Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Rhubarb & Custard]

So it begins. Privatize the profits & Nationalize the debts



https://www.ft.com/content/58834a3a-875 ... 8e62fd662c

More a continuation than a beginning.

I'd say it's a disgrace they were ever allowed to rack up such debt, and to rack up debt paying out bonuses and dividends not even on investments

I think I remembering correctly when I say that Thatcher nationalized all the debts, of all the water companies prior to privatization, & since then Thames has racked up £60 Billion in debt, while letting the infrastructure fester, but importantly paying back out that £60 Billion in dividends to shareholders !

So this single company has bled more than £120 Billion out of the taxpayers !

How many hospitals & schools would build ?

It puts the PPE scam in ha'penny place.

[Edit] Sorry the £60 Billion is all the water companies debt, Thames just owes ~£16 Billion

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rs-coffers

They've all been known as environmentally bankrupt for years, which is to say had they at any point addressed the environment with actual investment every firm would have gone bust.

About which the government has done... nothing. Not a thing. They've made more progress on new reservoirs and nuclear power stations. And Labour have no established policy that changes much of anything, granted I'm still voting Labour for the first time ever, but it's more than a little annoying the status quo is so valued by the establishment

[dpedin]

More a continuation than a beginning.

I'd say it's a disgrace they were ever allowed to rack up such debt, and to rack up debt paying out bonuses and dividends not even on investments

I think I remembering correctly when I say that Thatcher nationalized all the debts, of all the water companies prior to privatization, & since then Thames has racked up £60 Billion in debt, while letting the infrastructure fester, but importantly paying back out that £60 Billion in dividends to shareholders !

So this single company has bled more than £120 Billion out of the taxpayers !

How many hospitals & schools would build ?

It puts the PPE scam in ha'penny place.

[Edit] Sorry the £60 Billion is all the water companies debt, Thames just owes ~£16 Billion

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rs-coffers

They've all been known as environmentally bankrupt for years, which is to say had they at any point addressed the environment with actual investment every firm would have gone bust.

About which the government has done... nothing. Not a thing. They've made more progress on new reservoirs and nuclear power stations. And Labour have no established policy that changes much of anything, granted I'm still voting Labour for the first time ever, but it's more than a little annoying the status quo is so valued by the establishment

Both Tories and Labour are shitting themselves about having to take on the privatized water companies debts should they fold and what this would do to their semi fictitious fiscal rules etc. The debts would show up in the UK accounts and feck up any plans Labour might have for reinvesting elsewhere. I suspect neither party will make an issue of this during GE - the Tories are plain embarrassed that they have fecked up so badly over last 14 years and Labour dont want or cant afford to take on the debt of the companies and invest at the levels required to stop the shit flowing. The water companies are also shitting themselves about Labour's plans for tighter regulation, criminal prosecutions and banning dividends so expect more water companies to cry foul in next few weeks and try and get a solution they prefer ie higher water prices, etc from the Tories whilst they are in Government. Labour will be happy to pontificate from the sidelines but will be keen to see the Tories try and sort this out as any proposed solution agreed with water companies will inevitably lose the Tories votes. In short a lose:lose:lose scenario for all concerned apart from the private investors like McQuarries who have all the money they salted away in the bank already.

[Ymx]

The ginger growler might be in trouble

https://archive.is/gpUYc

[Slick]

The ginger growler might be in trouble

https://archive.is/gpUYc

As said in HIGNFY last night, laughable that she has been outed for making a dodgy £1500 by someone that has dodged tax on £100m by claiming dodgy nondom status.

Nonetheless, an idiotic situation for her to get into and as usual it’s the attempted cover up that makes it much worse than just holding hands up at the time

[petej]

The ginger growler might be in trouble

https://archive.is/gpUYc

Such a dull non-story. This is why the UK is so shit - big issues are made out of minor stuff and large scale fraudulent stuff committed by our elite is just brushed away. Just constant distraction. This will be a pitiful gain compared to the tax avoided by our non-domiciled elite like the owner of the daily maily mail.

[Ymx]

The ginger growler might be in trouble

https://archive.is/gpUYc

Such a dull non-story. This is why the UK is so shit - big issues are made out of minor stuff and large scale fraudulent stuff committed by our elite is just brushed away. Just constant distraction. This will be a pitiful gain compared to the tax avoided by our non-domiciled elite like the owner of the daily maily mail.

