New Labour Leader

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

13 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

 

 

 

 

 

I thought I read that they had, perhaps it was the police enquiry which has been re-opened.

In any case, because it was a while ago and beyond the limits of investigation and because it was not a big sum of tax, a review might not be appropriate.

"Once an enquiry has been opened into your tax affairs, the HMRC have 4 years from the end of the tax year concerned to issue a discovery assessment.

If they can show that a loss of tax has been brought about carelessly or deliberately (i.e. dishonestly) by the taxpayer or his agent, then they can issue a “discovery assessment” for the missing tax. 

The rules about discovery assessments are complicated, but basically, the normal four year period is extended to six years where the taxpayer has been dishonest."

The rules are different for big business fraud.

I had thought it seven for individuals and dumped my books after this time-lapse, but rules change, and it is a complicated affair as stated above.

Also:  

"Homeowners have to pay capital gains tax after they have sold a home that has increased in value – but they are exempt if it is their main full-time residence. Substantial improvement costs can also be deducted from a homeowner’s CGT bill.

Married couples who both have individual properties can only have one main residence between them under tax law."

Google.

Yer do yer Googling and yer takes yer pick.

Also:

The fact that it is a small amount pales into insignificance when pensioners are reportedly threatened with prison or other penalties when they fail to pay their television licence.

No one has suggested an HMRC enquiry. Other than perhaps the Daily Mail but HMRC won't listen to them. Even Wikipedia has banned them as a source. 

Yes, married couples can only select one property for CGT purposes but crucially they don't actually have to live in it. That means that there is little or no possibility of Rayner having to pay CGT although her husband (ex?) may now have to when he sells his house. 

Discovery assessments can be issued up to 20 years after the relevant year end if the behaviour that led to the alleged offence was deliberate. If the offence was careless the time limit is 6 years. Proving that someone's behaviour was deliberate is extremely difficult. In this case HMRC would need to have documentary evidence that she knew that she was committing an offence. 

It should also be considered that she probably didn't submit a Tax Return in that year. That would mean any offence would be failure to notify chargeability as opposed to making an incorrect Return. 

Perhaps most importantly, if HMRC spent time on enquiries into £1,500 the country would go broke. 

[BroadstairsR 2,185]

21 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

Yes, married couples can only select one property for CGT purposes but crucially they don't actually have to live in it. That means that there is little or no possibility of Rayner having to pay CGT although her husband (ex?) may now have to when he sells his house. 

 

I really don't get how her husband can possibly be involved in this matter with regards HMCE if his name was not on the deeds of his wife's council house.

Besides:

"Independent taxation means that spouses and civil partners are taxed separately on their income and capital gains. The effect is that both have their own allowances, savings and basic rate tax bands for income tax, annual exemption for capital gains tax purposes and are responsible for their own tax affairs."

Now I know that to be a fact, despite needing to Google to state as such.

Edited April 16 by BroadstairsR

[Herman 9,796]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

@littleyellowbirdie

Flatly deny stuff that's blatantly true. Wow! 

Johnson's problem was that he lied to Parliament about Covid parties and Pincher. He resigned because his own party forced him to. Those are the extremely major facts that you have ignored (actually you've gone one step further and changed the facts). 

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I haven't commented on the Robinson case because I have no knowledge of it whatsoever. 

Don't worry, they're not in the slightest bit linked. It's simple whataboutery. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

I really don't get how her husband can possibly be involved in this matter with regards HMCE if his name was not on the deeds of his wife's council house.

Besides:

"Independent taxation means that spouses and civil partners are taxed separately on their income and capital gains. The effect is that both have their own allowances, savings and basic rate tax bands for income tax, annual exemption for capital gains tax purposes and are responsible for their own tax affairs."

Now I know that to be a fact, despite needing to Google to state as such.

I'm afraid you're wrong. A married couple can only nominate one property as their main residence for CGT purposes. This is from the official HMRC manual. I assume this part of the legislation is to stop the avoidance of GGT on 2nd homes by married couples, but that is only my assumption. 

