Angela Rayner has quit Labour, brought low by her failure to pay the right stamp duty on the purchase price of her flat in Hove.
Some will say this is massively damaging for Labour, but compared to failure to end the two-child benefit cap, mismanaging the economy and supporting Israel whilst it commits genocide in Gaza, it seems that this is a political sideshow.
That said, questions arise.
First, how did The Telegraph get this data? This information is not in the public domain. So, who leaked it, and why?
Second, why didn't anyone in Number 10 work out that she owed stamp duty the moment the story broke? Was there really no one there who thought of doing so? Couldn't they have saved considerable embarrassment as a result? Starmer, Streeting and Phillipson have all made themselves look stupid in the last few days because of their failure to do some basic checks, including on the HMRC website.
Third, how and why did Rayner think she got this right without properly checking, which it now becomes clear she did not? Isn't that sufficient to justify her departure in itself? Is someone who does not check their facts suited to high office, come what may?
Fourth, there is a massive issue here for HM Revenue & Customs. It has effectively closed all its interactive engagement with people in communities. It provides almost no support that people need to address their obligations when facing difficult tax decisions that they have to decide upon in real time, and which they are now legally required to get right without tax authority support. Isn't this, in itself, a significant issue that needs to be addressed if the right amount of tax is to be paid in the right place at the right time?
Fifth, where does Starmer go now? If Rayner has quit, how can she stay as Labour leader? Will Starmer face a massive Labour membership revolt if a new deputy leader has to be chosen? This might be the most challenging aspect of all this for him.
And last, why didn't Rayner use her common sense? Did she really think her third home was going to be her main residence? How? For her, the chance of a return to the front bench looks to be very limited indeed.
This is a total mess arising from a lack of judgement that Rayner made for herself and Labour. It's hard to find sympathy for her, however complex the tax system is. If she had been prudent, exercised common sense, and applied a precautionary principle to he actions, all this could have been avoided.
But that said, who did leak the data?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I thought you were so bored by the story?
My university asked me to write some comments so I shared them here.
Erm, sorry to point out this out to you ‘Danial’, but the story has actually changed – although the subtleties of that seem to be beyond you don’t they?
Let’s tell the story of David Lammy!
There does not seem to be much dirt on the internet that I can find. I want all the juicy details.
I know declassified UK had a couple of articles on his donor meetings.
Thanks, Richard, for taking the opportunity once again to call attention to the black hole in the support provided to individual tax payers in the UK.
That is another Labour government failure compared to which her resignation from the Labour front benches is a sideshow.
Thinking about it why isn’t there some sort of assistance provided for MP’s and senior officials so they can get their tax right
Yes, MPs and officials need support in getting right the tax they owe. So do the rest of us. In the meantime, why are tax returns for individuals and companies not made public? Corbyn seems to be a lone MP who has published his tax return, and so far no-one has picked up on anything wrong with it. Let’s have all MPs do the same!
For a northerner with a constituency in the north where she is supposed to keep a residence, and a grace and favour flat in central London, to claim Hove as her primary residence is ridiculous. I know MPs get free first class rail travel, but that is meant to be to go to their constituencies. Commuting to Whitehall from Hove is indefensible in her case
It is time MP expenses were totally rethought. Together with subsidised m.eals and bar in the Houses of Parliament, free travel, and no doubt plenty of other perks not available to common folk. And no flipping of residences or frivolous expense claims. Why should MPs be able to claim heating costs, for example? You should only be heating the home you are actually living in at the time, so it does not make sense to allow this as an expense.
Yes Rayner was foolish, but she is not the only one, she just got caught. The whole MP expenses and other, perks need to be reviewed. If the country cannot afford to allow child benefit for more than 2 kids, or help pensioners stay warm in winter, there is plenty of fat to be trimmed from the members of the Houses of Parliament.
If we want to talk about costs, then we should look at their being too many MPs. And the parliament building is in the wrong location. As we know from the Brexit debacle, in our most valued and treasured Westminster model, an MP neither serves their country, party or constituency. We were told Brexit had to happen to restore trust in politics. That did not happen. Rayner not paying the correct amount of tax is more fuel to the fire.
I d9 nit agree with the idea there are too many MPs.
The demand on them is enormous.
Having lots of MPs is a valuable safeguard. Keeping the dog too fat to be wagged by the tail makes it harder to lead astray. No doubt a far-right government would use rhetoric about efficiency when gerrymandering away the 500 least loyal seats, but that would not be the real game.