I don’t know. It’s lying about her residence and tax evasion, and then lying again.

Tax evasion is fairly serious

Boris went down for less, imo

[sockwithaticket]

The ginger growler might be in trouble

https://archive.is/gpUYc

Such a dull non-story. This is why the UK is so shit - big issues are made out of minor stuff and large scale fraudulent stuff committed by our elite is just brushed away. Just constant distraction. This will be a pitiful gain compared to the tax avoided by our non-domiciled elite like the owner of the daily maily mail.

I don’t know. It’s lying about her residence and tax evasion, and then lying again.

Tax evasion is fairly serious

Boris went down for less, imo

Of course you think that.

[Slick]

The ginger growler might be in trouble

https://archive.is/gpUYc

Such a dull non-story. This is why the UK is so shit - big issues are made out of minor stuff and large scale fraudulent stuff committed by our elite is just brushed away. Just constant distraction. This will be a pitiful gain compared to the tax avoided by our non-domiciled elite like the owner of the daily maily mail.

I don’t know. It’s lying about her residence and tax evasion, and then lying again.

Tax evasion is fairly serious

Boris went down for less, imo

[petej]

The ginger growler might be in trouble

https://archive.is/gpUYc

Such a dull non-story. This is why the UK is so shit - big issues are made out of minor stuff and large scale fraudulent stuff committed by our elite is just brushed away. Just constant distraction. This will be a pitiful gain compared to the tax avoided by our non-domiciled elite like the owner of the daily maily mail.

I don’t know. It’s lying about her residence and tax evasion, and then lying again.

Tax evasion is fairly serious

Boris went down for less, imo

It is a cunningly written article which suggests things and speculates. Hey, they wouldn't bother if it didn't work which it evidently does.

[C69]

Such a dull non-story. This is why the UK is so shit - big issues are made out of minor stuff and large scale fraudulent stuff committed by our elite is just brushed away. Just constant distraction. This will be a pitiful gain compared to the tax avoided by our non-domiciled elite like the owner of the daily maily mail.

I don’t know. It’s lying about her residence and tax evasion, and then lying again.

Tax evasion is fairly serious

Boris went down for less, imo

Ymx is right

[Slick]

I don’t know. It’s lying about her residence and tax evasion, and then lying again.

Tax evasion is fairly serious

Boris went down for less, imo

Ymx is right

[_Os_]

You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there. It looks like a made up story, a bit like when Starmer didn't break lockdown but Tory newspapers kept repeating that he had.

They've been going after Rayner for awhile. Ashcroft (a Tory billionaire) has written a whole book about her. Tory newspapers/"anonymous sources" claimed she put Big Dog off during PMQs by wearing short skirts, this sexist claim that Big Dog was shit in PMQs because of Rayner ran for quite awhile.

They fear her.

[sockwithaticket]

You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there. It looks like a made up story, a bit like when Starmer didn't break lockdown but Tory newspapers kept repeating that he had.

They've been going after Rayner for awhile. Ashcroft (a Tory billionaire) has written a whole book about her. Tory newspapers/"anonymous sources" claimed she put Big Dog off during PMQs by wearing short skirts, this sexist claim that Big Dog was shit in PMQs because of Rayner ran for quite awhile.

They fear her.

She's a genuine working class person made good, she also seems positioned to be someone Starmer expects to keep him accountable to the Labour base with policy. A potentially very significant figure.

The Tories definitely fear and hate her. She's also fairly attractive and I'm sure that makes some of the Tory men (possibly some of the women too) feel conflicting emotions they don't know what to do with and that prompts more invective.

[Ymx]

Attractive

[Ymx]

They've been going after Rayner for awhile. Ashcroft (a Tory billionaire) has written a whole book about her. Tory newspapers/"anonymous sources" claimed she put Big Dog off during PMQs by wearing short skirts, this sexist claim that Big Dog was shit in PMQs because of Rayner ran for quite awhile.

They fear her.

That whole short skirts thing was entirely manufactured by herself. Even the rumour.

[Ymx]

You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there. It looks like a made up story, a bit like when Starmer didn't break lockdown but Tory newspapers kept repeating that he had.

No.

There are still laws about you actually needing to live there.

Not to mention that she got married

Private Residence Relief

You do not pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply:

-you have one home and you’ve lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it
-you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger
-you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use)
-the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total
-you did not buy it just to make a gain

If all these apply you will automatically get a tax relief called Private Residence Relief and will have no tax to pay. If any of them apply, you may have some tax to pay.

