatives, two failed attempts to get Labour in trouble with the police and both times nothings come of it.

 

[Howardh]

Angela Rayner not getting in trouble will really annoy the Conservatives, two failed attempts to get Labour in trouble with the police and both times nothings come of it.

Especially on Dan Hodges, the "reporter" from one of the daily rags! Oh, dear, not the best day he's ever had. He's the one writing article after article about her, there's a perfume out called "obsession"!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Angela Rayner not getting in trouble will really annoy the Conservatives, two failed attempts to get Labour in trouble with the police and both times nothings come of it.

She might still have questions to answer to the local authority on payment of council tax (Stockport MBC).
But there will be no criminal charges.
Throughout all this, southerners might wonder how on earth houses can be bought and sold for less than £100K...

 

[NeilCr]

She might still have questions to answer to the local authority on payment of council tax (Stockport MBC).
But there will be no criminal charges.
Throughout all this, southerners might wonder how on earth houses can be bought and sold for less than £100K...

“A spokesperson for Stockport council said it had “reviewed and responded to all correspondence relating to this matter”, including from police, adding: “We have also concluded that no further action will be taken on behalf of the council.””

Source Guardian

 

[nw1]

Angela Rayner not getting in trouble will really annoy the Conservatives, two failed attempts to get Labour in trouble with the police and both times nothings come of it.

By contrast I wonder how James "102" Daly will do in his seat?

Will people admire his instigation of the investigation into Rayner or will it backfire on him?

He will not be a happy bunny, I suspect.

 

[HSTEd]

That wouldn't go down well with the senior vote! they/we have already paid income tax and national insurance all our lives, and suddenly (despite the threshold promised to be level with the state pension) we would have to pay extra tax on other pensions/interest/dividends? No thanks!!

Well the senior vote's desire to vote itself ever greater supplies of free money is one of the major reasons we are in the mess we are in now!

But I agree, if you lower NI then the balance has to be found somewhere otherwise income tax has to be raised. I'm all for a "luxury tax" on expensive goods where cheaper alternatives are available, jewelry, huge TV's, big cars etc. Thinking if someone can afford a £2000 (inc VAT) state-of-the-art TV, they can afford another £250 luxury tax on top.

Very few people are paying £2000 for TVs these days. You will normally run out of space in our rabbit hutch housing before you get that big now!

And creating a luxury tax just creates yet another enormous bureaucracy that will raise almost nothing!
We have to reduce the number of taxes, not just create new ones to slap on whatever we don't like this instant.

If you want a duty to raise to abolish inheritance tax, doubling VED would do it.

 

[Gloster]

It is a good thing that the accusations against Rayner have been so comprehensively settled, as they appear to have been, close to the election. Otherwise you either get it going on throughout the election period causing an unjustified element of distrust against her and Labour. Or it is settled well before, but by the time of the election a few hints can get those who hadn’t been paying attention to misremember everything and imagine something that never happened, “Didn’t she steal somebody’s house and sell it for beer at a party?”

I presume that now the Hate Mail will be demanding an investigation into the woke, Labour-loving Greater Manchester Police, HMRC, Stockport Council, Keir Starmer, Andy Burnham, Uncle Tom Cobbley, etc. They are probably trying to decide whether to report it in four lines on page 43 just below an advert for gift packs of pre-loved Werther’s Originals or splash all the accusations over the front page again and only mention at the bottom of the second part of the article squeezed in below one on the joys of line dancing holidays in Tehran that she has been found [ink blot].

 

[Howardh]

Well the senior vote's desire to vote itself ever greater supplies of free money is one of the major reasons we are in the mess we are in now!

I assume you have no intention of ever becoming "senior"?!

 

[HSTEd]

I assume you have no intention of ever becoming "senior"?!

I don't expect to be provided a pension generous enough to seriously deplete the state finances, nor do I expect to be alive to draw it for very long.

The triple lock, preferential tax regime for pensioners and a comparatively early state pension age will crumble from exposure to the reality of exponential growth before I am in a position to draw a state pension.

 

[BrianW]

I am glad this has been resolved before the election, I always thought this is was a none story planted by the Tories, but if the investigated had gone the other way it would have been damaging. This removes any doubt.

