|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 2, 2024 14:12:43 GMT
But I also doubt Starmer wanted to let a feud with his Deputy Leader dominate the news - the existence of one perhaps more salient with the broader voting public than the future of Diane Abbott. He's going to have to wipe Rayner out when he's in power. For that reason I suspect that the CGT issue has only been temporarily been put away. You’re suggesting that should he form a government he tells HMRC both to reopen the matter and set aside all precedents? Wow! I’m pretty sure who would be the loser should that be tried. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306 
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Jun 2, 2024 14:16:57 GMT
I feel that trying that may be the one thing that would spark revolt in the PLP. If she did something criminal there's no way they would rally round her. Of course the dog's sleeping for now. Indeed, but I would consider that's not Starmer "doing" anything there and it would be out of his control anyways (and if uses his DPP connections to force an enquiry on a fellow Labour MP, they're both out). |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jun 2, 2024 14:22:41 GMT
He's going to have to wipe Rayner out when he's in power. For that reason I suspect that the CGT issue has only been temporarily been put away. You’re suggesting that should he form a government he tells HMRC both to reopen the matter and set aside all precedents? Wow! I’m pretty sure who would be the loser should that be tried. It really isn't all precedents. She didn't pay CGT on a rental home, and the unwillingness to publish the tax advice points to her not falling under the rather restrictive exceptions - admittedly probably through ignorance rather than malice. And reopening what seemed to be closed tax enquiries before getting to the commissioner stage is routine. Perhaps it shouldn't be and taxpayers should have more certainty, but that's not the country we live in. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jun 2, 2024 14:24:04 GMT
If she did something criminal there's no way they would rally round her. Of course the dog's sleeping for now. Indeed, but I would consider that's not Starmer "doing" anything there and it would be out of his control anyways (and if uses his DPP connections to force an enquiry on a fellow Labour MP, they're both out). Enemies lists rarely work that explicitly |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 2, 2024 14:27:29 GMT
I'm afraid that right is revealing themselves as a total crank in this thread - it is genuinely embarrassing to see. Apart from anything else, there is literally zero evidence that the Tories didn't "properly run" in Batley and Spen. They were 95% (if not more) confident of winning, and their candidate had his victory speech well rehearsed. Falling short was a genuine shock to them (just see the coverage of the result on here at the time) and was in retrospect an early sign that Johnson wasn't after all electorally invincible. As for the deranged batsh***ery of claiming Starmer was "really guilty" over partygate, or that Rayner has somehow got away with outright criminality (despite her being fully exonerated by literally *everyone* involved) and the even more insane idea that Starmer knows this and will "expose" her once he is PM - all I can say is put down the crack pipe sir. This is the pretty much the equivalent of people in Hitler's bunker thinking FDR's death was "divine providence" that would save them. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 2, 2024 14:28:25 GMT
At the moment I'm more likely to believe something if it's printed in The Sun than The Times, how a once mighty paper has fallen. Stick to the Mirror where you can study the opinions of Stormy Daniels. That too was once a newspaper. As was the Express. While much diminished The Times remains one where some serious journalism survives and differing opinions can be , and are , expressed.