Could not a Freedom of Information request have been made?
No
Not in the scope of FoI
Couldn’t agree more!
Whilst Rayner’s problems are a side-show —- it’s not clear there was any better attention being paid to her full-time brief – sufficient and adequate housing is fundamental to so many of the UK’s issues and there seems little progress. There are so many reasons that she should have stepped down on – but the tax one wins. Very Al Capone.
So the telegraph leaked it ….. was the leak from inside Labour? Sinking ship, etc. Isn’t it now novel for the telegraph to represent something correctly these days? Perhaps this success will encourage the same dedication to exposing all tax abuse? Oh, hold on …….
Could it have been from within Labour? Given how abusive it is, the possibility has to be considered.
It is difficult to imagine which faction might benefit from within Labour. If it came from a right winger Rayners resignation is about to boomerang badly on them. There will have to be an election for the post of deputy leader which will air the party’s disagreements in public and probably end up with a left winger in the job, given the current mood of the party. Rayner gave Starmer a lot of support which a new Deputy may well not seek to replicate. Why would someone on the left try to dislodge one of the main standard bearers of the left within the cabinet? I am a great believer in the cock up theory of history and this looks like one of those moments. Will the Labour party learn from this and set up a unit to scrutinise and advise on ministers’ financial affairs and property purchases before they go ahead? This could have been avoided.
Here’s my take.
The Telegraph did more than just leak it, they carefully managed a stagewise leaking, item by item, of what they knew. I have two observations.
>> I saw some of Politics Live early in the week. On the panel was a gentleman from the Telegraph who, early in a discussion on tax, archly pointed out ‘that we haven’t even mentioned Angela Rayner yet’.
His demeanour at the time was very much of the ‘I know something you don’t’ kind, and l began to suspect that this was working up to being able to attack Labour on taxation via a tax breach committed by a senior member.
>> This was confirmed on Any Questions last night, where there was a lady from the Telegraph on the panel who directly linked the awkwardness for the PM of a senior Labour figure ‘dodging tax’ (her words) ‘on the eve of the moment that you are likely to have to break your manifesto promise’ around taxes. Specifically increasing taxes ‘on working people’ via NI, VAT, Income Tax (or all three, just to ramp up the threat). Followed by vague accusations of ‘Champagne Socialism’ and ‘one rule for them, another for us’ among senior Labour figures.
This was mean and nasty politics, very targeted at one issue and one person, approaching it stage by stage, ultimately to skewer a Labour figure and make hay with the aftermath on a favourite topic of the Telegraph section of our press.
Two things:
How, I wonder, did they get hold of such personal and sensitive details of a politician’s dealings. Was it all accessible from the public domain? (Richard’s suggestion of a leak from within Labour might apply here.)
When did our politics get quite so nasty? Or has it always been so? This feels particularly unclean.
Politics has been nasty for as long as I have known it, which is heading for fifty years now.
That is one reason why I dont do party politics.
I think we are heading for an autumn cabinet reshuffle which will include even more fervent right wingery MPs.
Starmer reminds me of the Penguin in wallace and grommit – he never flinches and actually seems blandly friendly, likeable. That is until he acts or appeats tone deaf to the public common sense.
I wonder if MPs meal allowance and other bits they are entitled too outweigh the weekly cost of Universal Credit? I bet some MPs spend a single persons worth of Universal credit in one lunch time.
I think you overestimate the cost of lunch in the HoC – but they are in different worlds
Both food and beverage in the HoC is heavily subsidised by the UK tax payer, along with many other perks available to MPs (travel, heating et al) – meanwhile too many people in this country must rely on food banks. MPs can have a 3 course meal in HoC for a little over £10 and the ‘mains’ on the HoC ‘Members’ Dining Room menu vary between £7.33 and £9.19 – a 125ml glass of wine is between £2.75 and £4.40, with a pint of draught beer between £2.90 and £3.70, and 25ml spirits between £2.55 and £3.60 – coffees cost between £1.10 and £1.30 and tea is £0.60. All of these prices include not just the cost of relevant ingredients, but also restaurant and bar staff costs, and premises overheads. Hunger and food insecurity are significant issues in the UK, affecting millions of adults and children, with recent reports indicating that around 1 in 7 people face hardship and nearly 7.3 million adults experienced food insecurity in early 2025. It is possible that an MP dining away from the HoC, could spend more on one meal (eg at a Gastro Pub or good restaurant) than is received weekly by Universal Credit recipients.
note to Richard (please) drinks prices I quote are for Strangers’ Bar –
Sorry, no pity whatsoever.
