Next general election (2024)

for one year, then it goes back to 3% above RPI

Sorry, Farridge would be Labour deputy PM?

Is that a mis-spelling of Farage or someone in the Labour party, serious question.  I thought it would be the woman who kept crossing her legs in front of Boris triggering his downfall.

It's astonishing how much traction something so trivial has gained - along with the sheer hypocrisy of the Tories on this.

Rayner *might* owe ~£1,500 of CGT from selling her former home after she got married.

Meanwhile, it's only just over a year since Nadim Zahawi (formerly both party chair and Chancellor of the Exchequer) paid a 30% penalty on top of back tax, a total estimated to be nearly five million quid, to settle a dispute with HMRC over deliberate CGT evasion from funnelling YouGov share sales through an offshore trust.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nadhim-zahawi-tax-settlement-penalty-hmrc-b2266163.html

It's the exact same playbook as the "beergate" non-event being hyped to deflect from the Downing Street piss-ups.

well lets see. IF she had simply neglected to pay capital gains tax (which may or may not be due) on the sale of what had been her primary residence prior to some time before she sold it, then I think most people - certainly this one - would look past it. One can have a reasonable interpretation on it that she simply wasn't aware of the rules re. primary and non-primary residence, or misunderstood them, or thought that she had no net gain on which tax would be due. 

If on the other hand she has broken electoral rules by registering to vote where she should not have been, and that helped to back up a story of it remaining her primary residence, and she has been lying about whether she was in fact using it as her primary residence in order to sustain her story, then that is a different ex-council house of fish entirely. 'Cos that is about personal standards of integrity/honesty/decency, living by the rules that are set. Which I'd like to think are important, especially in politicians. And which I thought you thought were important in relation to the mob we currently have in power. 

Why is the fact that someone else has fallen foul of tax rules - albeit it was never stated that he was deliberately avoiding tax - got to do with excusing her. the quantum is almost - but not entirely - irrelevant. 

In fact, one could postulate that as Nadhim's was - IIRC - not considered to be fraudulent, whereas it is increasingly looking like Rayner's might be, that the latter is in fact worse than the first. Just different in scale. 

To me it shows what a mess the tax system is in. Needs vastly simplifying.

I suspect Angela's problem is not so much she broke some rules some years ago when as a lawmaker she ought to conduct her own affairs to the highest standard. No I don't think that's it. Its that she is representing some of the poorest people in the country - they probably don't like to see her talking about which house she was living in. Of course the Tories are often far, far wealthier but they represent different interests.