Angela rayner

Yep, me too. You can only play the game you’re in and a vote for anybody else is a vote for Reform. Starmer is ****, but unfortunately he was the best of the only two who were likely to win last time and is far and away the best of the only two likely to win next time. If your choice is ‘****’ or ‘absolutely destroying the country’ then you vote for ****. Voting for Green, Corbyn or Lib Dems won’t lead to a hung Parliament, it will lead to a Reform Government.

The left, Labour (ha!), Corbyn, the Greens, etc need to bury their differences and come together, and Starmer needs to listen to what the others say and start making peoples’ lives better. The next GE is going to be the most important one in living memory. Reform getting in will destroy the country. It will be the end of the NHS for good and will see the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor expand beyond belief, because all Reform are about is making themselves richer. Leaving the ECHR will be disastrous for workers’ rights (which is the main reason Reform are pushing for it). But I don’t know what we can do to make the blind see this. The turkeys have voted for Christmas once and now they are climbing into the frigging oven!

 

Absolutely spot on.
The frightening issue is Reform will more than likely be elected.
I vote for Starmer as he was best out of a bad bunch.
Reform are gathering momento.
Look at Europe in the mid 30s with the far right.
That did not end well.

 

I'm not so sure voting for any party bar Labour will let reform in. That's what Labour will be relying on but remember the voting model now is completely fractured and Labour themselves only got in with a quarter of the electorate. Its up to Labour to be more progressive for a start but its also up to progressive voters to look for genuinely progressive alternatives if they want things to get better.
Interesting article here for example
Labour has succeeded only in strengthening Farage. The way is now open for Zack Polanski’s Greens | George Monbiot https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/03/green-party-zack-polanski-labour-reform
A lot of this I agree with. A lot on here won't though

 

Not necessarily defending it, just putting the facts out there that we know to date

 

She looked shifty as he'll in that interview. Eyes we all over and kept saying advised. If she told me it was raining I'd have to go look for myself.

 

The facts as stated by Rayner, if proven to be accurate by the investigation, I really can't see what the issue is. Have folk forgot the last 14 years of institutionalised corruption. The boys club go gunning for Rayner because shes not one of them. Covid shenanigans anyone? Mountains and molehills.

• In 2020, an incident left Rayner's young son with life-long disabilities and a trust was set up for him. With the house adapted to meet his needs, Rayner says she and her ex-husband agreed their interest in the home would be transferred to this trust - of which her son is the sole beneficiary
• In 2023, some of the interest in the family home was transferred to the trust. Following their divorce, Rayner says she and her ex-husband set up a "nesting arrangement" whereby the children would stay in the family home, in Ashton-under-Lyne, while she and her ex-husband alternated living there. She says this property remains her family home as "it is where my children live and have gone to school and now college"
• In January 2025, Rayner sold the remaining interest in the Ashton property to her son's trust. She says this "gives him the security of knowing the home is his"
• In May 2025, Rayner says she bought a property in Hove, using the lump sum from selling her stake in the Ashton home. She says she received legal advice that she was liable to pay the standard rate of stamp duty on the Hove property.
• Since then: The Deputy PM says that given recent public scrutiny, she sought further advice and found she should have paid more stamp duty. Rayner says a court order was in place, preventing her from telling the full details of her financial arrangements, but that's now been overturned. She also says she's working with lawyers and HMRC to "pay what is due"

 

Fair.

Also fair to point out that £4.8 million is slightly more than £40k

 

So is it the amount or the principle? When in a position of power and trust?

It might 'only' be 40k, but if this was a tory she would be shot to **** on here. She wouldn't have got the defence of 'the plain fact is her advisors', she would have been assigned much more blame and malice.

I never thought me voting for Labour would be this regretful.

 

I did say fair. And I have said I think she needs to resign.

Both are bad but but the amount is relevant. Especially considering £4.8 Million is one sixth of his net worth and there is no chance in hell it was an oversight. It was large scale tax avoidance from a man regularly moving vast amounts of money through various tax havens betwen holding companies that both him, his wife, and his family own.

No sympathy for her as in her position you should be triple checking any tax affairs, but wrongly believing you could legally pay aless stamp duty is hardly in the same ball park as that crook.

 

And yet you hang on to every word your Nige says

 

Reform have no chance of being elected as the largest party in our first past the post system , they may pick up a lot more seats 10 to 15 at most . If they join with the Tories they are more of a threat . Hung parliament is my guess the way Starmer is going on

 

The most sense that I've seen written on the BBS, since someone first called out Conway. Sadly, it won't happen, Sadly.

 

If she's been badly advised by legal professionals can't she sue them?

 

Nail on the head. Both the comment piece you linked, and your final sentence. So two nails.

 

He is more interested in protest than he is forming a government. His hearts in the right place but he's another Corbyn and people won't vote for that... His thoughts on NATO alone in an ever increasingly unstable world are a worry.

 

Yes, and in her position I'd be doing that quickly and publicly.

Of course it depends what the advice was. If the advice was that the arrangement was "unlikely to be challenged" then she might not want to...

 

I wasn't sure if it worked like that and you can sue or if it's just u lucky if they're wrong.

Personally then I think she should do and if she's proven to have been given bad legal advice she should suffer no punishment, if she has misled or omitted information or anything else then bye bye

 

Yeah. Depends on whether the advice was definitive or not.

 

12.8million voted for Corbyn once. 10.2m second time around.

So to say “people won’t vote for that” is quite clearly untrue.

For comparison, 9.7m was enough for Starmer to become PM.

‘This’ isn’t me claiming Corbyn or Polanski can become PM, or that their parties could get so many votes. I’m just not having the notion that nobody votes for the lefties, when facts say otherwise.

I think Labour will need to work with the left (and Davey) over the next few years if they want to fend off Reform. Sadly, their actions over the last year don’t seem to match that assumption. They’re aping them if anything. Enabling them. Legitimising them.

But as the Labour voters keep saying, there’s four years to go…