Angela Rayner is a scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite.

AGAA4

Why this attack on Angela Rayner when there are other MPs who have done much worse being investigated by the police?

I do wonder.
But it is no surprise, as soon as Rayner was reinstated in the cabinet I knew the knives would be out.
Very predictable and tedious already.

And as I pointed out, the Ministerial code refers very specifically to a serious breach which:

a) Laurie Magnus did not find and
b) that she was in breach at all is disputed by her legal counsel.

What Magnus said, after deliberating for less than 48 hours, after Rayner referred herself, was:

I believe Ms Rayner has acted with integrity and with a dedicated and exemplary commitment to public service. I consider, however, that her unfortunate failure to settle her SDLT liability at the correct level, coupled with the fact that this was established only following intensive public scrutiny, leads me to advise you that, in relation to this matter, she cannot be considered to have met the “highest possible standards of proper conduct” as envisaged by the Code. Accordingly, it is with deep regret that I must advise you that in these circumstances, I consider the Code to have been breached.

Magnus is not a tax specialist.

I am very familiar with the tax laws surrounding trusts, how complicated those are and how it would be entirely feasible for her have been advised wrongly.

Most importantly HMRC did not find Rayner to have been careless.

Why is Dorries kicking off about this as the law about Ministers over the age of 65 not receiving severance pay dates from 1991?

BM. The rules are if the Minister serves less than six months, returns to a paid role within three months, or commits a serious breach of conduct then the severance pay must be returned. None of those apply.

She does not have to repay the money whatever a bunch of hack journalists say.

Fallingstar

AGAA4

Why this attack on Angela Rayner when there are other MPs who have done much worse being investigated by the police?

I do wonder.
But it is no surprise, as soon as Rayner was reinstated in the cabinet I knew the knives would be out.
Very predictable and tedious already.

You should have been there for the famous "Angela Raynor Trouser suit thread". ....chosen to attack the new Labour Govt straight off.

She’s keeping it because the rules say she’s entitled to it.
End of story.

And must not return in a green trouser suit!

Graphite

Thanks for the clarification on the terms relating to severance payments, I didn't know those clauses already existed.

A handcrafted with love green trouser suit shaped badge will be awarded to the first to correctly remember who started that thread. 🧑‍🎤

I can't remember. Lucky me 😁

She’s got nice hair.🙂

Probably the same type of person who would comment cruelly on what Mrs Burnham was wearing the other day.

I actually saw an article in the Daily Mail yesterday of Andy Burnham, with a price tag attached to each item of clothing he was wearing. I think it’s expected that he should wear a hair shirt - and his wife, perhaps a two years old dress from Primark. As for Angela, that would be too good for her, she’s only worth bobbly trackie bottoms and a leopard print Lycra top, think Bet Lynch -or maybe one stencilled. ‘ I took the severance pay and will be damned - but stuff the lot of them’

I thought Mrs B looked good. She's highly intelligent too.

There may not be a legal requirement to pay the money back, but it would have been a graceful and tactically astute move to do so.

By not paying it back, it will damage her future political career because she is showing herself to be as cloth eared as people like Starmer in failing to see that she and the party she belongs to are showing themselves up to as being as personally greedy as the members of any other party, when they grab everything free that comes their way.

It will alsoenforce the general opinion of her, after the housing tax debacle, as being financially untrustworthy

Michael Gove and Grant Shapps, to name but two, both did exactly the same as Rayner, in fact the only person I’m aware of who returned the severance money when he was appointed into government again was Rishi Sunak. Where was the outcry then M0nica?

Liz Truss took severance pay.

She received £18,660 in 2022 after resigning from her 49-day tenure as Prime Minister.

I f you want to view the trouser suit thread just enter

Angela Raynor Trouser Suit

into the gransnet search engine.

Bet Rayner doesn’t have time to write 1000 words a day on her latest novel in the way Dorries did when she was a MP; too busy working hard doing her proper job.

Rules are rules.

