| Non-motoring > Angela Rayner | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Bromptonaut | Replies: 47 |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 15:52
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
Surprised nobody's started a thread before given the headlines. Do the panel think she's already toast, or that she should be? |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 16:15
Angela Rayner - Manatee
|
|
The Tories should be ashamed of themselves, they just look stupid making a fuss about somebody selling a council house or being registered to vote at the 'wrong' address. She wasn't even an MP at the time. Zahawi arguably 'made a mistake' on his tax return, of £5m., and didn't think that was a resigning matter - and he was Chancellor! The bloke who started it is a non-dom who basically wouldn't pay UK tax despite being very wealthy. I rather like Rayner. Grates a bit at times but we really need some proper people in parliament. For balance, I don't think William Wragg (whom I had never heard of) should have had to resign. The poor bloke has suffered enough. All he's actually done is give away a few phone number and he was being blackmailed for that IIU correctly. I suppose his position was barely tenable, given the only thing he'll ever be remembered for now is sending a picture of the wrong kind of member to a stranger. |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 17:16
Angela Rayner - Terry
|
|
Politicians know mud sticks - so they sling mud. Usually media assisted as it makes for good viewing and readership figures. Has the benefit of removing the focus from other issues. As the election draws closer it is increasingly evident the ONLY thing differentiating Tory from Labour is that the former have 14 years of baggage. Labour shadow cabinet have very clearly demonstrated an affection for half truths, partial truths, evasion, selective statistics and all the other "ammunition" of the ambitious politico. I don't blame them for this - they want electoral victory (at any cost). None enter politics for a life in eternal opposition - Libdems and Greens excepted! Were the position reversed Tories would do similarly. To believe they are pursing Rayner out of some high democratic principle is laughable. They are doing it because they can. Whilst I do not agree with Rayners politics, she is clearly able and has a clarity of purpose. I do not expect her supporters to suddenly switch allegiance to Tory or Reform parties. She may or may not have done something wrong - the amount is not the issue. Tories are intent on stirring things up to divert attention from immigration, sluggish growth, NHS waiting lists etc. If some mud sticks to Labour so much the better. Job done. Reusing the Boris mantra "nothing to see here" is unconvincing. Politicians should have learned that total transparency will draw the issue to a swift conclusion - failure to openly publish all advice received merely extends the pain. |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 19:31
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
>The Tories should be ashamed of themselves, they just look stupid making a fuss about somebody >selling a council house or being registered to vote at the 'wrong' address. She wasn't even an >MP at the time. I thought that tax evasion is something that Rayner feels quite strongly about? And she definitely was an MP at the time her tax return for that period was due. >Zahawi arguably 'made a mistake' on his tax return, of £5m., and didn't think that was a resigning >matter - and he was Chancellor! Zahawi didn't really need to resign, he got the boot because he'd neglected to mention that HMRC were on his tail. >The bloke who started it is a non-dom who basically wouldn't pay UK tax despite being very wealthy. Mmmm. You mean he uses the place where he officially lives to keep his money from the taxman? Last time I checked tax avoidance wasn't illegal. Tax evasion definitely is. >I rather like Rayner. Grates a bit at times but we really need some proper people in parliament. I agree, as long as they're not just another two faced hypocrite, we have enough of those thanks. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 20:56
Angela Rayner - Manatee
|
|
I should have said embarrassed rather than ashamed. I agree that what they allege would be wrong if true, but there's no denying it's extremely trivial and seems ridiculously so compared with any number of examples of corrupt dealings behaviour on the part of this government and its supporters. It just underlines the known scale of dishonesty in the Conservative party when they put so much effort into bringing down Rayner and all they can come up with so far is a smear in relation to unpaid tax of a thousand or two and maybe registering the wrong address on the electoral roll. Rayner has said she'll stand down if she has done anything wrong, as Starmer did in regard to the bottle of beer in Durham - another pathetic attempt at a smear by a party with no shame. I don't think it will hurt the Labour party much even if she goes. But if they can't prove anything meaningful it will probably do more damage to the accusers. Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 14 Apr 24 at 20:57
