Angela Rayner - 3 homes now

A politician's private life is rarely private. A great deal is known about domestic arrangements because of security; rumours abound, but only when circumstances are suspicious. I believe super injunctions are in place concerning a leading politician, but of course that is only an unconfirmed rumour.
People weren't quite so particular when it concerned Boris Johnson, and happily listened to the illegally recorded row between him and his then girlfriend released on social media.
Angela Rayner's domestic arrangements have been somewhat unconventional but they are not of public concern unless there is suspicion of parliamentary privileges, denied to other people with two homes, being used to save or make money. as in avoidance of paying due tax.
This appears to be the case regarding the arrangement of her primary residence when in Stockport, and now something similar concerning primary residence in Ashton-under-Lyne, London or Hove.
All she needs to do is to state openly which is her primary residence and the payment thereof, something she seems strangely reluctant to do.
Hence the furore.

Not her private life but her availability for her constituents - and, of course, it should go without saying that MPs financial affairs should be above reproach. That goes for all of them.
I doubt there are many who are!
They certainly clamp down on ordinary people.

No, MPs don’t have to have their main residence, or indeed any residence in their constituency Allira, as long as they are available for surgeries etc. - although I personally think they need to know exactly what is going on locally so it’s better if they do.
This is pure speculation, but she has two sons in school, who need a stable home base. There is a possibility that the house now belongs to her husband as part of the divorce settlement but they have a shared custody arrangement for them and she goes there to look after the children when it is her turn. As I said before though, we don’t know, and why should she make her private life public, no other MP is required to share that degree of information to satisfy public curiosity.

Is she guilty of 'flipping'?
There was a big scandal about MPs flipping years ago.

I thought an MP's main residence was normally in their constituency? Brighton and Hove is rather a long commute from Ashton-under-Lyne where her constituents might want to attend her surgeries for advice.

Wasn't there an MP a few years ago who didn't even live in the UK?

Innocent until proven guilty but it all feels a bit uncomfortable. 🤔

Agreed, Doodledog.

There are all kinds of pitfalls when new relationships start or fail, or if one partner dies. If solicitors are consulted and the all correct procedures followed everything should be fine.

Jane43

I had bowed out of this discussion but I see from X that the Telegraph is reporting that Angela Rayner has ‘taken her name off’ the deeds of the Ashton Under Lyne house to allegedly save £40,000 in stamp duty by declaring the Hove property her main residence. I take this with a handful of salt as it is The Telegraph. I don’t think it is possible to just ‘take your name off deeds’, I believe you have to legally sign over your interest in the property to another party or parties named on the deeds. Apparently the home is owned jointly by her and her former partner so he may have bought her out which is the usual practice when relationships end, nothing wrong with that, it happens all the time. However if it is a measure to avoid part of the required stamp duty payment then she has lost my support.

Agreed on all counts, Jane43.

Houses are an integral part of our lives and relationships, and when relationships fail, people die or new relationships start those circumstances have an impact on people's home owning status. You can't sell a house overnight, and you can't time life events to coincide with peaks and troughs in the property market.

I know people who temporarily have two houses as they are part of a new couple who owned one each but are trying out living together. Even I (as a hardline believer in nobody having more than one home when others have none) can see anything wrong with that. The usual pattern seems to be that in those circumstances people rent out the 'spare' house for a year or so to see if the new relationship is working, then sell it if they are staying together, and again, that makes sense to me. If things don't work out there is a house to go back to, and nobody has lost out to the tune of the significant expense of selling their house and buying another. There will be all sorts of other circumstances that lead to different home owning scenarios for a lot of people.

If AR is in one of those circumstances (which would be her private life and none of our business) then I wish people would just leave her alone and stop jumping on every opportunity to discredit her. If there are proven shenanigans, however, she would lose my support too. As she is innocent until proven guilty under the law, I will wait until I see the evidence before leaping to conclusions.

See Jane43 post above PoliticsNerd.

Casdon

If it is the case that Rayner has handed over the deeds of her constituency house to her ex husband, then it is everybody who has been calling her out who will look foolish. I don’t think she has any duty to tell us, she has done nothing illegal - and the haters will still hate her whatever the truth is anyway. It’s all hot air to distract from far more important issues in my opinion.

Is that what was said? Where, please.

Well I’ve been very critical of Angela Rayner but I have to say this is a master stroke of financial planning. Especially if she was bought out, not just handed half over.

Would she consider being Chancellor? Or give whoever advised her the job😬

If it is the case that Rayner has handed over the deeds of her constituency house to her ex husband, then it is everybody who has been calling her out who will look foolish. I don’t think she has any duty to tell us, she has done nothing illegal - and the haters will still hate her whatever the truth is anyway. It’s all hot air to distract from far more important issues in my opinion.