Sorry, I've always preferred the Sunday Sport for page turning news and views.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 2, 2024 14:29:53 GMT
But is it 'Her' decision when driven by the fervour of those half her age with no health issues or conception of what that even means! Of course everyone urging her to step down, only does so from a deeply felt concern for her wellbeing. I don’t think many are thinking that hard about her well-being on either side. The facts are as Davıd Boothroyd has put them. It would be wrong to think that that’s the main driver behind those seeking to get her to stand down but it’s undoubtedly the case that, should she stand, she may well be limited in her workrate. Those urging her to run again may not understand that she’s nearly 71 and in poor health. But some do and nevertheless promote her standing as “a blow to Starmer” or a blow for some views she has expressed in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 2, 2024 14:49:52 GMT
You’re suggesting that should he form a government he tells HMRC both to reopen the matter and set aside all precedents? Wow! I’m pretty sure who would be the loser should that be tried. It really isn't all precedents. She didn't pay CGT on a rental home, and the unwillingness to publish the tax advice points to her not falling under the rather restrictive exceptions - admittedly probably through ignorance rather than malice. And reopening what seemed to be closed tax enquiries before getting to the commissioner stage is routine. Perhaps it shouldn't be and taxpayers should have more certainty, but that's not the country we live in. I’m glad to say on this matter that I’m no expert but you’ve presumably considered the time since the relevant return was produced and the powers available for investigation for more distant enquires? I’m not sure why she should need to disclose private tax advice? I think you have anyway misinterpreted how Rayner’s and other remarks worked. Starmer attempted to distance himself from the suspension and later steps. I accept that those outside the process may well have been sceptical about that distance. However as far as I know he neither pronounced on what he wanted from the suspension and investigation, nor did he remark on his preferences for an eventual outcome. People have assumed they knew what that preference was (and they may well be right) and have suggested decisions had been made at various points but he has been careful what he said himself. When I saw Rayner’s remarks I presumed that she’d spoken with his agreement as a steer to the next steps in this rather sad process since he couldn’t say anything himself without compromising his previous position of distance. Where we appear to be is that it’s up to Abbott but she’s had some advice and offers. |
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 2, 2024 14:52:55 GMT
True. People urging her to stand are probably more concerned with sticking it to Starmer than with her health. Many people citing her health concerns have been trying to get rid of her for years.
Politics is often dirty; one of the reasons it’s strictly a spectator sport for me.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786
|
Post by john07 on Jun 2, 2024 15:01:20 GMT
You’re suggesting that should he form a government he tells HMRC both to reopen the matter and set aside all precedents? Wow! I’m pretty sure who would be the loser should that be tried. It really isn't all precedents. She didn't pay CGT on a rental home, and the unwillingness to publish the tax advice points to her not falling under the rather restrictive exceptions - admittedly probably through ignorance rather than malice. This has been considered once and rejected. Then a few Tories started blithering about and got the case reopened and again it was rejected. How many more ‘reinvestigations’ are to be expected? I suspect a few old saddos will still be blithering about this in five years time |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jun 2, 2024 15:20:43 GMT
I'm afraid that right is revealing themselves as a total crank in this thread - it is genuinely embarrassing to see. Apart from anything else, there is literally zero evidence that the Tories didn't "properly run" in Batley and Spen. They were 95% (if not more) confident of winning, and their candidate had his victory speech well rehearsed. Falling short was a genuine shock to them (just see the coverage of the result on here at the time) and was in retrospect an early sign that Johnson wasn't after all electorally invincible. As for the deranged batsh***ery of claiming Starmer was "really guilty" over partygate, or that Rayner has somehow got away with outright criminality (despite her being fully exonerated by literally *everyone* involved) and the even more insane idea that Starmer knows this and will "expose" her once he is PM - all I can say is put down the crack pipe sir. This is the pretty much the equivalent of people in Hitler's bunker thinking FDR's death was "divine providence" that would save them. At the time Labour posters were pointing out that the Tory campaign was seen as low key though vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1124536And the Tories were hardly pulling out the stops vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1121245The feeling was that Boris was in his pomp (he'd just won Hartlepool although had been lashed by Chesham) and Starmer was useless. Cummings said that this is why they thought they didn't need him and Cain, Starmer was so useless. If you base your strategy on the uselessness of a particular opponent and then he goes, that puts your strategy at risk. Starmer doesn't look so useless now, but it really looks like it's the tide rather than the boat that should be credited with this. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jun 2, 2024 15:25:48 GMT
It really isn't all precedents. She didn't pay CGT on a rental home, and the unwillingness to publish the tax advice points to her not falling under the rather restrictive exceptions - admittedly probably through ignorance rather than malice. And reopening what seemed to be closed tax enquiries before getting to the commissioner stage is routine. Perhaps it shouldn't be and taxpayers should have more certainty, but that's not the country we live in. I’m glad to say on this matter that I’m no expert but you’ve presumably considered the time since the relevant return was produced and the powers available for investigation for more distant enquires? I’m not sure why she should need to disclose private tax advice?