|
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 23:03
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
After Rayner makes such a holier-than-thou song and dance about BJ being investigated for eating a piece of cake during lockdown you think the Cons shouldn't rub her nose in it? Just who started this mud slinging? Rayner called for BJ to stand down purely on the basis that an investigation had been started. She wasn't bothered what the outcome might be. Why should she be any different? The longer this drags on the more damage Labour will suffer. Running and hiding doesn't look good and Starmer's conscious avoidance isn't fooling anyone. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 13:44
Angela Rayner - Manatee
|
|
Clearly much depends on which end of the telescope you have to your eye. Boris Johnson was and is in a class of his own when it come to lying and hypocrisy The people who put him there knew that and are no better. The point about the cake-eating as you put it was that millions were in lockdown on government instructions and subject in some cases to £10,000 fines, while Downing Street staff were having Friday night parties. I don't see any running and hiding. Starmer has stated "full confidence". Incidentally I don't think there's a question of tax evasion. Getting your tax return wrong isn't an offence. That was very much Zahawi's position over an amount at least 1,000 times greater than the maximum that might be in question here, and I think that has pretty well gone away in any case so we are left with the investigation into the electoral roll. Perspective. The accusations are petty, and the people making them demean themselves by their actions. I don't know where it will end, but I suspect the Conservatives will come off worst simply because there is more crookedness on that side of the house, by a large margin. It can't be otherwise, when it is basically the party's raison d'etre and what their donors pay for. Is it inevitable that populist, libertarian governments always end up being the most oppressive and corrupt? |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 13:59
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
The MP for neighbouring Bury who reported Rayner to the Police and then kicked off when they said 'nothing here' was on the telly today: twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1779841178965364906 Either he's a numpty or he's got a killer card up his sleeve. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 14:05
Angela Rayner - smokie
|
| Oh - it was in my mind that it was big-time Tory funder Lord Ashcroft which raised this in his biog of Rayner. Of course, Ashcroft suggesting someone else might have evaded some tax seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black!! |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 14:19
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Oh - it was in my mind that it was big-time Tory funder Lord Ashcroft >> which raised this in his biog of Rayner. Of course, Ashcroft suggesting someone else might >> have evaded some tax seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black!! The CGT thing was raised by Ashcroft in an unauthorised biography of Rayner called, I think, The Red Queen. The Hon Member for Bury North jumped on the bandwagon by, so far as we know, accusing her of being on the Electoral Register at the former Council House when, if she lived a mile away with Mr Rayner she should properly have been registered there. That won't go anywhere as (a) the time to prosecute is long gone and (b) if it was just inadvertent, and had no real effect - same constituency etc - then guidelines say don't prosecute. Unless he thinks, or even knows, she's done something else like bought the house at a discount on fraudulent facts then he's wasting Police time. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 19:22
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
Manatee, why do you keep banging on about how the Cons are worse as if it's some sort of justification for whatever Labour politicians get up to? It is a tired old distraction and totally irrelevant to Rayner's current woes. Don't misunderstand me. I despise all politicians and I think that our current govt. is a bunch of s***ehawks as well but I am under no illusion that Labour has any answers. >I don't see any running and hiding... When was the last time Rayner gave a media interview? I can't recall anything since this thing blew up. She even legged it out the back door on a factory visit last week didn't she? As for Starmer, he says he has full confidence in Rayner but claims he hasn't and doesn't need to see the professional advice that would help to clear her. He's left that up to 'his team'. He's keeping as far away as he can from this. > so we are left with the investigation into the electoral roll. >Perspective. The accusations are petty,.. Something I read today makes the question of where she claims to have been living a bit more complicated I think. It seems a bit extreme but apparently if she moved out of her house before five years she would need to inform the council and her mortgage lender and repay the council discount on a pro-rata basis. If she did not do this and it was deliberate then it could be deemed to be 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' which carries up to five years in the slammer. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 21:53