We know what is coming anyway and the sooner the better in my opinion, let’s get it over with.
Agree with everything you’ve written.
I’m sure she feels very hard done by, especially as Farage has admitted to having done the same and yet is facing no consequence. But the fact is that she should have known better. If you live in the spotlight like she does, you should be taking extra special care in my opinion.
You were right Prof.
And good point about HMRC they should have a proper functioning advice service.
The report says she got advice from two sources, one of which may have been the conveyancers, it does not say, but the advice she got was not “legal advice” or “Tax advice” in the proper sense, rather a personal opinion with a recommendation/suggestion that she get “proper advice”
Ms Rayner was open about the existence of the Trust and considered that, between
them, the firms advising her had appropriate knowledge and awareness of the details
and circumstances of the Trust;
b) on the basis of the advice she received, Ms Rayner believed that the lower rate of
SDLT would be applicable; indeed she was twice informed in writing that this was the
case; but
c) in those two instances, that advice was qualified by the acknowledgement that it did
not constitute expert tax advice and was accompanied by a suggestion, or in one case
a recommendation, that specific tax advice be obtained; and
d) if such expert tax advice had been received, as it later was, it would likely have
advised her that a higher rate of SDLT was payable
it ends with
“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.”
which seems a fair result to me
Especially when remembers that she got into some difficulties with a CGT issue in property transactions before of which the BBC reported
“Ms Rayner has said she wasn’t aware of this tax rule when she sold the house, adding she “didn’t have an accountant” at the time, and did not get specific advice on the issue.”
Some people never learn, comes to mind
So what is a person who has little capacity to learn from events doing in government? The well-oiled “champagne socialist network”?
My overriding reaction is ‘how could someone in the public eye be both that dumb and that careless?’ It leaves one with even less confidence in the competence of the whole Front Bench — as deputy leader Rayner should be one of the best in the bunch!
I now have even more sympathy for the poor Civil Servants who have to work with these idiots. What use is a First from Oxbridge if you’re being led by complete donkeys?
Strange you should say that about civil servants.
There was one giving evidence to the Gaza Tribunal today, who had been in the foreign office. He said that their work was profoundly concerning, as they were being routinely asked to alter wording to omit challenging information.
They were told to make information on civilian casualties less severe and have conversations in person, not writing anything down that might end up going to court.
I note that Lammy has been moved from foreign office to justice as well as deputy.
It won’t save him. There is personal accountability for all MPs who will be accused of aiding and abetting Israel, whether in office or not.
Huge reshuffle underway. The Government, the Opposition (whomsoever), and the media do not understand why Governments sink, and nothin works. Here are the facts. Eight years after the Brexit vote, and approaching five years after we left the EU, the trade deficit with the EU is £100Bn. That is 4% of GDP. Nothing can come close to fixing that in any near term or even medium term future, and that is a hard fact. At the same time the Migrant boat crisis is directly related to Brexit; because we lost the capacity to process returns by leaving Dublin III Regulations when we left the EU. Brexit has wrecked both the economy and asylum system. The boats only began as a real issue, and expanded fast, after Brexit. That is a hard fact. Who is responsible? The last Conservative Government for a bad Brexit deal, Nigel Farage, because he doesn’t understand Government. He is a spinner of stories. And what do the British people do? They follow Farage; the man who made a bad predicament for Britain far, far worse. If that is what the British people are going to do, roll up the map for ten years. There is nothing to be done. It is a disaster that the British people are clearly dtermined to see through – and suffer the consequences; and they will.
I don’t have undue sympathy for Raynor herself. But I do think her problem stems from a much deeper root tbh. If we collectively as a society ensured that disabled people (such as her son is) are provided with guaranteed financial and physical support throughout the entirety of their lives to enable them to live as fully as they can do, and to contribute back whatever is in their capacity to offer; families such as hers would not need financial complexity such as trusts or other instruments to try and reduce the risk of their children being unable to financially survive the demise of their parents. Then the issue of the trust, the stamp duty and the second home would not have collided so – it would have been a more straightforward two-axis graph of stamp duty on a second home.