Jane43

I had bowed out of this discussion but I see from X that the Telegraph is reporting that Angela Rayner has ‘taken her name off’ the deeds of the Ashton Under Lyne house to allegedly save £40,000 in stamp duty by declaring the Hove property her main residence. I take this with a handful of salt as it is The Telegraph. I don’t think it is possible to just ‘take your name off deeds’, I believe you have to legally sign over your interest in the property to another party or parties named on the deeds. Apparently the home is owned jointly by her and her former partner so he may have bought her out which is the usual practice when relationships end, nothing wrong with that, it happens all the time. However if it is a measure to avoid part of the required stamp duty payment then she has lost my support.

Thank you for the clarification Jane43.

Rosie51

I'd not like to call it anything since I think your attack on Mollygo was nasty, unnecessary and inaccurate.

Would you like to admit that you got it wrong while trying to be superior?

It's not inaccurate. Mollygo's argument was illogical. You proved that by posting your AI answer. Mollygo was assessing the worth of another member or possibly her character, by using false logic.

How was I nasty? I am not "trying to be superior" (back to the playground language I see). You are you and I am me. This is about the debate around how MPs conduct their personal life.

It seems any argument made by those you agree with is okay, anyone else is assumed not only to be wrong but someone to be personally attacked. That is not political debate.

It might spin over into paying council tax?

I had bowed out of this discussion but I see from X that the Telegraph is reporting that Angela Rayner has ‘taken her name off’ the deeds of the Ashton Under Lyne house to allegedly save £40,000 in stamp duty by declaring the Hove property her main residence. I take this with a handful of salt as it is The Telegraph. I don’t think it is possible to just ‘take your name off deeds’, I believe you have to legally sign over your interest in the property to another party or parties named on the deeds. Apparently the home is owned jointly by her and her former partner so he may have bought her out which is the usual practice when relationships end, nothing wrong with that, it happens all the time. However if it is a measure to avoid part of the required stamp duty payment then she has lost my support.

The Daily Mail is having great fun with AR today. So there’s some discrepancy about nominated first home which does or doesn’t tally up with nominated first home for stamp duty… bit confusing to say the least.

PoliticsNerd

Isn't it interesting that when people use the rules of logic to disagree with the validity of a post that's seen as "putting someone else down". But when people use unsupported opinion and the language of the playground that's supposed to be acceptable.

What I was clearly talking about was the content of the post, not the person. Would you like to ask GNHQ what they think?

We now seem not just to have discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or race but how we talk, or in this case, write!

For goodness' sake you addressed Mollygo in your post and finished with
Not big and not clever, I'm afraid. But it is understandable when you see someone searching for proof that their anger is justified, when many don't agree.

The use of not big and not clever not a put down? I'll leave others to decide whether they think that is or isn't. No I'm not involving GNHQ, if Mollygo wishes to that's for her to decide.

Last answer shoud have quoted PoliticsNerd's post of 10:12:19

I'd not like to call it anything since I think your attack on Mollygo was nasty, unnecessary and inaccurate.

Would you like to admit that you got it wrong while trying to be superior?

Isn't it interesting that when people use the rules of logic to disagree with the validity of a post that's seen as "putting someone else down". But when people use unsupported opinion and the language of the playground that's supposed to be acceptable.

What I was clearly talking about was the content of the post, not the person. Would you like to ask GNHQ what they think?

We now seem not just to have discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or race but how we talk, or in this case, write!

Rosie51

Well PN AI would disagree with you. In answer to the question "are they the same thing?" it comes up with this answer:

AI Overview
No, faulty analogy and affirming the consequent are not the same fallacies, though both are types of invalid reasoning. A faulty analogy relies on a weak or false comparison between two things to draw an unjustified conclusion, while affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy where a conclusion is drawn that the antecedent of a conditional statement is true simply because the consequent is true.

So maybe not big and not clever to try to use fancy phrases to put someone else down?

So which type of invalid reasoning would you like to call it Rosie51, because it still is one.

Good old Labour….

At the higher rate

What you mean is you can choose to avoid paying stamp duty on a second home! Nice one!!

icanhandthemback

karmalady

ronib

Perhaps people are quoting from the speech our Nigel gave wishing AR well in her new venture so long as AR paid all her taxes. MaizieDpoliticians!!

She has dodged £40000 stamp duty on her seaside apartment, said it was her main residence

Is that confirmed or just a rumour. I didn't think you could do that.

It's reported in MSM. Yes, you can choose where you want to live.

karmalady

ronib

Perhaps people are quoting from the speech our Nigel gave wishing AR well in her new venture so long as AR paid all her taxes. MaizieDpoliticians!!

She has dodged £40000 stamp duty on her seaside apartment, said it was her main residence

Is that confirmed or just a rumour. I didn't think you could do that.