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Something I read today makes the question of where she claims to have been living >> a bit more complicated I think. It seems a bit extreme but apparently if she >> moved out of her house before five years she would need to inform the council >> and her mortgage lender and repay the council discount on a pro-rata basis. If she >> did not do this and it was deliberate then it could be deemed to be >> 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' which carries up to five years in the slammer. That's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if James Daly has, or thinks he might have, a trump card up his sleeve. Dan Neidle - who I mentioned upthread - has published an article on his website covering the facts/permutations: taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/ He says she bought the house in 2007 and married Rayner in 2010 at which point he says they moved in together. Less than five years. If her brother lived there rent free then maybe, and I don't know how this works, he counts as 'family' and she's not left for the purpose of repaying the discount. OTOH if she's letting it to him - she denies this - it might be different. Whether playing fast/loose with five years is (a) a pecuniary advantage, (b) some offence under RTB or (c) a civil matter, again I don't know. But none of those is a good look in a Deputy PM. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 07:42
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> He says she bought the house in 2007 and married Rayner in 2010 at which >> point he says they moved in together. Less than five years. If her brother lived >> there rent free then maybe, and I don't know how this works, he counts as >> 'family' and she's not left for the purpose of repaying the discount. On reflection sources I can find say you need to sell within five years for the discount to be repayable. Moving elsewhere and allowing family to use it or letting it are not an issue. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 13:29
Angela Rayner - Terry
|
|
The repayment of any discount on house purchase may or may not be an issue - although as you note it seems only to kick in if it was sold within 5 years. Capital gains tax is not payable on the sale of a principal private residence which I understand can be nominated if one has a choice of two. I assume the property nominated actually needs to be accessible and not rented out. I also assume AR has used one address for her political activities - election nomination, claiming MP expenses etc. I am unclear whether it is consistent with that for which CGT relief is claimed. The money involved seems trivial and I am also inclined to the view that if AR actions are inconsistent it arose through error not an intention to deceive. The affair is symptomatic of the cess pit Westminster politics has become. Neither party can claim a moral high ground over use of these tactics - Labour have indulged for years (sometimes justified, often not) and that the Tories are playing the same game should be no surprise. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 14:30
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
>On reflection sources I can find say you need to sell within five years for the discount to be >repayable. Moving elsewhere and allowing family to use it or letting it are not an issue. That is much more sensible. Enough to discourage flipping the property for a quick buck but no real obstacles for genuine purchasers. |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 21:20
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I thought that tax evasion is something that Rayner feels quite strongly about? And she >> definitely was an MP at the time her tax return for that period was due. I don't think anybody has suggested evasion. Rayner needs to give a clear explanation of what happened and why no CGT was payable. As tax expert Dan Neidle has pointed out the initial account that it was the only house she owned doesn't work as, being in a married couple they only had one exempt dwelling between the two of them. It's possible, but unlikely given their circumstances, that they'd had detailed advice and elected, within the 2 years the law allows, to make her home the one that was exempt. Or there may have been sufficient work etc done to it that no GCT at all was payable. If it was payable and a mistake was made then she needs to come clean about that and apologise for stringing us along. If a voluntary payment to HMRC isn't possible then there are plenty of charities... It's easy to string the public along with the idea that where you have you have your residence for CGT purposes is the same place as you sleep at night. In reality it ain't that simple, Neidle tells us there are books worth of cases etc on the subject of residence. So far as I can see the fact she was on the electoral