The issue of her wanting / needing two ‘homes’ is separate to me whatever her reasons. But I do wish she had worked with others on the left spectrum to pursue disability issues more forcefully to enable better chances for anyone disabled – whether at birth or later in life for any reason.
It would be no surprise to discover the leak to The Telegraph came from McSweeney or one of his lackeys in No10.
I suspect that the suggestion was “floated”. If incorrect it would be shot down in flames and quickly lost but if it could not be denied ……..
“Fourth, there is a massive issue here for HM Revenue & Customs. It has effectively closed all its interactive engagement with people in communities. It provides almost no support that people need to address their obligations when facing difficult tax decisions that they have to decide upon in real time, and which they are now legally required to get right without tax authority support. Isn’t this, in itself, a significant issue that needs to be addressed if the right amount of tax is to be paid in the right place at the right time?”
Being a Yank, it is difficult for me to understand how this underpayment of taxes ever happened in the first place.
In Florida, all bills for *state & local taxes owed at the time of a real estate closing are calculated and prepared by a State of Florida Licensed Title Agent or a licensed attorney endorsed to practice Real Estate Law. In Florida, one is more likely to overpay (for which you will easily get a refund) than underpay taxes due at the time of a real estate closing.
*Footnote: There is no federal real estate tax in the USA.
We have a DIY tax system.
I think the following needs editing “If Rayner has quit, how can she stay as Labour leader? “
Correct.
But the story is already chip paper and I dashed it out during today’s conference.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this situation, how have we got to a place where the left-leaning Deputy Leader of the Labour Party thinks it’s OK to buy a seaside apartment in one of the most desirable locations in the country?
Especially as she is also the minister responsible for housing in a country where there are a lot of people looking for a home.
This might provide Emily Thornbury with an opportunity to challenge Starmer for the leadership.
I suspect Starmer and his circle don’t care about the non payment of tax. What they do care about is Rayner getting caught.
As usual, agree entirely with your comments, Richard.
One additional point concerning HMRC, does anyone imagine that they would ever have identified and resolved this payment shortfall themselves without the media’s assistance. The shortfall may well have been accidental, albeit careless in this case, but there are plenty of bad actors more than happy to take advantage of the investigative vacuum which HMRC represent across the full range of their responsibilities. I’ve not seen anyone seek a comment from HMRC on this.
John A wrote “The whole MP expenses and other, perks need to be reviewed.” Indeed John, and high on the list has to be the acceptance of money from lobbyists. Ministers have pocketed huge sums of money from people/companies with vested interests seeking to further their aims by getting UK Gov approval (viz Streeting taking large payments form US Healthcare companies seeking to carve up the NHS). Outside of Westminster this would be classed as Bribery and Corruption and could carry jail sentences, but inside of Westminster it’s deemed to be OK as long as it’s entered in the appropriate Register. One rule for MPs and another for everyone else.
On a positive note, the Raynor debacle has deflected attention from the Reform party conference, at the same time that Zack Polanski as new Green party leader is openly exposing the lies spouted by Reform. Nigel will not like this!
🙂
the tactic of examining politicians tax/house buying/businesses tax and picking on anything, even slightly wrong, is a tactic developed in the US where right wing organisations loaded with ‘dark money’ have used it very successfully to take down a series of politicians . I am not an expert on this but have heard it discussed and described on several podcasts (Meidas Touch/ Pod Save America etc). The tactic is never deployed on Right wing politicians- exactly as here in the UK- where even when exposed there are no consequences and of course the press never pick up on it or discuss it. The Labour party is such a bitter mess of people drunk on absolute power and their own superiority that the leak could have come from them, but more likely from some right wing ‘policy unit’ or organisation straight to the Telegraph. Lets hope Zack Polanski has his taxes in order!
I am not defending Angela Raynor, she gave up all her integrity when she chose to support a genocide, she could have walked away from the Labour party, but she chose power and money instead of trying to save lives, there is no coming back from that. It clearly shows who she really is , rather than the persona we were all fed.
Farage apparently moved his conference speech to lunchtime instead of the afternoon, because he didn’t want the reshuffle to overshadow it. So much for having confidence in what he was saying.
Susan Mensforth states that the taxpayer subsidises the MPs, meals and drinks.
A commonly held view but is it factually correct. Your take on it, Richard?
Technically the state does, of course.
But there occasions when nitpicking feels like pedantry.