A huge fuss was made over Rayner's council house sale when it was always glaringly obvious here was nothing to see - as HMRC confirmed.

There is a lot more to the SDLT case than the media can be bothered to report in its fervour to discredit Rayner, not least that Graham Aaronson KC has said, and shown evidence to HMRC, that she received definitive advice that the standard rate of tax applied. It is said to involve a complex chain of correspondence. The leading case law is clear that you can rely on professional advice. The documents have not been released to the public but HMRC has seen them and confirmed that she was not careless.

Why should someone have to repay money that was paid to them legally just because the media, with its usually bias, clamours for them to do so? I would argue in this case that the decision that she had breached the ministerial code was made with undue haste precisely because of the media clamour.

We have just seen a Prime Minister resign after two years of unrelenting media attack. Are we really going to let unqualified hacks and embittered former MPs (who don’t seem to know the rules themselves) decide what should and shouldn’t happen?

WHY is she entitled to it?
She lost her job because Sir Laurie Magnus was asked to investigate her conduct concerning the complex use of funds from the sale of part of her house and the trust fund for her disabled son, and her failure to pay the correct amount of tax owing. He wrote:

"Her unfortunate of failure to settle her SDLT liability at the correct level, coupled with the fact that this was established only following intense public scrutiny, leads me to advise you that in matters relating to this matter she cannot be considered to have met the highest possible standards of proper conduct as envisaged by the code. Accordingly it is with deep regret that I inform you that in these circumstances, the code has been breached".
She claimed to have been given the wrong advice, which was swiftly refuted by the estate agent and legal firm dealing with the sale, and therefore had no option but to resign.This is the third time the sale of property which she owned has needed to be investigated for tax purposes.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the perfectly correct investigation into Farage's financial affairs; he is not part of the present government.
This is entirely a matter for the Labour party, and Burnham's decision to reappoint Rayner to the same position is a gross misjudgement; echoes of Starmer and Mandelson. Having to leave a post because of a failure to maintain the highest standards of conduct is a stinging indictment of any MP; refusing to return £17,000 severance pay when she has been reappointed is reprehensible.
It is insulting that a woman of such poor moral character is deemed fit to hold office. One really wonders why.

AGAA4

😲 Don't mention the green .....

You can mention it but only if you post a photograph of yourself so we can -gossip about discuss your styling and post it all over the Internet and the trash press.

Please read the public documents related to this.

Magnus made his decision in under 48 hours, a decision that was not based on all the available information and which has been disputed by Rayner's lawyer.

How many times do I have to say that HMRC has seen the documents and found that she was not careless?

If Magnus was wrong then resigning her ministerial post was unnecessary, in which case she would have received considerably more in salary for the last ten months than she received in severance pay.

People seem to let their irrational dislike of someone cloud the legal aspects of a case.

Magnus described her as acting with integrity and with a dedicated and exemplary commitment to public service.

Primrose53

So says Nadine Dorries who did hand back her severance pay of approx £17,000 whilst AR is refusing to give hers back. ND was given hers by mistake as those over 65 are not entitled to it but she did give it back.

This has been covered in all the papers and TV channels and I have yet to hear anybody say AR deserves to keep it.

That is factually accurate in broad terms, but it omits the important context that Dorries' payment was an ineligible payment made in error, whereas Rayner's payment was one she was entitled to under the applicable rules.

It's not just about rules though. Not everything is black or white, there are grey areasn

As MOnica says it would have faired better for her regardless of her being exonerated, if she had been humbled by the fiasco. Been gracious and acknowledged that she had made an error of judgement To regain a sense of trust especially in high office would have served her better. She appeared smug and entitled, not a good look and the electorate deserves better.

Plevey08

As MOnica says it would have faired better for her regardless of her being exonerated, if she had been humbled by the fiasco. Been gracious and acknowledged that she had made an error of judgement To regain a sense of trust especially in high office would have served her better. She appeared smug and entitled, not a good look and the electorate deserves better.

I agree with you and Monica 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