If you own more than one home
In most cases, you only get relief for one home for any period. You must work out when you lived in each property as your main home.

If you’re married or in a civil partnership only one home per couple counts as your main home for any period.

If you’ve nominated a home you cannot get relief for another property for the time your home is nominated, apart from for the periods that always qualify for relied

If you have one home or you nominated your home
You get relief if you were away from it for:

any reason for periods adding up to 3 years
up to 4 years if you had to live away from home in the UK for work
any period if you were working outside the UK
You must have lived in the home before and afterwards, unless your work prevented you.

If you only own one home you get relief for the last 36 months before you sold your home if any of the following apply:

you’re disabled
you’re in long-term residential care
you sold the property before 6 April 2014
You get relief for the last 18 months if none of these apply, but you sold your home before 6 April 2020.

[Ymx]

As for the legs thing, how did you miss the end of it???

It is now abundantly clear that Ms Rayner is not the target of outrageous misogyny that she had us believe. It turns out that the scurrilous Tory sources who claimed she likes to emulate sex siren Sharon Stone in the movie Basic Instinct to put Boris Johnson off his stride were only repeating what she has said herself. Late one night on the House of Commons terrace, multiple sources heard the flame-haired MP joking about opening and closing her legs to show off her ‘ginger growler’. Yet Westminster’s youngest granny (she’s 42) played the victim better than any actress and had the rest of us rushing to defend her honour. Fans of Ange, myself included, were fuming that this smart, feisty political operator who grew up on a council estate and was told she would never amount to anything should be reduced to a vulgar piece of skirt. In reality, the damsel in distress was crying wolf – and in so doing, setting back the feminist cause.

Hence the nickname ginger growler

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Such a dull non-story. This is why the UK is so shit - big issues are made out of minor stuff and large scale fraudulent stuff committed by our elite is just brushed away. Just constant distraction. This will be a pitiful gain compared to the tax avoided by our non-domiciled elite like the owner of the daily maily mail.

I don’t know. It’s lying about her residence and tax evasion, and then lying again.

Tax evasion is fairly serious

Boris went down for less, imo

Of course you think that.

I'd be willing to believe people went down on Boris for less, just Boris doesn't seem the giving sort

[Slick]

As for the legs thing, how did you miss the end of it???

It is now abundantly clear that Ms Rayner is not the target of outrageous misogyny that she had us believe. It turns out that the scurrilous Tory sources who claimed she likes to emulate sex siren Sharon Stone in the movie Basic Instinct to put Boris Johnson off his stride were only repeating what she has said herself. Late one night on the House of Commons terrace, multiple sources heard the flame-haired MP joking about opening and closing her legs to show off her ‘ginger growler’. Yet Westminster’s youngest granny (she’s 42) played the victim better than any actress and had the rest of us rushing to defend her honour. Fans of Ange, myself included, were fuming that this smart, feisty political operator who grew up on a council estate and was told she would never amount to anything should be reduced to a vulgar piece of skirt. In reality, the damsel in distress was crying wolf – and in so doing, setting back the feminist cause.

Hence the nickname ginger growler

Quite.

[_Os_]

You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there. It looks like a made up story, a bit like when Starmer didn't break lockdown but Tory newspapers kept repeating that he had.

No.

There are still laws about you actually needing to live there.

Not to mention that she got married

Private Residence Relief

You do not pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply:

-you have one home and you’ve lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it
-you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger
-you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use)
-the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total
-you did not buy it just to make a gain

If all these apply you will automatically get a tax relief called Private Residence Relief and will have no tax to pay. If any of them apply, you may have some tax to pay.

If you own more than one home
In most cases, you only get relief for one home for any period. You must work out when you lived in each property as your main home.

If you’re married or in a civil partnership only one home per couple counts as your main home for any period.

If you’ve nominated a home you cannot get relief for another property for the time your home is nominated, apart from for the periods that always qualify for relied

If you have one home or you nominated your home
You get relief if you were away from it for:

any reason for periods adding up to 3 years
up to 4 years if you had to live away from home in the UK for work
any period if you were working outside the UK
You must have lived in the home before and afterwards, unless your work prevented you.

If you only own one home you get relief for the last 36 months before you sold your home if any of the following apply:

you’re disabled
you’re in long-term residential care
you sold the property before 6 April 2014
You get relief for the last 18 months if none of these apply, but you sold your home before 6 April 2020.