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg64525#:~:text=If when they marry or,or the date of registration

 

[BroadstairsR 2,185]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm afraid you're wrong. A married couple can only nominate one property as their main residence for CGT purposes. This is from the official HMRC manual. I assume this part of the legislation is to stop the avoidance of GGT on 2nd homes by married couples, but that is only my assumption. 

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg64525#:~:text=If when they marry or,or the date of registration

 

This is like walking through mud.

Raynor nominated her ex-council house as her main residence. Her husband did not. Why should he if he presumably never lived there? He had his own house.

It is nothing to do with her husband's tax affairs. You have highlighted a completely different matter which is probably concerned with joint ownership of another property or properties as a business concern and therefore for joint income which each must declare separately (not possible) or as a jointly run, registered business in its own right (most likely.) ie. a property business in their joint name(s.)

For this particular married couple this was obviously not the case as he/she did not benefit from any income such as rental, and this was clearly never their intention. Raynor never rented out her ex-council house to my knowledge.

(The voting register matter is also another issue.)

I note that you completely by-pass the Independent taxation law, which I will repeat in greater depth, using Google for convenience:-

"The Finance Act 1988 introduced radical changes to the taxation of husbands and wives including, in particular, the separate taxation of their income and chargeable gains. The new regime is known as Independent Taxation and applies for 1990-91 and subsequent years."

I'll repeat, Raynor's ex-council house was never treated as a business, neither by her nor by them as a couple. She may have been subject to CGT on the profit from the sale, but she claims that the advice she received, which she has withheld, suggested otherwise.

Edited April 16 by BroadstairsR

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

33 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

This is like walking through mud.

Raynor nominated her ex-council house as her main residence. Her husband did not. Why should he if he presumably never lived there? He had his own house.

It is nothing to do with her husband's tax affairs. You have highlighted a completely different matter which is concerned with joint ownership of another property or properties as a business concern and therefore for joint income which each must declare separately (not possible) or as a jointly run, registered business in its own right (most likely.) ie. a property business in their joint name(s.)

For this particular married couple this was obviously not the case as he/she did not benefit from any income such as rental, and this was clearly never their intention. Raynor never rented out her ex-council house to my knowledge.

(The voting register matter is also another issue.)

I note that you completely by-pass the Independent taxation law, which I will repeat in greater depth, using Google for convenience:-

"The Finance Act 1988 introduced radical changes to the taxation of husbands and wives including, in particular, the separate taxation of their income and chargeable gains. The new regime is known as Independent Taxation and applies for 1990-91 and subsequent years."

I'll repeat, Raynor's ex-council house was never treated as a business, neither by her nor by them as a couple. She may have been subject to CGT on the profit from the sale, but she claims that the advice she received suggested otherwise.

Sorry you feel like you're walking through mud. I've given you the HMRC guidance but if you don't like that have a look at S222(6)TGA1992.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/12/section/222/enacted

A married couple can only have one property for the purpose of main residence and CGT. 

This is how I made my living for 42 years. Please stop arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about. You are completely out of your depth as is the Daily Mail. 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,185]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry you feel like you're walking through mud. I've given you the HMRC guidance but if you don't like that have a look at S222(6)TGA1992.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/12/section/222/enacted

A married couple can only have one property for the purpose of main residence and CGT. 

This is how I made my living for 42 years. Please stop arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about. You are completely out of your depth as is the Daily Mail. 

 

Then why do you bring her husband into the matter when nobody else has?

How is it known that he claimed the ex-council house as his/their main residence as his spouse did, when as far as is known he has never resided there?

At what property would he then be registered to vote?

What has the Daily Mail got to do with it?

I will ignore your veiled insult, as such things seem commonplace on here.

I won't enquire as to how you have made your money, but if you are an accountant or tax inspector dealing in these matters I will give way. But please explain in more detail why I should, perhaps by clarifying the above, and I have genuinely read your latest reference and tried to unravel it in relation to this matter.

 

 

 

Edited April 16 by BroadstairsR

[KiwiScot 1,459]

8 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

His own party forced Johnson to stand down after he blatantly lied to Parliament about the Chris Pincher affair. It had nothing to do with cake. The Pincher matter was not investigated by the police. 

