Mailwatch(ed) Forum

On the other hand, her role as Deputy PM and public sympathy may be the only reason she isn't facing fraud charges for making a false declaration on a conveyancing statement.

Zahawi didn’t get charged with fraud. Why would she?

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 8:31 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 5:58 pm Yeah, despite my first reaction, I recognize she had to go, and in fairness it was done quickly.

I do think she was hugely unlucky though. If I were her, I'd be wondering what I'd paid the solicitor for. Having had to pay stamp duty myself a few years ago, I don't recall too much being made of the importance of getting expert tax advice. Maybe there was some sort of bland disclaimer about not providing tax advice, but is that enough? The British, so we're told, our world beaters at professional services. How about the solicitor learn a bit about tax and say "potential tax issues may include...."? Wouldn't that be better service, aside from anything else? It wasn't something that everybody would know (one personal finance journo very graciously said they didn't know) but equally it's not so obscure that it would be set as a tie-breaker at a tax law quiz night).

Perhaps the solicitor did flag up appropriately, in which case I take it back.

Rayner's situation regarding the trust for her son was so unusual that it was beyond her high street solicitor's pay grade, hence their advice that she consult a tax advisor. It was choosing to ignore this advice which was her downfall.

Did they actually advise that? I just saw some bland “we don’t offer tax advice” which I took to mean “nothing to do with us”.

So we learn today that Peter Kyle's been phoning round assuring union people that the workers rights bill is going ahead as before.

The latest Guardian story was just like all the other "it's being watered down, betrayal" stories, it seems.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 9:22 pm Zahawi didn’t get charged with fraud. Why would she?

As I said, I don't think she will. Nevertheless it is an offence to make a false declaration on conveyancing documents, she could be accused of lying for the purposes of tax evasion.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 9:33 pm
As I said, I don't she will. Nevertheless it is an offence to make a false declaration on conveyancing documents, she could be accused of lying for the purposes of tax evasion.

Kemi Badenoch basically accused her of that (despite Laurie Magnus not saying anything of the sort). Nobody serious will accuse her of that, and she won't be charged. HMRC deals with zillions of cases like this. She'll have to pay the extra tax plus an interest charge (in effect a fine). This will be dishonestly portrayed as her being guilty of tax evasion, but it isn't, it's more akin to settling a lawsuit. Zahawi paid 30% interest, I'd guess she'll pay less. There are two reasons they do this- evasion is very hard to prove, and you have to allow that tax is complicated and easy to get wrong.

When you see famous cases of people being prosecuted for tax evasion, there's usually much more than this. Lester Piggott didn't just fill in one lot of forms wrong/ dishonestly. He was investigated and asked if he was quite sure he'd declared all his income. Instead of fessing up, paying the extra tax and interest, he carried on concealing income (over £3m in 1987). Hence the prosecution.

I get how journalism works, and how it can tell us interesting things about the dynamics of a government that are good to know, and some of the briefing of "something bad's happening" will come from the Government itself as it prepares a U-turn, or plays with expectations. But there seems to be too much of an impression being pushed that the Government is worse/more stupid than it actually is, and I'm suspicious that it's being pushed by The Guardian because it wants to dump Labour for the Greens.

I gave up on the Guardian a long time ago because of it's relentless negativity - aimed not just at Labour but all parties and everything. It's like The Express for people who passed the Eleven Plus.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 9:33 pm So we learn today that Peter Kyle's been phoning round assuring union people that the workers rights bill is going ahead as before.

The latest Guardian story was just like all the other "it's being watered down, betrayal" stories, it seems.

The Guardian's Hot Trot Line to McCluskey is clearly still active.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 10:01 pm I get how journalism works, and how it can tell us interesting things about the dynamics of a government that are good to know, and some of the briefing of "something bad's happening" will come from the Government itself as it prepares a U-turn, or plays with expectations. But there seems to be too much of an impression being pushed that the Government is worse/more stupid than it actually is, and I'm suspicious that it's being pushed by The Guardian because it wants to dump Labour for the Greens.

It's also because they have to pnader to their online readership.

Yeah. Hate pnadering.

I'm wondering about this portrayal of Shabana Mahmood as some sort of Mad Dog hardliner.