I think you have anyway misinterpreted how Rayner’s and other remarks worked. Starmer attempted to distance himself from the suspension and later steps. I accept that those outside the process may well have been sceptical about that distance. However as far as I know he neither pronounced on what he wanted from the suspension and investigation, nor did he remark on his preferences for an eventual outcome. People have assumed they knew what that preference was (and they may well be right) and have suggested decisions had been made at various points but he has been careful what he said himself. When I saw Rayner’s remarks I presumed that she’d spoken with his agreement as a steer to the next steps in this rather sad process since he couldn’t say anything himself without compromising his previous position of distance. Where we appear to be is that it’s up to Abbott but she’s had some advice and offers. She'd demand that for any Tory, and if she'd got a clean bill of health then she'd have released it - she doesn't strike me as someone who takes any confidentiality principles as being more serious than her career. This stinks, although if I was in HMRC I'd not want to be responsible for any serious upset to an incoming government. If Rayner had simply said "this is a mistake any one could make in a complex area that seems simple, sorry and here's the £10,000" then this would have stopped - and it couldn't have been reopened. As she's left it, it can be reopened either as a threat or an way of getting her out of the way. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786
|
Post by john07 on Jun 2, 2024 15:26:44 GMT
I'm afraid that right is revealing themselves as a total crank in this thread - it is genuinely embarrassing to see. In this thread? You may not been paying attention elsewhere? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 2, 2024 15:37:15 GMT
The weakness always catches one out. Once they see the weakness they keep pushing like teenagers do. Be firm and never relent. There is no need even to be fair as long as one is consistent. There was more up side and more votes in just blocking the old bag altogether. It annoyed that small minority on the left and nobody else at all in Britain. Now he has made himself look weak, childish, inconsistent and lacking in courage and made her look much better than she is. He is now all square with Rishi on the incompetence and poor politics scoreboard for this election. And he was doing so well with a quite admirable and successful purge. It reminded me of the 19 Boris late purge. But Boris cocked up that purge too and did not go all out for the Remainer jugular : And thus one plank of his later problems. Could be the same for 'Keith'! For me the worse part is that it has made him look foolish, he got played be Diane Abbott of all people. The flaw in the "restore the whip on the understanding she won't run" was obvious for all to see yet somehow he didn't. Once the whip was restored he was trapped, he had lost his rationale for not letting her stand and had no good way out of the mess he created. I think that the “on the condition she doesn’t stand again” thing was invented by a journalist who simply assumed that such an agreement had been reached, and was copied by other media, without any condition ever having been decided by Starmer or by the NEC. Nevertheless it was a failure of Starmer’s leadership that it wasn’t clarified and clearly understood by everybody before the announcement was made. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jun 2, 2024 16:00:07 GMT
For me the worse part is that it has made him look foolish, he got played be Diane Abbott of all people. The flaw in the "restore the whip on the understanding she won't run" was obvious for all to see yet somehow he didn't. Once the whip was restored he was trapped, he had lost his rationale for not letting her stand and had no good way out of the mess he created. I think that the “on the condition she doesn’t stand again” thing was invented by a journalist who simply assumed that such an agreement had been reached, and was copied by other media, without any condition ever having been decided by Starmer or by the NEC. Nevertheless it was a failure of Starmer’s leadership that it wasn’t clarified and clearly understood by everybody before the announcement was made. Perhaps, these things happen But it would have been more likely (and more natural) to check The balance seems to be that this was briefed either reflecting the deal or pressuring Abbott to take it There's no way they would have kept her suspended for all those months (under quite a lot of pressure) if they didn't want her eased out |
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 2, 2024 16:38:59 GMT
I'm afraid that right is revealing themselves as a total crank in this thread - it is genuinely embarrassing to see. Apart from anything else, there is literally zero evidence that the Tories didn't "properly run" in Batley and Spen. They were 95% (if not more) confident of winning, and their candidate had his victory speech well rehearsed. Falling short was a genuine shock to them (just see the coverage of the result on here at the time) and was in retrospect an early sign that Johnson wasn't after all electorally invincible. As for the deranged batsh***ery of claiming Starmer was "really guilty" over partygate, or that Rayner has somehow got away with outright criminality (despite her being fully exonerated by literally *everyone* involved) and the even more insane idea that Starmer knows this and will "expose" her once he is PM - all I can say is put down the crack pipe sir. This is the pretty much the equivalent of people in Hitler's bunker thinking FDR's death was "divine providence" that would save them. At the time Labour posters were pointing out that the Tory campaign was seen as low key though vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1124536And the Tories were hardly pulling out the stops vote-2012.proboards.com/post/1121245The feeling was that Boris was in his pomp (he'd just won Hartlepool although had been lashed by Chesham) and Starmer was useless. Cummings said that this is why they thought they didn't need him and Cain, Starmer was so useless. If you base your strategy on the uselessness of a particular opponent and then he goes, that puts your strategy at risk. Starmer doesn't look so useless now, but it really looks like it's the tide rather than the boat that should be credited with this. According to the Lib Dem podcast about the Chesham & Amersham by-election, the Tories used their second string squad there, saving their primary by-election team for the B & S by-election. |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,773
|
Post by andrea on Jun 2, 2024 16:58:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by norflondon on Jun 2, 2024 17:01:09 GMT
Hooray!!