Julius Casear - I came, I saw, I conquered.

Boris Johnson - There were no parties. They were not parties. They were parties, but I thought they were not parties.

Edited April 16 by KiwiScot

[Barbe bleu 829]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry you feel like you're walking through mud. I've given you the HMRC guidance but if you don't like that have a look at S222(6)TGA1992.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/12/section/222/enacted

A married couple can only have one property for the purpose of main residence and CGT. 

I think  there is probably nuance to be added to what you are saying. The rules say that a married couple can only have one CGT exempt property between them and that they can nominate which one of the two or more that is.  If that were the end of it then rayner is probably OK.  But the following bits complicate it a bit.   He must agree with what she nominates, and both must be used by them as dwellings, I'm not sure about the first qualifier but the other is now in dispute 

 

"If when they marry or register as civil partners they each own a residence and---- they continue to use both as residences-----, they can ---jointly--- nominate which is to be treated as the main residence. "

Edited April 16 by Barbe bleu

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

14 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Then why do you bring her husband into the matter when nobody else has?

How is it known that he claimed the ex-council house as his/their main residence as his spouse did, when as far as is known he has never resided there?

At what property would he then be registered to vote?

What has the Daily Mail got to do with it?

I will ignore your veiled insult, as such things seem commonplace on here.

I won't enquire as to how you have made your money, but if you are an accountant or tax inspector dealing in these matters I will give way. But please explain in more detail why I should, perhaps by clarifying the above, and I have genuinely read your latest reference and tried to unravel it in relation to this matter.

 

 

 

Sorry, but because of the law her husband (or is it ex husband?) is involved whether he likes it or not. For the purpose of CGT and main residence I'm afraid Independent Taxation doesn't apply. The media have chosen to ignore his unwitting but important involvement, perhaps because it doesn't fit their agenda of portraying Rayner as a tax cheat. 

I mention the Daily Mail in particular because they have been consistently running with this as a front page story. One headline read "Proof that Angela Rayner lied!" I read that story and it wasn't proof of anything. Unfortunately other news outlets have picked up the story and run with it, ignoring the fact that the Mail has such a poor record with facts that Wikipedia won't  allow them to be used as a source. Even this week they have been forced to apologise to the C of E over a story about the man involved in an acid attack who went on to kill himself. 

I'm afraid I can't help with registering to vote. The tax legislation refers only to CGT and the rules don't necessarily apply across the board.

It may be that the electoral address is a problem for Rayner. If I had to guess I'd say that she delayed selling the house to avoid problems with the discount she received when she bought it, although it is equally possible she simply kept it in case the marriage didn't work. Someone gave her tax advice at the time but whoever that was provided tax advice, not legal advice on property ownership in general. That's not the advisers problem though is it? It's Rayner's problem and it may come back to bite her. 

In general, I'm surprised this story has attracted so much attention but the right wing media hate Rayner in much the same way as The Guardian hates Braverman. Starmer uses her to keep the left wing of his party happy in much the same way as Sunak uses Braverman. In both cases it's coming back to bite them. 

I'm partly guilty because I must admit I found it highly amusing that the public school educated Rabb and Johnson were absolutely terrified of a teenage single mother from a northern council estate when they had to face her at the dispatch box. Perhaps the right wing media disliked her because it seemed she enjoyed their discomfort. But bearing in mind what has happened in this country in the last 6 years this shouldn't be front page news. The fact that it is sums up just how bad things are for the Conservative Party. 

Edited April 17 by dylanisabaddog

[BroadstairsR 2,185]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry, but because of the law her husband (or is it ex husband?) is involved whether he likes it or not. For the purpose of CGT and main residence I'm afraid Independent Taxation doesn't apply. The media have chosen to ignore his unwitting but important involvement, perhaps because it doesn't fit their agenda of portraying Rayner as a tax cheat. 

