I don’t know what people are so upset about. She only failed to pay a little bit of tax. Hundreds of bankers and multinationals so the same and nobody says anything.
Oh wait… 😅
I don’t know what people are so upset about. She only failed to pay a little bit of tax. Hundreds of bankers and multinationals so the same and nobody says anything.
Oh wait… 😅
If you’re right then I think Rayner should have been able to keep her job, as long as she paid the tax and any penalties for late payment. Rayner losing her job means that Labour have done the bidding of the right-wing press.
I supect that Starmer was happy to remove a possible rival. Rayner is slightly more leftish than the rest of the cabinet and less of a triangulating, tabloid-grovelling careerist zombie.
But now there is a vacancy for the Labour deputy leadership, and Labour members might try to elect somebody who is even more left-wing, so the government might be pushed to the left.
Edit: I’m not saying that a more left-wing deputy leader of Labour is necessarily a bad thing. I’m just saying I don’t necessarily believe that Starmer was happy to remove Rayner. “Better the devil you know” and all that - Rayner was a known quantity to Starmer, and she didn’t criticise his leadership too much. Now there is a risk of someone critical of the government becoming the deputy leader of Labour, which could give Starmer more problems.
HMRC actions have very little to do with political merit.
Sorry but no your assumption just dose not follow. HMRCs fines or punishment means way less to public opinion then their own sense of how an MP should behave.
And given Labours current polling. Rayner"s actions intentional or not. Are a distraction the leadership cannot tolerate.
That is exactly why the far right press printed the attacks.
Rayner was the most likely replacement for Starmer. And being slightly more left. Would be unacceptable to their ownership etc.