Keir Starmer at it again..

[AndyWolves]

The government has plenty of ways for people to avoid paying tax eg ISAs, or pension contributions coming out of gross salary. These are linked to specific policy goals., and nobody would bat an eyelid at a politician using them in this way.

What Farage has done isnt that. So yes, its 100% legal, and within the letter of the law, but not in the spirit. Rayner is the opposite, She broke the law, but seemingly because she had the wrong advice, or no proper advice at all. Its easy to envisage that, had she been given the right advice she would have followed it.

So theres a difference in approach between 'I bent the rules and got away with it' versus 'I fucked up, so Im resigning'.

I know which approach I'd prefer from politicians.

As an aside, using salary sacrifice as a way to drop yourself under the high-income benefit charge just seems so counter-intuitive to me.

I get that it's all legal, and a very smart thing to do from an individual perspective but you'd think child benefit is there to help people who need it, artificially being able to reduce ones salary to still be able to claim it is just nuts. Feels like a double whammy for the state, less tax revenue and greater expenditure

 

[jlo]

To be fair, the media attention on Farage's taxes has increased somewhat over this weekend.

 

[lemonjelly]

To be fair, the media attention on Farage's taxes has increased somewhat over this weekend.

the focus on his personal finances, alongside most of reforms policies has been under scrutinised for years, and sadly I doubt the current focus will be sustained.

Vis outlines the situ quite well. There is a perception that as long as it is "within the law" then farages actions are quite canny, clever even - it's the governments fault for allowing this (side note the law was probably set up to support other situations, and this is a deliberate mis-use, but that's another debate). So this privately educated, former merchant banker, white male is lauded for his ingenuity.

Rayner has gone via a different route, but has a slightly similar outcome. However, this working class female is held to a much higher, and rather different standard to farage.

Why is that the case?

 

[sycophantia]

The government has plenty of ways for people to avoid paying tax eg ISAs, or pension contributions coming out of gross salary. These are linked to specific policy goals., and nobody would bat an eyelid at a politician using them in this way.

What Farage has done isnt that. So yes, its 100% legal, and within the letter of the law, but not in the spirit. Rayner is the opposite, She broke the law, but seemingly because she had the wrong advice, or no proper advice at all. Its easy to envisage that, had she been given the right advice she would have followed it.

So theres a difference in approach between 'I bent the rules and got away with it' versus 'I fucked up, so Im resigning'.

I know which approach I'd prefer from politicians.

This is all fair but Epsom is just pointing out the facts as unpalatable as they are to us and trying to point out why Farage is getting an easier ride than Rayner.
Obviously the rules around tax evasion and avoidance need sorting out.

 

[sycophantia]

the focus on his personal finances, alongside most of reforms policies has been under scrutinised for years, and sadly I doubt the current focus will be sustained.

Vis outlines the situ quite well. There is a perception that as long as it is "within the law" then farages actions are quite canny, clever even - it's the governments fault for allowing this (side note the law was probably set up to support other situations, and this is a deliberate mis-use, but that's another debate). So this privately educated, former merchant banker, white male is lauded for his ingenuity.

Rayner has gone via a different route, but has a slightly similar outcome. However, this working class female is held to a much higher, and rather different standard to farage.

Why is that the case?

She is being held to higher standard than others but I think thats because she is Labour rather than working class female. It's nothing new and will always be so while most media has right wing bias.

 

[lemonjelly]

She is being held to higher standard than others but I think thats because she is Labour rather than working class female. It's nothing new and will always be so while most media has right wing bias.

It may not be a surprise to you, but I fundamentally disagree.
There is nothing in logic to explain why she should be held to a higher standard than others.

 

[sycophantia]

It may not be a surprise to you, but I fundamentally disagree.
There is nothing in logic to explain why she should be held to a higher standard than others.

I didn't say she should be, just pointing out that is what's happening and that I don't think it's because she a working class woman. Some people expect Labour politicians, whatever their gender and background to have higher moral standards than right wing parties. I don't know why but there it is.
All politicians should be held accountable but for the reasons I mentioned Labour will always be vilified more than others.

 

[visage]

She is being held to higher standard than others but I think thats because she is Labour rather than working class female. It's nothing new and will always be so while most media has right wing bias.

I dont think shes being held to a higher standard - shes being held to *the* standard, namely the ministerial code. Which clearly states that if youre found to have breached it then you're expected to resign. And given the the independent assesor concluded that she had, she had no option.

 

[sycophantia]

I dont think shes being held to a higher standard - shes being held to *the* standard, namely the ministerial code. Which clearly states that if youre found to have breached it then you're expected to resign. And given the the independent assesor concluded that she had, she had no option.

If she is being held to a standard and others aren't then surely she's being held to a higher standard (I realise that Farage hasn't broken any rules, that we know off, just generalising)

 

[AndyWolves]

It's a shame that there isn't a difference between morally right and legally right. In my mind i know exactly which is which but i suppose morally is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[leedswolf]

I dont think shes being held to a higher standard - shes being held to *the* standard, namely the ministerial code. Which clearly states that if youre found to have breached it then you're expected to resign. And given the the independent assesor concluded that she had, she had no option.

Williamson, Jenrick, Gove and Patel would disagree.

 

[visage]

Well, yes. Because they knew that, in the absence of resignation they wouldnt be sacked.

And, as unfashionable as it is in this thread, Starmer would have done the right thing and sacked her if she didnt resign.

 

[leedswolf]

Well, yes. Because they knew that, in the absence of resignation they wouldnt be sacked.

And, as unfashionable as it is in this thread, Starmer would have done the right thing and sacked her if she didnt resign.

Therefore a higher standard has been applied to Rayner...

 

[leedswolf]

Oh, and fwiw, I believe her resignation (or sacking) was inevitable.

 

[leedswolf]

It's a shame that there isn't a difference between morally right and legally right. In my mind i know exactly which is which but i suppose morally is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed, different moral standards seem to be applied if you're a thick girl from a council estate and have a funny accent.