I mention the Daily Mail in particular because they have been consistently running with this as a front page story. One headline read "Proof that Angela Rayner lied!" I read that story and it wasn't proof of anything. Unfortunately other news outlets have picked up the story and run with it, ignoring the fact that the Mail has such a poor record with facts that Wikipedia won't  allow them to be used as a source. Even this week they have been forced to apologise to the C of E over a story about the man involved in an acid attack who went on to kill himself. 

I'm afraid I can't help with registering to vote. The tax legislation refers only to CGT and the rules don't necessarily apply across the board.

It may be that the electoral address is a problem for Rayner. If I had to guess I'd say that she delayed selling the house to avoid problems with the discount she received when she bought it, although it is equally possible she simply kept it in case the marriage didn't work. Someone gave her tax advice at the time but whoever that was provided tax advice, not legal advice on property ownership in general. That's not the advisers problem though is it? It's Rayner's problem and it may come back to bite her. 

In general, I'm surprised this story has attracted so much attention but the right wing media hate Rayner in much the same way as The Guardian hates Braverman. Starmer uses her to keep the left wing of his party happy in much the same way as Sunak uses Braverman. In both cases it's coming back to bite them. 

I'm partly guilty because I must admit I found it highly amusing that the public school educated Rabb and Johnson were absolutely terrified of a teenage single mother from a northern council estate when they had to face her at the dispatch box. Perhaps the right wing media disliked her because it seemed she enjoyed their discomfort. But bearing in mind what has happened in this country in the last 6 years this shouldn't be front page news. The fact that it is sums up just how bad things are for the Conservative Party. 

Thanks for that.

I apologise for continuing further, but it is getting interesting and opens my eyes to the situation my wife and I were in when we sold our hotel twenty odd years ago.

(I rarely read the Daily Mail, and ignore the political hubbub.)

When you say Independent Taxation doesn't apply to the 'Raynor' couple, are you assuming that they didn't apply for this with form CG11S?

I reference the HMRC website.

"If, before 6 July in the year following the year of assessment, a husband or wife applied on form CG11S for separate assessment, the chargeable gains of each spouse were to be dealt with for Capital Gains Tax purposes as if the person concerned was not married."

The reason I ask is that we must have signed this (along with others many years ago) at the advice of our accountant, who himself needed further advice.

We both had subsequent and separate interests.

I remember it being a minefield of intricate legislation, and being out of one's depth was an understatement.

As for Raynor, she may have been as well and it perhaps explains her silence.

 

 

Edited April 17 by BroadstairsR

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

41 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Thanks for that.

I apologise for continuing further, but it is getting interesting and opens my eyes to the situation my wife and I were in when we sold our hotel twenty odd years ago.

(I rarely read the Daily Mail, and ignore the political hubbub.)

When you say Independent Taxation doesn't apply to the 'Raynor' couple, are you assuming that they didn't apply for this with form CG11S?

I reference the HMRC website.

"If, before 6 July in the year following the year of assessment, a husband or wife applied on form CG11S for separate assessment, the chargeable gains of each spouse were to be dealt with for Capital Gains Tax purposes as if the person concerned was not married."

The reason I ask is that we must have signed this (along with others many years ago) at the advice of our accountant, who himself needed further advice.

We both had subsequent and separate interests.

I remember it being a minefield of intricate legislation, and being out of one's depth was an understatement.

As for Raynor, she may have been as well and it perhaps explains her silence.

 

 

Separate Assessment was a form of independent taxation before the introduction around 1990 of what is now called Independent Taxation. I hope that makes sense. It was horrendously complicated but the CG form you refer to became redundant over 30 years ago. There was also something called a Wife's Earnings Election and from memory it was possible to do both. If a client decided on both their accountant would sob quietly in the toilet for half an hour before throwing themselves off the roof. 

Although Independent Taxation started 30 years ago there were certain exceptions. One of those was the CGT main residence exemption. If husband and wife had been able to elect different residences every married couple with 2 homes (North Norfolk springs to mind) would have avoided CGT on the second home. That would have been expensive. 

As regards Rayner, I suspect she worried about the rules on selling a council house she'd purchased at a reduced price and the CGT problem. She took advice but a tax planner can't and won't advise on non tax matters other than to encourage people to consider other implications. No one would have thought about the electoral roll. 