So that's the Angela Rayner 'issue' out of the way; Jeremy Corbyn (75 y.o. this week) resolved matters for himself; Diane Abbott next? IIUC, Ms Abbott will be 71 in five years time. Many MPs standing down this year are younger than that. Ageism ought not to be an issue- I warm to the thought that I may have acquired wisdom over my many years. I also grow tired more readily. I hear it said that folk get more conservative (small c?) over time- many Conservative spokespeople seem to believe the votes of the senior citizen can be bought, while the future 18 y.o. conscripts may also win votes.

James Daly will also find ways of burying bad news. Many new candidates (of which there will be many) with no 'personal popularity vote' to call upon. Many new boundaries with parts of 'old' constituencies to canvass. Quite a lot of skeletons to be hidden in cupboards and buried bodies to be exhumed?
What does it mean to be a Socialist / 'Conservative'? How many tribes? How much tribalism? Only five and a bit weeks to go now ...

 

[dgl]

Headlines tomorrow could certainly be interesting, wonder if Labour will be gunning for some apologies?

 

[Howardh]

I don't expect to be provided a pension generous enough to seriously deplete the state finances, nor do I expect to be alive to draw it for very long.

The triple lock and such will crumble from exposure to the reality of exponential growth before I am in a position to draw a state pension.

I'm looking after myself (hence not putting much strain on the NHS so not depleting "state finances" where plenty of people lot younger do - some due to a totally unhealthy lifestyle) and hope to have a very long life*, and the majority of my income comes form money I put aside before retiring, including national insurance!

*Unless dementia hits me early, in which case pull the plug.

That being said, I feel genuinely sorry for tomorrow's twenty-somethings, they do their conscription and then have a life ahead of them with work where there's little chance of even a moderate retirement. If I were a teen now, I would imagine the rest of my life would be under depression, and not even the opportunity to move abroad now.

 

[najaB]

I would imagine the rest of my life would be under depression, and not even the opportunity to move abroad now.

The opportunity is still there, it's just more difficult than it used to be (or has to be).

 

[jfollows]

The opportunity is still there, it's just more difficult than it used to be (or has to be).

I think it’s just different, many things are better now but some are worse. That’s life!

 

[BrianW]

Shadow Transport Secretary Louise Haigh interviewed for quite along time on the Radio 4 'PM' programme this evening- not one question to her about Labour Transport Policy; all about Rachel Reeves' 'pledges regarding taxation'. I hope Ms Haigh may have things to hear regarding Transport.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm looking after myself (hence not putting much strain on the NHS so not depleting "state finances" where plenty of people lot younger do - some due to a totally unhealthy lifestyle) and hope to have a very long life*, and the majority of my income comes form money I put aside before retiring, including national insurance!

The cold blooded truth is that healthy people will deplete the state finances to a much greater degree than unhealthy people will do.
Because unhealthy people will not be around to draw the state pension for decades.

Regardless, the reality is that national insurance was not envisaged to provide a pension system anywhere near as generous as the one we have.
Pensioners now have significantly lower poverty levels than the general population and this trend is going to increase drastically over time.

I can't see any reason why state pensions should be guaranteed to always increase (or at worst remain static) in real terms, and why pensioners should be guaranteed income that always grows as fast or fater than the working population that pays for all this.
You might be able to make an argument for a wage peg or price peg for the pension, but the triple lock is economically insane and has generated massive intergenerational resentment that will only worsen over time.

Furthermore, I can't really see why pensioners should receive a preferential tax treatment. Income should be Income.

We've now reached the situation where a party overwhelmingly reliant on pensioner votes is openly demanding that the young be compelled to provide billions of pounds of unpaid labour every year to benefit the "community" (which is increasingly a code for "to benefit pensioners").

 

[najaB]

The cold blooded truth is that healthy people will deplete the state finances to a much greater degree than unhealthy people will do.
Because unhealthy people will not be around to draw the state pension for decades.

That depends. The people who will put the greatest strain on the public finances are those who are "healthy enough" to impose costs on the NHS, without dying quickly.

 

[Howardh]

That depends. The people who will put the greatest strain on the public finances are those who are "healthy enough" to impose costs on the NHS, without dying quickly.

A lot of the visits to my doctor are regular tests, such as diabetes and postrate cancer, so that they can detect something early so the cost now prevents a much greater cost later.

Basically if we concentrated on prevention at source, and the prime example being dentistry where so few NHS dentists are available that children and adults are getting rotten teeth which then have to be removed, at expense, often by an NHS hospital, but also applies to the rest of our bodies, it might cost more up front but the savings come later by keeping people healthy.

