Profile incomplete
10:08 AM, 1st March 2024, About 2 months ago 19
Text Size
Well, well, well, if it isn’t my old friend, the Ashton-under-Lyne foghorn Angela Rayner making headlines this week and turning uncharacteristically shy about her antics.
Angela is the deputy leader of the Labour Party and the shadow housing secretary. She is also a former council house tenant who bought her home under the right-to-buy scheme (not from a Labour-run council, natch) and sold it for a hefty profit.
But she doesn’t want other tenants to do the same because she wants to end the right-to-buy policy that gave millions of people a chance to own their own home and build their wealth.
Angela claims to be a champion of the working class and likes to tell her story of how she became a single mother at 16, left school with no qualifications, and worked as a care worker before entering politics.
She says we need more people like her in politics.
To an extent, I agree. There’s no doubt that we need MPs who have overcome adversity and achieved success through hard work and determination.
But what we don’t need are hypocrites who say one thing and do another. We also don’t need people who exploit the system for their own benefit and then deny others the same opportunity.
The British public doesn’t need people who preach about morality and fairness and then act in what appears to be an immoral and unfair way.
Let’s look at the facts. Angela bought her former council house in Stockport in 2007 with a 25% discount and sold it in 2015 for £127,500, making a £48,500 profit.
There is nothing wrong with that since she had every right to buy and sell her home as she pleased.
But the problem is that she opposes the right-to-buy policy that allowed her to do so.
She thinks it is immoral for councils to sell off their properties and she thinks it is wrong for tenants to buy their homes and sell them for a profit.
She has said it’s unfair for people to benefit from the country’s largest transfer of wealth.
I think she is clearly wrong. The right-to-buy policy, introduced by Margaret Thatcher in 1980, was a revolutionary reform that empowered millions of people to become homeowners.
It gave them a stake in society, a sense of pride and responsibility, and a source of security and inheritance.
It also generated billions of pounds in revenue for councils to invest in new and improved housing.
But our Angela doesn’t see it that way. She wants to scrap the right-to-buy policy and stop tenants from buying their homes.
She wants to keep them trapped in the rental sector, paying rent to the state or to private landlords, with no hope of ever owning their own property.
She wants to deny them the freedom and the financial security that she enjoyed herself.
Angela also needs to answer some serious questions about her own conduct. It has been reported that she gave two different addresses in official documents before becoming an MP.
She was registered to vote at her former council house but re-registered the births of her two youngest children at another address, where her husband was also listed.
Neighbours claim that she moved out of her council house in 2009 and rented it out to her brother. If true, this raises several issues:
Angela needs to come clean and provide clear and honest answers to these questions. She cannot hide behind excuses or blame others for misunderstanding the rules – and don’t believe anyone who says she has made a simple mistake. She hasn’t.
Angela has been quick enough to criticise other people for breaking the rules, such as Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson. She cannot expect to be treated differently.
To be honest, I don’t care whether Angela organises her affairs to save tax or has more than one home. That is her business.
But I do care when she criticises other people for doing the same. That is hypocrisy.
And I do care when she tries to stop other people from buying their council houses.
Angela needs to stop being a hypocrite and start being a leader.
She needs to admit that the right-to-buy policy is a good idea and support it. Or she needs to resign.
She also needs to lay off landlords in the PRS striving to home people.
And as Tory MP Jonathan Gullis says: “Angela Rayner has questions to answer. If she has nothing to hide, she should have nothing to fear.”
While silence is golden when it comes to our Angela, the next chapter that could feature the police AND HMRC taking an interest in what happened and whether relevant taxes weren’t paid is just too delicious to miss.
Until next time,
The Landlord Crusader
Beaver
16:36 PM, 2nd March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Stella at 02/03/2024 - 13:09
Being entitled to have the right to buy is one thing. But why should you have to the right to buy the biggest asset you’ll ever buy at a discount when you weren’t paying the market rate for renting it in the first place?
Right to buy at an enormous discount is very different to having the right to buy at an independent market valuation.
And if Ms. Rayner got a 25% discount and didn’t obey the rules (it’s supposed to be your home for 5 years) then she ought to pay the discount back.
Neil Robb
8:14 AM, 28th March 2024, About 2 months ago
It should be easy to prove if Rayner let out house to brother . Chances are he paid money into bank to his sister. If that happened.