We've no idea what she is alleged to have done. If she used the wrong address on electoral forms she's been silly but if I was her I'd use security as the reason. She and her children are permanently under threat and it would be difficult to argue with.

About a year ago I thought I had found the perfect Labour candidate for South Norfolk it's not in my gift by the way but she would have been perfect). She thought about it and did some research and eventually said no because she was worried about the safety of her children. That was nothing to do with Labour, she would have taken the same view if she was Conservative. That's awful isn't it? We need more women in the Labour Party and the one I know would have made an excellent MP. 

[Barbe bleu 829]

7 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

I'd be interested in your take on this. I'm not tax lawyer but the statute and advice you linked to suggested that she would have been entitled to the CGT impcaton of the sale if two things applied:

1) the couple used both properties as a 'home' and that they nominated this one as their single main residence. They could not nominate as their home an empty property or one rented out to a third party

2) both positively assented to that status.  

Does this seem right?

Edited April 17 by Barbe bleu

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

It gets deeper. Now saying she claimed single persons council tax rate when she lived at home with her brother. Twelve cops are now investigating her affaires

[Herman 9,796]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

It gets deeper. Now saying she claimed single persons council tax rate when she lived at home with her brother. Twelve cops are now investigating her affaires

I bet many people have done that. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

12 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'd be interested in your take on this. I'm not tax lawyer but the statute and advice you linked to suggested that she would have been entitled to the CGT impcaton of the sale if two things applied:

1) the couple used both properties as a 'home' and that they nominated this one as their single main residence. They could not nominate as their home an empty property or one rented out to a third party

2) both positively assented to that status.  

Does this seem right?

S222(6) TCGA92 sets out that spouses or civil partners who are living together can only have one main residence between them for the purpose of private residence relief. If when they marry or register as civil partners they each own a residence and they continue to use both as residences, they can jointly nominate which is to be treated as the main residence. The two year period for making the nomination commences on the date of marriage or the date of registration.

1. The word 'home' isn't used in the legislation or HMRC guidance. In the widest sense of the legislation the only requirement is that one of them spends a night in the 2nd home. 

2. A nomination needs to be made within 2 years of the marriage. I don't know for sure but HMRC may accept the address used on a Tax Return as a nomination. She claims to have taken advice so it seems reasonable to assume it was done properly. 

In general HMRC is relaxed about this legislation. As long as they get CGT on one of the 2 properties they won't be particularly interested.

Someone has said that Rayner has now been accused of incorrectly claiming single person reduction on her council tax. I've no idea if that accusation has been made or if it's true. Quite frankly I wouldn't believe anything I read about her at the moment but I'm surprised that the Conservatives are still throwing mud around. She was an electoral liability before this all started and Starmer would be quietly pleased if she is forced to resign. 

I was astonished to hear Sunak bring the matter up at PMQ'S yesterday. Bearing in mind his personal circumstances he would be better advised to shut up. 

Edited April 18 by dylanisabaddog

[Herman 9,796]

This is real sleaze. Maybe the tory voters would like to comment on this.

 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,423]

10 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

It gets deeper. Now saying she claimed single persons council tax rate when she lived at home with her brother. Twelve cops are now investigating her affaires

Yes I read that. What a waste of resources.

[A Load of Squit 5,186]

20 minutes ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

Yes I read that. What a waste of resources.

She's also being investigated for;

Being in possession of a northern accent.

Walking on the cracks in the pavement.

Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing.

Coughing without due care and attention.

Wearing bright clothes in a built up area after 11PM.

 

Just lock her up and throw away the key, it'll save us all time.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

This is real sleaze. Maybe the tory voters would like to comment on this.

 

Wrong thread. This is about Labour

[Herman 9,796]

50 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Wrong thread. This is about Labour

I thought it would help you to compare and contrast. What do you think? 

[A Load of Squit 5,186]

29 minutes ago, Herman said:

I thought it would help you to compare and contrast. What do you think? 

Maybe you're being too harsh.