How do you think that proves me wrong. You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes.

On the information we have Rayner owned one house, which she had lived in and hadn't let out, this house was nominated as her main residence and where her bills were being sent and where she was registered to vote. Fucking good luck claiming that wasn't her main residence for CGT if she says it was.

If you own a flat in London which you live in during the week for work and a house outside of London which you go back to on the weekend sometimes. You let neither and both are used to live in only. Which is your main residence? What you say or what the Daily Mail decides?

[_Os_]

As for the legs thing, how did you miss the end of it???

It is now abundantly clear that Ms Rayner is not the target of outrageous misogyny that she had us believe. It turns out that the scurrilous Tory sources who claimed she likes to emulate sex siren Sharon Stone in the movie Basic Instinct to put Boris Johnson off his stride were only repeating what she has said herself. Late one night on the House of Commons terrace, multiple sources heard the flame-haired MP joking about opening and closing her legs to show off her ‘ginger growler’. Yet Westminster’s youngest granny (she’s 42) played the victim better than any actress and had the rest of us rushing to defend her honour. Fans of Ange, myself included, were fuming that this smart, feisty political operator who grew up on a council estate and was told she would never amount to anything should be reduced to a vulgar piece of skirt. In reality, the damsel in distress was crying wolf – and in so doing, setting back the feminist cause.

Hence the nickname ginger growler

Those totally legit "anonymous sources" again.

"Johnson is shit at PMQs, blame the woman with long legs! Turn this into a major story!". How did "Operation Protect Big Dog" work out again? Staggering levels of immaturity.

[petej]

As for the legs thing, how did you miss the end of it???

It is now abundantly clear that Ms Rayner is not the target of outrageous misogyny that she had us believe. It turns out that the scurrilous Tory sources who claimed she likes to emulate sex siren Sharon Stone in the movie Basic Instinct to put Boris Johnson off his stride were only repeating what she has said herself. Late one night on the House of Commons terrace, multiple sources heard the flame-haired MP joking about opening and closing her legs to show off her ‘ginger growler’. Yet Westminster’s youngest granny (she’s 42) played the victim better than any actress and had the rest of us rushing to defend her honour. Fans of Ange, myself included, were fuming that this smart, feisty political operator who grew up on a council estate and was told she would never amount to anything should be reduced to a vulgar piece of skirt. In reality, the damsel in distress was crying wolf – and in so doing, setting back the feminist cause.

Hence the nickname ginger growler

Those totally legit "anonymous sources" again.

"Johnson is shit at PMQs, blame the woman with long legs! Turn this into a major story!". How did "Operation Protect Big Dog" work out again? Staggering levels of immaturity.

Political commentary at football transfer gossip levels though they would be less crude these days.

[_Os_]

The GE is the real issue that Tories want to distract people from and are happy to waste an entire year over.

GE in May now looks off the table, June is still possible. A summer election isn't likely because it means Tories cancelling their holiday. Which means 6 to 10 months more of this.

I've added a helpful trendline to show why they're only fucking themselves more by prolonging this. It's inescapable.

[Ymx]

As for the legs thing, how did you miss the end of it???

It is now abundantly clear that Ms Rayner is not the target of outrageous misogyny that she had us believe. It turns out that the scurrilous Tory sources who claimed she likes to emulate sex siren Sharon Stone in the movie Basic Instinct to put Boris Johnson off his stride were only repeating what she has said herself. Late one night on the House of Commons terrace, multiple sources heard the flame-haired MP joking about opening and closing her legs to show off her ‘ginger growler’. Yet Westminster’s youngest granny (she’s 42) played the victim better than any actress and had the rest of us rushing to defend her honour. Fans of Ange, myself included, were fuming that this smart, feisty political operator who grew up on a council estate and was told she would never amount to anything should be reduced to a vulgar piece of skirt. In reality, the damsel in distress was crying wolf – and in so doing, setting back the feminist cause.

Hence the nickname ginger growler

Those totally legit "anonymous sources" again.

"Johnson is shit at PMQs, blame the woman with long legs! Turn this into a major story!". How did "Operation Protect Big Dog" work out again? Staggering levels of immaturity.

For someone who brought the topic up, your whataboutery is astonishing.

[Ymx]

You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there. It looks like a made up story, a bit like when Starmer didn't break lockdown but Tory newspapers kept repeating that he had.