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 2, 2024 17:08:24 GMT
Yeah, I never though Abbott would accept a peerage but on the general point of Lords reform/"abolition", Starmer will need to appoint people who are in favour of that policy to the upper chamber in order for them to vote for it as a gang of kamikaze cronies of sorts.
As for health issues, with the official Labour candidacy now seemingly assured and the next Parliament likely to last until Abbott is in her mid-70s, we'll just have to hope she remains reasonably able to represent her constituents throughout that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 2, 2024 17:35:59 GMT
I’m glad to say on this matter that I’m no expert but you’ve presumably considered the time since the relevant return was produced and the powers available for investigation for more distant enquires? I’m not sure why she should need to disclose private tax advice?
I think you have anyway misinterpreted how Rayner’s and other remarks worked. Starmer attempted to distance himself from the suspension and later steps. I accept that those outside the process may well have been sceptical about that distance. However as far as I know he neither pronounced on what he wanted from the suspension and investigation, nor did he remark on his preferences for an eventual outcome. People have assumed they knew what that preference was (and they may well be right) and have suggested decisions had been made at various points but he has been careful what he said himself. When I saw Rayner’s remarks I presumed that she’d spoken with his agreement as a steer to the next steps in this rather sad process since he couldn’t say anything himself without compromising his previous position of distance. Where we appear to be is that it’s up to Abbott but she’s had some advice and offers. She'd demand that for any Tory, and if she'd got a clean bill of health then she'd have released it - she doesn't strike me as someone who takes any confidentiality principles as being more serious than her career. This stinks, although if I was in HMRC I'd not want to be responsible for any serious upset to an incoming government. If Rayner had simply said "this is a mistake any one could make in a complex area that seems simple, sorry and here's the £10,000" then this would have stopped - and it couldn't have been reopened. As she's left it, it can be reopened either as a threat or a way of getting her out of the way. I appreciate that Tories particularly don’t like Rayner. I’m not sure whether it’s her regular employment as an attack dog hinted at here or the ginger growler business but she clearly gets hackles raised. I’ve said before that pursuit of her over this is likely to be counterproductive but I recognise that my advice may not be seen as objective. Let me explain it. Let’s assume that she should have declared a taxable gain back when she sold the property years ago. Most experts looking at the figures place the maximum possible liability at comfortably less than the £10k you kindly volunteered. Let’s set that against a Tory tax issue - Zahawi perhaps? Do you see where pursuing this argument goes? Add to that the perception of her as a working class woman with few advantages and the property in question being an ex-council house - familiar stuff to many ordinary voters. All I can say is if this is seen as a good tactic in the Conservative team, press on. HMRC rather wisely have chosen not to bother for whatever reason (including that they don’t think there’s a liability). We tend not to try and lean on the tax authorities in this country. I must say if I were a Tory strategist I’d stick to that line! Politicisation of the body would of course be generally harmful but I doubt I’m alone in suspecting where more of the consequent discomfort might lie? |
|