register there is of no relevance. There's a time limit, long expired, for prosecutions under the Representation of the people act. CPS guidance is to prosecute if it's serious but not for (I paraphrase) minor infringements of no practical consequence. >> Zahawi didn't really need to resign, he got the boot because he'd neglected to mention >> that HMRC were on his tail. He got the boot for lying about being on the Revenue's radar and agreeing a settlement to avoid further action. He gold plated the lying by using lawyers to threaten people, including I think Neidle, with libel actions if they didn't shut up. Unlike Rayner he was financially sophisticated and should have, probably did, know he was on thin ice. >> Mmmm. You mean he uses the place where he officially lives to keep his money >> from the taxman? I think he non resident rather than being a non dom. That in itself is fine for the reasons you mention. However he is Member of the Lords, and I thought a condition of that which has not been complied with was his becoming resident, and pays very large amounts to a political part in the country he keeps his money away form. >> Last time I checked tax avoidance wasn't illegal. Tax evasion definitely is. See above. I don't think anybody is suggesting tax was knowingly evaded. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 14 Apr 24 at 21:21
|
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 22:56
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
You've added a bit more detail to my response to Manatee and I agree with you. This would have been a complete non-story if she'd come clean right at the start. In fact, I think she would have gained a lot of sympathy if she'd held her hands up and said that at the time she hadn't taken professional advice but thought she was OK. >See above. I don't think anybody is suggesting tax was knowingly evaded. I always plump for cock-up over conspiracy when politicians are involved but some media outlets are pointing in that direction. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 10:41
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> However he is Member of the Lords, and I >> thought a condition of that which has not been complied with was his becoming resident, A shufty through Ashcrofts Wiki page tells me he resigned from the Lords after ten years for reasons that seem related to his residence. |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 17:09
Angela Rayner - CGNorwich
|
| I dont think most people care. Trivial offence even if there was one. She has had a tough life and most of her oppnonents would have fallen by the wayside years ago if they had to face the obstacles she has overcome. |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 18:01
Angela Rayner - sooty123
|
|
I think she might have to, iirc she is quite keen in calling for members of the gov to resign. If the situation was reversed i doubt she'd be shy in ringing around journalists to get an interview calling for them to resign immediately. I don't think there's much cut through with public that Labour have to worry about though. The gov will try to make a song and dance about it but too little too late. |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 22:09
Angela Rayner - Fullchat
|
|
Rayner has always been publicly very vocal and calling for resignation at every opportunity. You reap what you sow. |
|
New Sun 14 Apr 24 22:16
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Rayner has always been publicly very vocal and calling for resignation at every opportunity. >> >> You reap what you sow. It's a trend in politics that needs to be reversed. It's not unique to AR or Labour; both the Tories and the Liberals suffer from it too. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 02:13
Angela Rayner - Terry
|
|
>> It's a trend in politics that needs to be reversed. It's not unique to AR >> or Labour; both the Tories and the Liberals suffer from it too. I agree. It's no wonder politicians as a group sit at the bottom of the public trust league table making journalists, estate agents and bankers appear models of integrity. www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-trust-in-professions-veracity-index-2023 It will take an exceptional leader to change the status quo - sadly no party has one who would comes remotely close to qualifying. The media could properly and objectively report their inadequate behaviours - sadly journalists only rank slightly higher than the politicians they report upon. Pigs will likely grow wings first. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 17:18
Angela Rayner - Manatee
|
|