No.

There are still laws about you actually needing to live there.

Not to mention that she got married

Private Residence Relief

You do not pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if all of the following apply:

-you have one home and you’ve lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it
-you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger
-you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use)
-the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total
-you did not buy it just to make a gain

If all these apply you will automatically get a tax relief called Private Residence Relief and will have no tax to pay. If any of them apply, you may have some tax to pay.

If you own more than one home
In most cases, you only get relief for one home for any period. You must work out when you lived in each property as your main home.

If you’re married or in a civil partnership only one home per couple counts as your main home for any period.

If you’ve nominated a home you cannot get relief for another property for the time your home is nominated, apart from for the periods that always qualify for relied

If you have one home or you nominated your home
You get relief if you were away from it for:

any reason for periods adding up to 3 years
up to 4 years if you had to live away from home in the UK for work
any period if you were working outside the UK
You must have lived in the home before and afterwards, unless your work prevented you.

If you only own one home you get relief for the last 36 months before you sold your home if any of the following apply:

you’re disabled
you’re in long-term residential care
you sold the property before 6 April 2014
You get relief for the last 18 months if none of these apply, but you sold your home before 6 April 2020.

How do you think that proves me wrong. You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes.

On the information we have Rayner owned one house, which she had lived in and hadn't let out, this house was nominated as her main residence and where her bills were being sent and where she was registered to vote. Fucking good luck claiming that wasn't her main residence for CGT if she says it was.

If you own a flat in London which you live in during the week for work and a house outside of London which you go back to on the weekend sometimes. You let neither and both are used to live in only. Which is your main residence? What you say or what the Daily Mail decides?

Because your assertion of only having to have lived there was complete nonsense. That is fundamentally false

[_Os_]

As for the legs thing, how did you miss the end of it???



Hence the nickname ginger growler

Those totally legit "anonymous sources" again.

"Johnson is shit at PMQs, blame the woman with long legs! Turn this into a major story!". How did "Operation Protect Big Dog" work out again? Staggering levels of immaturity.

For someone who brought the topic up, your whataboutery is astonishing.

Yes it's definitely not the Tories who keep bringing up Rayner and turning total nonsense into national news stories. It's actually my good self who is to blame for mentioning Rayner.

Ashcroft has written an entire book about her. Totally obsessed.

[Paddington Bear]

Is it ‘total nonsense’ to mention Rayner has lied on tax declarations? It’s not like she handed over the nuclear codes to a bloke down the pub but it’s nice to know what level of scrutiny our next Labour government will be subject to

[_Os_]

Because your assertion of only having to have lived there was complete nonsense. That is fundamentally false

What I posted:

"You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there.".

Read what you have posted again. It's not "fundamentally false" at all is. Do you understand what you're posting?

Lets go through the information we have again: Rayner owned one house, she was registered to vote there, her bills went there, she did not let out the house, she nominated it as her main residence.

How are you going to prove it's not her main residence. You cannot.

[_Os_]

Is it ‘total nonsense’ to mention Rayner has lied on tax declarations?

It's a bit like claiming Starmer broke lockdown when he actually didn't, then turning that into a national news story which ran and ran and no one gave a shit about. Who could forget "Sir Beers" other than everyone.

This is what YMX posted:

"If you have one home or you nominated your home
You get relief if you were away from it for:

any reason for periods adding up to 3 years
up to 4 years if you had to live away from home in the UK for work
any period if you were working outside the UK
You must have lived in the home before and afterwards, unless your work prevented you."

[dpedin]

No.

There are still laws about you actually needing to live there.

Not to mention that she got married

How do you think that proves me wrong. You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes.

On the information we have Rayner owned one house, which she had lived in and hadn't let out, this house was nominated as her main residence and where her bills were being sent and where she was registered to vote. Fucking good luck claiming that wasn't her main residence for CGT if she says it was.

If you own a flat in London which you live in during the week for work and a house outside of London which you go back to on the weekend sometimes. You let neither and both are used to live in only. Which is your main residence? What you say or what the Daily Mail decides?

Because your assertion of only having to have lived there was complete nonsense. That is fundamentally false

Meanwhile Ester 'Common Sense' McVey and her husband Philip 'I like upskirting' Davies own flats in London yet rent these out and claim MP expenses for a flat that is even further away from the the HoC than the one they own! Probably closer to GBabiesNews studios though?