Here's what she was doing at the MoJ

Women’s Justice Board starts vital work today to make our streets safer
Aims to reduce number of women in prison, cut reoffending, and better support children
Two-thirds of women prisoners report being victims of domestic abuse
Estimated 17,000 children affected when mum goes to prison every year

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wome ... -to-prison

And this.

https://www.ft.com/content/910d8049-87e ... af815f6122

Tougher community penalties to replace short jail terms in England

Move by government comes after Gauke review found short sentences ‘have a limited deterrent effect’

Now I'm sure she's not going to open refugee processing in Gaza or anything like that, but there's plenty of evidence of flexible thinking here. So where does this "harder than Cooper" stuff come from?

Former minister Louise Haigh pitches in with call for ‘economic reset’

What does she mean by this? I suspect, that like so many others, it's throw money about and get someone else to pay. Does she think Reeves hasn't borrowed enough?

Labour accused of ‘stitch-up’ over deputy leadership election contest – UK politics live

Or Labour seeks to avoid pissing about for ages with Deputy Leadership Election, seeing it's in Government. Is it really so hard for opponents of the Government to agree on a candidate? Surely if the answers to the difficulties the Government are having is so obvious, surely somebody can articulate that quickly, everyone agrees how clever they are, and they romp home in the Deputy Leadership election?

Or perhaps it's all a bit harder than it looks?

https://theconversation.com/how-the-uk- ... hts-259466

Interesting article here on what "reforming the ECHR" might mean.

Again, it doesn't sound like Mad Dog stuff, but the effect will likely not be very big. Might avoid the very rare case of serious criminals not being deported because of right to family life though.

Didn't win? Stitch up.
Didn't get nominated? Stitch up.
Did badly at a debate? Stitch up.
Didn't announce candidacy? Stitch up.
Got slaughtered in an interview? Stitch up.

It's a meaningless thing to throw about, and the only thing it accomplishes is to propagate the "all the same" mindset.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 08, 2025 10:29 am

Former minister Louise Haigh pitches in with call for ‘economic reset’

What does she mean by this? I suspect, that like so many others, it's throw money about and get someone else to pay. Does she think Reeves hasn't borrowed enough?

Haigh said the OBR should revise its growth forecasts only once a year, not twice a year as it is required to do now under law passed by the Tories. She said this would “give ministers the space to design serious, long-term reforms – not scramble for short-term fixes to meet arbitrary fiscal targets”. It is thought that Starmer thinks this too. But the government has been nervous about changing the way the OBR operates in case that gets interpreted as a weakening of fiscal discipline.

Haigh criticised the “quantitive tightening” policy being followed by the Bank of England. She said this was a result of the way George Osborne introduced quantitive easing when he was chancellor. The IPPR, a leftwing thinktank, has made the same argument.

Haigh said the Bank of England should stop paying interest on central bank reserves to commercial lenders

I got her wrong. She's making sensible points. Not sure what you do about the second- altering Bank independence would not go down well. The last does save the government money- you probably wouldn't stop all the payments- but the banks probably pass the costs on, so nobody much feels better off.

What this isn't is an "economic reset".

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 08, 2025 11:40 am Didn't win? Stitch up.
Didn't get nominated? Stitch up.
Did badly at a debate? Stitch up.
Didn't announce candidacy? Stitch up.
Got slaughtered in an interview? Stitch up.

It's a meaningless thing to throw about, and the only thing it accomplishes is to propagate the "all the same" mindset.

Yeah.

If only MPs still decided this stuff.

Helpful advice from Paul Novak, General Secretary of the TUC.

My message to the government is simply this – deliver the manifesto on which you won a huge majority last July. Deliver good jobs, decent public services and better living standards in every corner of the country. Deliver the change people voted for and show working-class communities whose side you are on.

Why hasn't the Government thought of this? Deliver higher living standards in every corner of the country, within a year. This stuff is actively harmful, the idea that this is easy, a massive gift to people like Farage.

He's got some tax advice too. Raise taxes on people who don't live in the UK.

If billionaires can afford fleets of private yachts, day trips into space, weddings that shut down Venice, they can pay a bit more tax.

You won't see it in left media either, except as a negative, because this is private investment. I'm old enough to remember when Labour not funding this directly from taxation was evidence they weren't bothering with climate change.