Oppositions are supposed to challenge and test government proposals, and the government itself if it doesn't behave properly. In a sense, oppositions are always electioneering. The principal job of the governing party is to govern which it is doing very little of at the moment and even the hygiene factors have all gone to pot. The government of course is now electioneering too so the whole thing has gone into overdrive. No party is immune to bad apples. The thing about 'proverbial' bad apples though is that they can ruin the whole barrel. One of the things the electorate has to decide is whether the party they are considering bestowing their vote on has a bad apple or two, or is a rotten barrel altogether. Hopefully the second case is very rare. But I don't think I've ever seen such a dodgy bunch. Politicians have aye been economical with the truth but barefaced lies, repeated systematically and with money and social media campaigns behind them, are now absolutely standard issue from the Conservatives. Vide Susan Hall's mayoral campaign last week citing Sadiq Khan's plans for road charging, for which no evidence has been produced. CCHQ has clearly got behind the Rayner campaign, and who would be surprised if they were patting themselves on the back on the basis that it doesn't really matter whether it's true or not? As to whether anybody has emerged who is exceptional - Starmer is no Churchill, or even Blair, but in terms of basic honesty and motive he looks as if he might be a stand out. Not just because I think he's basically honest but because of the sheer depth of depravity of the governing party and 3 of the last 4 prime ministers. We can be certain that no effort or expense has been spared in searching for skellingtons in his cupboards. Either the Tories are keeping their powder dry, or there simply aren't any. It's a virtual certainty I think that they will confect something. I'd be amazed if they or friendly 'journalists' aren't going through his bins and talking to his neighbours. The silliest, laziest and probably commonest comment we ever hear IMO is "they are all the same". They clearly aren't. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 17:57
Angela Rayner - Fullchat
|
|
"Oppositions are supposed to challenge and test government proposals, and the government itself if it doesn't behave properly. In a sense, oppositions are always electioneering." Unfortunately it seems that ALL government proposals are objected to and ridiculed only for the purpose of scoring points rather than benefitting the country. Its all getting rather childish and tiring. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 18:39
Angela Rayner - Manatee
|
|
>> "Oppositions are supposed to challenge and test government proposals, and the government itself if it >> doesn't behave properly. In a sense, oppositions are always electioneering." >> >> Unfortunately it seems that ALL government proposals are objected to and ridiculed only for the >> purpose of scoring points rather than benefitting the country. Its all getting rather childish and >> tiring. >> The government still has a majority. Only the Lords can defeat them and then only temporarily except in very unusual circumstances. Do you have anything specific in mind? |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 18:53
Angela Rayner - tyrednemotional
|
|
>> >> The government still has a majority. >> ...which particular faction of the Government is it that has a majority? |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 19:09
Angela Rayner - Zero
|
|
>> ...which particular faction of the Government is it that has a majority? Majority of what tho, thats the question. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 16:05
Angela Rayner - Manatee
|
|
>> >> >> >> The government still has a majority. >> >> >> >> ...which particular faction of the Government is it that has a majority? Exercised yesterday to squash the Lords' amendments on the long-running Rwanda distraction. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 07:48
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Unfortunately it seems that ALL government proposals are objected to and ridiculed only for the >> purpose of scoring points rather than benefitting the country. Its all getting rather childish and >> tiring. Those of us observing this stuff closely do see occasions where Labour and others welcome government policies and even vote for them. Today's bill on banning cigarettes etc is a case in point. There are also cross party amendments on using a current bill to decriminalise abortion which is still illegal under legislation dating back to Queen Victoria. The 1967 Act only allows some exceptions and the authorities have been coming down hard on cases that fall outside that. Vulnerable women have had prison time. |
|
New Mon 15 Apr 24 23:23
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
>Vide Susan Hall's mayoral campaign last week citing Sadiq Khan's plans for road >charging, for which no evidence has been produced. No evidence? Seems that Assembly Members trust Khan as far as they could throw him. tinyurl.com/KhanTfL |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 11:42
Angela Rayner - Manatee
|
|
>>No evidence? Seems that Assembly Members trust Khan as far as they could throw him. I'm sure the feeling is reciprocated. That link just confirms that he will not introduce pay per mile road charging, he said it several times. That goes much further than the usual qualified version people use of "we have no plans...". Of course if you simply say you don't trust somebody then you can allege that they are planning to do it anyway, is that how you justify the claim? Susan Hall has form for making things up I'm afraid. Fortunately there is no chance of her being elected. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 12:10