Lord 'Paradise Papers' Ashcroft is reputed to have avoided/evaded £100m tax by having an extended and possible illegal Non Doms status and use of Belize and other tax havens and avoids all questions, including hiding in a loo, and refuses to answer allegations. I honestly cant believe folk are getting all worked up about Rayner's issue with sale of her ex council house whilst these folk are taking the piss out of us in plain sight and laughing at us. Some folk just get hooked on any dead cat thrown onto the table that's meant to distract them from the real issues - they fall for it every time. Its a bit like comparing the allegations thrown at Starmer for a curry and beer whilst working being compared to organized parties in No10 with suitcases of wine, Karaoke machines and emails saying 'dont tell anyone we are having a party every Friday'! Some folk are just plain idiots prepared to be distracted by any shit the toffs throw at them and are only too happy to tug their forelock and say yes sir, of course sir! For the record Ashcroft's book on Cameron 'Call me Dave' also had unsubstantiated claims about Cameron, who he disliked, that became known as 'Piggate'. The man has form! However if the Daily Mail and Mai on Sunday say it's true then it must be!

[Biffer]

You know we keep asking when the opinion polls come out who on earth these people are who still say they'll vote tory after the last fifteen years?

[SaintK]

Bloody hell! Ymx reads the Daily Mail. Who'd have thought it

[PCPhil]

You know we keep asking when the opinion polls come out who on earth these people are who still say they'll vote tory after the last fifteen years?

I have a friend at work who comes from a very working class background and still firmly working class himself. I get along with him really well and we know each others politics. He has always voted conservative and even though he knows it has been a total shit show from them for years he will no doubt vote conservative at the next election. His latest one is that he couldn't vote labour as he can't vote for a party ledy by a 'sir'.

Don't even bother to comment on this one please......

[Ymx]

Because your assertion of only having to have lived there was complete nonsense. That is fundamentally false

What I posted:

"You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there.".

Read what you have posted again. It's not "fundamentally false" at all is. Do you understand what you're posting?

Lets go through the information we have again: Rayner owned one house, she was registered to vote there, her bills went there, she did not let out the house, she nominated it as her main residence.

How are you going to prove it's not her main residence. You cannot.

This part is completely false
“it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there”

That is absolutely not true at all. It’s not satisfactory to only have lived there. It was a very dishonest post

[Paddington Bear]

Is it ‘total nonsense’ to mention Rayner has lied on tax declarations?

It's a bit like claiming Starmer broke lockdown when he actually didn't, then turning that into a national news story which ran and ran and no one gave a shit about. Who could forget "Sir Beers" other than everyone.

This is what YMX posted:

"If you have one home or you nominated your home
You get relief if you were away from it for:

any reason for periods adding up to 3 years
up to 4 years if you had to live away from home in the UK for work
any period if you were working outside the UK
You must have lived in the home before and afterwards, unless your work prevented you."

‘Sir Beer Korma’ was over a year ago and no one bought it, entirely irrelevant to what’s being discussed here

[_Os_]

Because your assertion of only having to have lived there was complete nonsense. That is fundamentally false

What I posted:

"You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there.".

Read what you have posted again. It's not "fundamentally false" at all is. Do you understand what you're posting?

Lets go through the information we have again: Rayner owned one house, she was registered to vote there, her bills went there, she did not let out the house, she nominated it as her main residence.

How are you going to prove it's not her main residence. You cannot.

This part is completely false
“it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there”

That is absolutely not true at all. It’s not satisfactory to only have lived there. It was a very dishonest post

It wasn't dishonest, it was a one liner from someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who uses Google trying to dispute it and failing.

The key test is quality of the time spent in a residence, not the quantity of time. Difficult to claim a property was once your main residence if it had no water/gas/electricity during the period you claimed to have lived there (because you were actually renovating it before putting it into rent for example). Any HMRC case is about this first because it's the easiest to prove/disprove.

Rayner indisputably did live in the property. It's not the case that she never lived there.

Which then leaves you with the much weaker quantity of time argument. You've helpfully posted the HMRC rules, you could not be living in a dwelling for years and it can still be your main residence. Her time was divided between her place of work (any time spent away from the main residence working, elected to parliament after selling the house so probably not much, she was a union rep at the time), her house and her partners house (a less than 10 minute journey between them). Accounting for all of Rayner's movements between 2010-2015 likely isn't possible.