Buying council house but moved out after two years is breach of right to buy rule and discount should be repaid.
Who paid council tax in property and was it discounted. To single person rate.
Not only did Angela Rayner buy and benefit so did her husband.
I am sure labour if not Angela Rayner had a lot to say when it came out MPs selling second homes making huge profits . When the properties where funded by government funds for their constituency homes.
Capital gains tax .
Income tax
Council tax
Why did her husband buy at discount was this before she did.
When they already had a home they then denied others.
Beaver
9:33 AM, 28th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Neil Robb at 28/03/2024 - 08:14
Into a Bank? I doubt that. I think the chances are that he paid cash. 🙂
Angela Rayner will have known what the rules for purchase of a council house were because it will have been explained to her at the time that it had to be her main home for 5 years. My best bet is that she paid the Council Tax and her brother paid her cash.
NewYorkie
9:57 AM, 28th March 2024, About 2 months ago
With sleight of hand like this, she'll be in line for the Chancellor job in Starmer's government reshuffle.
After 'curry-gate' and now this, Labour will be relieved to know many of the Police forces are on board with them, when all the skeletons in the cupboard start to come out when in government.
Beaver
11:39 AM, 28th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 28/03/2024 - 09:57I think the fact that she put her brother into the property means that she knew what the rules were and knew that she could bend them by not living there herself, but paying the council tax in her name, leaving the utility bills in her name and probably leaving her bank statements registered there. So all that talk about getting her for non-payment of CGT is not going anywhere, and the police and HMRC will know that.
I think it is also entirely possible that she did not completely understand HMRC CGT rules as many people do not; but even if she bent them, this long after the event HMRC will know that their chances of pursuing that are minimal. She probably has not technically broken the law, but even if she has the chances of prosecution are probably negligible.
The rules are the rules but they can be bent. Lots of MPs flipped their houses to avoid paying CGT. Labour politicians have spent a lot of time bashing Boris Johnson for claiming to not know the rules on Partygate for example, attacking landlords and vilifying non-doms and the people they consider to be tax-evaders.
What this episode shows is that Angela Rayner is probably no better than anybody else.
JamesB
10:08 AM, 29th March 2024, About 2 months ago
The tax and benefit questions are completely fair and should be fully answered. I was on the receiving end of an HMRC CGT investigation after selling 2 properties in the same tax year, both of which had been my main residences for different periods.over the many years that I had owned them. I had to find and produce quite a trail of old documents to prove what was actually completely honest CGT reporting on my part and it was quite a stressful and time consuming process. It seems like she needs to do the same please so that everybody can relax and know that everything she did was above board, seeing as she has put herself out there to be a leader.
Beaver
9:47 AM, 30th March 2024, About 2 months ago
Reply to the comment left by JamesB at 29/03/2024 - 10:08
So I’m a small portfolio landlord, I also run a small business and the last time I sold a buy to let property I could have done what all those MPs did and ‘flip’ the property to avoid paying tax. But I didn’t, I declared the capital gain and paid the CGT. So I agree with you entirely. The question is, whether they can prove it that she evaded tax. And as the test they use is normally, are you paying the utility bills, are your bank statements going there, and are you paying the council tax then I doubt this investigation is going anywhere.
She will have put a family member in for a reason.
NewYorkie
10:21 AM, 30th March 2024, About 2 months ago
She knew exactly what she was doing, and will have all the paperwork in her name. Whether she actually lived there will be seen as hearsay, and the police and Labour council will be looking for any opportunity to close it down.
If they can ignore 'curry gate' when there was plenty of evidence, they will definitely ignore this one, and she's shameless enough to just brazen it out.
Beaver
14:11 PM, 2nd April 2024, About a month ago
Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 30/03/2024 - 10:21
I think that's correct: Even if somebody asked for evidence the she had her bank statements registered there and was paying Council tax she probably doesn't even have to produce it because it's so long after the event. If the bank, the council or the utility companies had any evidence this long after the event they probably can't even produce it because they'd be breaching her data protection rights if they did it. She probably doesn't have to do any more than *say* I paid the council tax, my bank statements were registered there and I paid the utility bills.
But that doesn't mean to say she didn't bend the rules; she will have had a family member in there for a reason.