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> That link just confirms that he will not introduce pay per mile road charging, he >> said it several times. That goes much further than the usual qualified version people use >> of "we have no plans...". The Mayor says, in effect, we've asked TfL to look at it and how it might work but have rejected the idea. Johnson looked at it and rejected it too. Lots of big cities have looked at the possibility and practicalities. No sensible person would expect London to be different. I don't think any Mayor, properly advised, would say never ever but Khan is clear it's not going to happen in the current Mayoralty or, if he's re elected, the next one. The questioner is either thick or hoping to trip him up. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Apr 24 at 12:14
|
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 14:25
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
>The questioner is either thick or hoping to trip him up. After he gave assurances that there would be no ULEZ expansion then one year later introduces such a scheme I think it entirely appropriate that they try to pin him down as tightly as they can. It would be negligent of them not to get it all on the record for such a contentious issue. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 16:10
Angela Rayner - Manatee
|
| I have more than a vague recollection that Shapps when transport minister made necessary additional tfl funding conditional on the last ULEZ expansion. And Johnson started it. They suddenly forgot that when they joined the protestors. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 16:18
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I have more than a vague recollection that Shapps when transport minister made necessary additional >> tfl funding conditional on the last ULEZ expansion. And Johnson started it. There was certainly some central government action as part of the ULEZ being extended to the North/South Circular Roads. IIRC it was a quid pro quo for bailing out TfL 'cos of pandemic losses. Kevin, is that the one you mean or the more recent extension to all the Boroughs? Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Apr 24 at 16:19
|
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 16:47
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
I really don't know Bromp but I would guess the N&S Circular. I was taking that from the minutes I linked to previously where Emma Best with a hint of cynicism says to Kahn: "I understand things change quickly. We know that it was only in 2020 or 2021 that you told Assembly Member Prince that there was not going to be a ULEZ expansion and then a year later there was." |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 17:03
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I really don't know Bromp but I would guess the N&S Circular. I was taking >> that from the minutes I linked to previously where Emma Best with a hint of >> cynicism says to Kahn: >> >> "I understand things change quickly. We know that it was only in 2020 or 2021 >> that you told Assembly Member Prince that there was not going to be a ULEZ >> expansion and then a year later there was." Which is consistent with both what Manatee said and the utter cynicism of the Tories trying to say 'nowt to do with us squire?' about the N/S Circular extension. I appreciate there are some losers in ULEZ - pre 2016 diesels - and that it's purpose is widely, albeit in some cases wilfully, misunderstood but it's not the hammer blow to mobility some would have us believe. We have an account for the Berlingo as it's diesel and only Euro 5 and we're frequent vistors to the CAMC site at Denham which is only just outside LBs Hillingdon and Harrow. Mrs B was fined for infringing the one in Brum. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Apr 24 at 17:08
|
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 17:55
Angela Rayner - Terry
|
|
Politics seems to be the art of telling people what they want to hear, then doing what makes sense given a particular political dogma, and finally rationalising what actually happened with selective statistics, half truths, spurious recollections, empty apologies etc. It takes little effort to find some still born Sir Kier pronouncements: www.bigissue.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-broken-promises-tuition-fees-nationalisation-u-turn/ Labour supporters will no doubt find the reversals the product of rational thought as circumstances evolved. Tory supporters will call them out as blatant lies intended to deceive.. This is politics in the early 21st C. Few behave with decency prioritising job and influence over integrity. To shift the focus a little - just been watching the leader of the LibDems (Ed Davey) trying to rationalise his failures whilst responsible for the Post Office. |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 18:15
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >> www.bigissue.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-broken-promises-tuition-fees-nationalisation-u-turn/ So stuff that turned out not to be possible/practical etc won't make the cut for the manifesto. And? |