This isn't unusual. Someone who has been unlucky with members of the opposite sex will typically keep their assets separate from any new partner, even after marrying them, for quite some time until they're sure they're not going to get burned again.

[_Os_]

Is it ‘total nonsense’ to mention Rayner has lied on tax declarations?

It's a bit like claiming Starmer broke lockdown when he actually didn't, then turning that into a national news story which ran and ran and no one gave a shit about. Who could forget "Sir Beers" other than everyone.

This is what YMX posted:

"If you have one home or you nominated your home
You get relief if you were away from it for:

any reason for periods adding up to 3 years
up to 4 years if you had to live away from home in the UK for work
any period if you were working outside the UK
You must have lived in the home before and afterwards, unless your work prevented you."

‘Sir Beer Korma’ was over a year ago and no one bought it, entirely irrelevant to what’s being discussed here

They're both "news stories" pushed by the same newspapers, claiming senior Labour leaders broke the law.

Quite a ballsy move by the newspaper owners.

[Ymx]

What I posted:

"You can nominate your main residence for CGT purposes, it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there.".

Read what you have posted again. It's not "fundamentally false" at all is. Do you understand what you're posting?

Lets go through the information we have again: Rayner owned one house, she was registered to vote there, her bills went there, she did not let out the house, she nominated it as her main residence.

How are you going to prove it's not her main residence. You cannot.

This part is completely false
“it is not necessary that you live there most/all of the time, only that you have lived there”

That is absolutely not true at all. It’s not satisfactory to only have lived there. It was a very dishonest post

It wasn't dishonest, it was a one liner from someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who uses Google trying to dispute it and failing.

The key test is quality of the time spent in a residence, not the quantity of time. Difficult to claim a property was once your main residence if it had no water/gas/electricity during the period you claimed to have lived there (because you were actually renovating it before putting it into rent for example). Any HMRC case is about this first because it's the easiest to prove/disprove.

Rayner indisputably did live in the property. It's not the case that she never lived there.

Which then leaves you with the much weaker quantity of time argument. You've helpfully posted the HMRC rules, you could not be living in a dwelling for years and it can still be your main residence. Her time was divided between her place of work (any time spent away from the main residence working, elected to parliament after selling the house so probably not much, she was a union rep at the time), her house and her partners house (a less than 10 minute journey between them). Accounting for all of Rayner's movements between 2010-2015 likely isn't possible.

This isn't unusual. Someone who has been unlucky with members of the opposite sex will typically keep their assets separate from any new partner, even after marrying them, for quite some time until they're sure they're not going to get burned again.

God you trot out some bollocks.

“It wasn't dishonest, it was a one liner from someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who uses Google trying to dispute it and failing.”

It was a false statement saying they only need to declare it, and not live there. And it is in fact not that at all. There’s pretty specific laws here, as you now admit to. She would have needed to be living there beyond 2012.

And you have now reverted to, they can’t prove it.

[dpedin]

Here is a pretty good summary of the tax issues re Rayner.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/

As always and according to this detailed analysis then what we don't know nor is out in the public space is what would determine what she may or may not have owed in CGT. If she had put a new kitchen or bathroom in the house then no tax liability basically. In reality, if she has taken proper tax advice, then she has probably been told she has put enough money into house refurb to cancel out any tax liability.

At the end of the day I cannot believe folk are worried about this, at worst a tax issue worth a few hundred, and believe the word of Ashcroft, a known dodgy Non Dom, probably tax dodger for c£100m and who has a reputation of telling ' unsubstantiated stories' in previous publications. If this is the 'dirt' they think they have on the Labour leadership and are going all in on it then they really are shitting themselves about their election chances and are dredging the bottom of the barrel for shit to throw at a working class woman made good! I think this media bullying and rich posh men going after working class girl is rebounding on them - publishing details of her children is beyond most folks tolerance. They are dead old men walking and shitting themselves as they know Labour will come after them and their tax dodging, PPE scandal, gravy train public contracts, etc.

[dpedin]

Meanwhile why hasn't William Wragg resigned? Why didnt he report this scam to the police immediately? Why hasn't he had the whip withdrawn? Who are the other Tories implicated in the scandal? What are the police doing about this? Why did Hunt call him courageous when he clearly responded badly to the blackmail? who else sent dick pics to the caller? Has anyone in the press got copies of the pics?

This is the story the Tories are really, really desperate to stop the press exploring in detail!!!