How to pay for this? A tax on unhealthy foods and drinks that contain excessive sugar/salt etc??? Might concentrate a few minds/wallets and save a few teeth/prevent diabetes at least?? Personally speaking I buy zero-sugar drinks whenever I can, yet they are the same price as those that would pass as a Tate & Lyle factory!!

 

[HSTEd]

How to pay for this? A tax on unhealthy foods and drinks that contain excessive sugar/salt etc??? Might concentrate a few minds/wallets and save a few teeth/prevent diabetes at least?? Personally speaking I buy zero-sugar drinks whenever I can, yet they are the same price as those that would pass as a Tate & Lyle factory!!

We have a sugar tax.

Most soft drinks reformulated to be just below the sugar tax requirement.
Coca Cola did not, and thus original/"proper" Coca Cola is more expensive than diet Coca Cola/Coke Zero.

And ultimately, it makes very little difference to consumption.
Paying 10-15p extra on a can of coca cola costs me about £50 a year or something.

These taxes are popular with policy wonks because they love the nudge theory, and to model people as unfeeling economic automata, but they don't really work that well in reality.
They are also a nightmare to implement and lead to massive evasion.

 

[bahnause]

I assume you have no intention of ever becoming "senior"?!

Pensioner poverty has halved in the last 25 years, child poverty is at record levels. Future generations are already cutting back their pension contributions due to the high cost of living. They are renting longer and house ownership becomes more and more a dream. This announced scheme buys votes, it does not solve the most pressing problems. It is reckless and selfish.

 

[AlterEgo]

Pensioner poverty has halved in the last 25 years, child poverty is at record levels. Future generations are already cutting back their pension contributions due to the high cost of living. They are renting longer and house ownership becomes more and more a dream. This announced scheme buys votes, it does not solve the most pressing problems. It is reckless and selfish.

Well put. The political settlement at the moment is set up to funnel money from young working people to a generation who had the best political settlement any generation has ever had in this country. This election marks the beginning of the decline of the boomer vote.

 

[The Ham]

That being said, I feel genuinely sorry for tomorrow's twenty-somethings, they do their conscription and then have a life ahead of them with work where there's little chance of even a moderate retirement. If I were a teen now, I would imagine the rest of my life would be under depression, and not even the opportunity to move abroad now.

I'm starting to wonder, should we just go with net zero migration and then once the population is small enough everybody just move to New Zealand through a merging of counties.

(No I'm not serious, before anyone thought I was)

 

[jfollows]

I'm starting to wonder, should we just go with net zero migration and then once the population is small enough everybody just move to New Zealand through a merging of counties.

(No I'm not serious, before anyone thought I was)

I thought that was the policy of Reform UK.

 

[nw1]

I thought that was the policy of Reform UK.

Reform wouldn't want New Zealanders moving here though. In their eyes, they're foreigners, and therefore, not welcome.

 

[The Ham]

I thought that was the policy of Reform UK.

No, they have a policy of absolute zero immigration, if not smaller.

 

[Snow1964]

Well put. The political settlement at the moment is set up to funnel money from young working people to a generation who had the best political settlement any generation has ever had in this country. This election marks the beginning of the decline of the boomer vote.

I agree, this is a tax pensioners grandchildren more, to pay for bigger pensions that current pensioners didn't save up for whilst working.

That wouldn't go down well with the senior vote! they/we have already paid income tax and national insurance all our lives, and suddenly (despite the threshold promised to be level with the state pension) we would have to pay extra tax on other pensions/interest/dividends? No thanks!!

This statement is false as don't pay NI when reach state pension age, (and schoolchildren also don't pay NI) so a pensioner can't claim to be paying NI for all their life.

No one likes paying tax, but if you want NHS and services etc, have to. I have looked it up and back in 1990 only 36% of pensioners paid tax, has been rising and is now 64% and increasing by around 2-3% per year.

 

[jfollows]

This statement is false as don't pay NI when reach state pension age, (and schoolchildren also don't pay NI) so a pensioner can't claim to be paying NI for all their life.

Actually you don’t pay NI on any pension income, and you can start taking income from a pension from 10 years below state pension age (with some exceptions like police which allow it even earlier).

 

[JonathanH]

Actually you don’t pay NI on any pension income, and you can start taking income from a pension from 10 years below state pension age (with some exceptions like police which allow it even earlier).

Some 'ordinary' people retain the right to take occupational pensions from age 50 where they had an unqualified right under the rules of their pension scheme before 2003 when the law changed to do so.