|
New Wed 17 Apr 24 10:47
Angela Rayner - Terry
|
|
>> So stuff that turned out not to be possible/practical etc won't make the cut for >> the manifesto. >> >> And? Precisely what I said in my original post: "Labour supporters will no doubt find the reversals the product of rational thought as circumstances evolved. Tory supporters will call them out as blatant lies intended to deceive." |
|
New Tue 16 Apr 24 19:58
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
I was also under the impression that the govt. had a hand in forcing Kahn to expand ULEZ to the N&S Circular as a condition of extraordinary funding but the Dept for Transport refutes that. All Shapps' letter says is: 12 h. The immediate reintroduction of the London Congestion Charge, LEZ and ULEZ and urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels of these charges, in accordance with the relevant legal powers and decision-making processes. www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mgla190520-2101_-_foi_response_redacted.pdf The DfT claims: "It said that the reference to bringing forward “proposals to widen the scope and levels of these charges” referred to proposals relating to the operation times of the Congestion Charge, and the potential expansion of ULEZ to an area up to the North and South Circular Roads. This expansion was first proposed by Mr Khan in 2018, before the funding agreement, and was ultimately implemented in October 2021 after having been included in his re-election manifesto earlier in the year." fullfact.org/online/ulez-expansion-letter/ That fits with the finger pointing and timescales quoted by whatshername in the Assembly minutes so I don't know who to believe. |
|
New Wed 17 Apr 24 07:57
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
DfT may deny it but they've certainly not refuted anything. The fullfact item is dated/related to the recent expansion to all 32 Boroughs - the M25 is often used to describe the outer limit. It's the intermediate extension to the A405/205 that we say was HMG's condition. Both Johnson and Khan had examined that before the pandemic. For the record I'm in favour of the principle of a ULEZ to reduce NOx/Particulates. It could/should have been better managed in terms of mitigations, particularly older vans. |
|
New Wed 17 Apr 24 11:05
Angela Rayner - Terry
|
|
The ULEZ expansion has happened. Those involved with predictable political intent want to deny responsibility for the negative impacts yet claim credit for the positive. Given enough data - in this case letters, reports, advice, analysis from a wide range of sources - it is possible to reconstruct almost any argument wanted. Thus both Labour and Tory protagonists are each convinced they were "right". I agree with Bromp - reducing pollution is the right policy but the change could have been differently managed to avoid immediately penalising those who could least afford it. |
|
New Wed 17 Apr 24 12:44
Angela Rayner - Rudedog
|
|
People who don't live in a 'rural' ULEZ should be careful what they wish for. It has caused no end of issues here - signs torn down - we still have monthly protests that block junctions with hundreds of drivers and farmers/tractors - ULEZ cameras have not been replaced here as TfL know they will be removed straight away - many cameras on my way into work in Croydon have had the lenses sprayed over. There are still hundreds of non-compliant cars/vans in use around my area and I just can't believe the drivers are coughing up the £12.50 each day which means there must be a shed load of fines either being paid or more likely ignored. Driving down to nearby Sevenoaks I just can't imagine what they would do if a similar ULEZ was setup around there - it would cause a riot. We received our Mayoral candidate leaflet they other day and I think all bar three have said they will repeal the outer ULEZ from day one - going to be fun to see how that turns out. |
|
New Wed 17 Apr 24 14:34
Angela Rayner - Terry
|
|
>> We received our Mayoral candidate leaflet they other day and I think all bar three >> have said they will repeal the outer ULEZ from day one - going to be >> fun to see how that turns out. Democracy in action - voters who pay the charges or suffer the inconvenience are largely those who can choose a cheaper (shorter?) life, or demonstrate how they really value the environment! The odds are on a Khan 3rd term - so the probability of ULEZ disappearing is small. |
|
New Wed 17 Apr 24 15:11
Angela Rayner - Kevin
|
|
Well we can debate what constitutes sufficient proof to satisfy the definition of refute in another thread but those documents don't leave much ambiguity about what was being referred to. >The fullfact item is dated/related to the recent expansion to all 32 Boroughs... Did you actually read that document or just skim the title? |
|
New Wed 17 Apr 24 16:18
Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
|
|
I read it three times because it seemed to mix up the 205/405 expansion with the later one. Never mind, we can agree to differ - whether as to what happened or interpretation. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