This poor bloke's only been on circa £80k plus very generous expenses for 14 years, how was he to know that it would be prudent to put away some cash for that 'rainy day/kidnapped by some wrong uns' moment we're all likely to encounter.

 

[Well b back 3,238]

15 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

It gets deeper. Now saying she claimed single persons council tax rate when she lived at home with her brother. Twelve cops are now investigating her affaires

I guess you are pointing the finger of guilt towards her, before any investigation is concluded, so an absoloute genuine question, if my assumption is correct, why is it that you consider a man who is accused of multiple crimes, including fraud and rape, to definitely be innocent, even though his investigations have concluded he should stand trial ?. The political argument thing I don’t think is a good answer as her case is definitely politically motivated.

Its amazing, as I have told my MP, that I and approximately 15 others in my area have been burgled, yet the police have no manpower to investigate the perpetrator even though the area knows who it is, yet they can throw manpower at this on the word of a Conservative MP.

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

Saw this in the Independent. There are some sensible Tory (ex) MPs.

Senior former Conservative figures have also defended the MP. Nick Boles, who was an MP for nine years, said the attacks were “one of the most grotesque spectacles of hypocrisy I have ever witnessed”, while former Conservative MP Matthew Parris condemned what he called “the hounding” of the Labour MP, dubbing it “outrageous: brutal, snobbish and completely out of proportion to any mistake she may (or may not) have made”.

Former regional chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal also said that “based on what’s in the public domain”, the CPS would take no action against Ms Rayner.

Sir Keir has previously welcomed the police investigation into Ms Rayner’s council house sale and said it will allow a “line to be drawn” on the issue.

A number of legal experts have pointed out that even if Ms Rayner were found to have provided false information, it is unlikely any further action would be taken.

Scott Wortley, a law lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, says that any potential prosecution should have been launched within a year of the suspected crime.

Edited April 18 by Yellow Fever

[A Load of Squit 5,186]

21 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Saw this in the Independent. Thee are some sensible Tory (ex) MPs.

Senior former Conservative figures have also defended the MP. Nick Boles, who was an MP for nine years, said the attacks were “one of the most grotesque spectacles of hypocrisy I have ever witnessed”, while former Conservative MP Matthew Parris condemned what he called “the hounding” of the Labour MP, dubbing it “outrageous: brutal, snobbish and completely out of proportion to any mistake she may (or may not) have made”.

Former regional chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal also said that “based on what’s in the public domain”, the CPS would take no action against Ms Rayner.

Sir Keir has previously welcomed the police investigation into Ms Rayner’s council house sale and said it will allow a “line to be drawn” on the issue.

A number of legal experts have pointed out that even if Ms Rayner were found to have provided false information, it is unlikely any further action would be taken.

Scott Wortley, a law lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, says that any potential prosecution should have been launched within a year of the suspected crime.

This all may be true but one of her neighbours told a Tory politician that she put her bins out on the wrong day and he's written to GMP demanding a SWAT team descend on her.

 

[Nuff Said 5,149]

11 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

This all may be true but one of her neighbours told a Tory politician that she put her bins out on the wrong day and he's written to GMP demanding a SWAT team descend on her.

 

I think the important thing is that the SWAT team is accompanied by a crack team of Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express reporters who document the operation on their front cover and several pages inside for weeks.

[Nuff Said 5,149]

4 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Wrong thread. This is about Labour

If you want to be pedantic, and you clearly do, this thread is about Keir Starmer. So none of the discussion about Angela Rayner is valid.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

I thought it would help you to compare and contrast. What do you think? 

i think on the Labour thread it's whataboutery. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

54 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

If you want to be pedantic, and you clearly do, this thread is about Keir Starmer. So none of the discussion about Angela Rayner is valid.

If i was being pedantic i would agree that angela raynor deserves her own thread, but it's not me attempting to shutdown discussion by deflection or pedantry. So there, chubby chops.

[Herman 9,796]

33 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

i think on the Labour thread it's whataboutery. 

I would never think of such a thing. Here's agreat song to bring it back to being about Angela.