This isn't in support of or anti either party or individual but I read a fair bit of the background to the Rayner case and I (wrongly, is it happened) didn't think that was a resigning matter, but what differentiates the two failures to take proper advice, such that (at the moment at least) Reeves doesn't have to resign?
I recall Rayner didn't go until the Standards Committee said she fell below the required standard but it seems Rachel isn't even self reporting herself so that won't arise.
Maybe other agendas were at work....
|
Difference is, I think, one of scale.
Rayner was told, twice, that although it was possible she could limbo under the additional stamp duty it was a complex area and she should take specific specialist advice.
She didn't and was bitten on the bum.
Reeves looks more like a cock up where the letting agent failed. The PM seems to have informally consulted the ethics adviser and that and that an apology and rectification would suffice. She may be fined or subject to prosecution for the oversight and there may be consequences in terms of tenants being able to recover rent.
If as stated this was a mess up by the letting agent then I think their indemnity insurance may take a battering.
If more facts come to light then she may be toast.
|
|
I doubt he'd sack her, he's shown himself to be in weak position as PM despite a massive majority.
|
I do not expect perfection from politicians - just honesty, decency and integrity. Expecting perfection and punishing deviation, however small, neuters political leadership and direction.
Rayner did what most of us would do - took advice she expected should be reasonably informed, liked what she heard, and ignored a suggestion she seek more specialist advice. Foolish with hindsight - but in my opinion no dishonest intent.
It is now evident either Reeves and/or her husband had emails from the agent telling them a licence was required which the agents agreed to obtain. They failed to do what was agreed. No blame should reasonably be attached to her action (or inaction).
However, her initial letter to Starmer claimed she was unaware a licence was required. This was either knowingly dishonest, or exhibited a lack of reasonable care in not thoroughly checking an issue she would know would be politically very sensitive.
IMHO Starmer gas got it wrong (again?) - he should have defended Rayner and sacked Reeves (he may still have to).
|
Rachel Reeves v. Angela Rayner - Bromptonaut
