Keir Starmer at it again..

[Del Woppio]

Actually second thoughts it does contradict her first letter

 

[EpsomWolf]

Something still isn’t adding up, the tenancy can’t go ahead without the licence.

The agency could’ve offered to do it for her (for a fee of course) or simply advised her (/him/them) it’s required, but the agent still can’t process the tenancy agreement and allow the tenants in without the licence, so either way it has to be on the agent.

 

[AndyWolves]

Given the relatively tiny sums of money involved I can't imagine this was done for financial gain, it really seems like one of those life admin things that get forgotten about, like forgetting to MOT the car

 

[leedswolf]

All the Big Government Reforms the Media Hasn't Been Telling You About

You probably won’t have read much about these announcements over the past few weeks

bylinetimes.com

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Given the relatively tiny sums of money involved I can't imagine this was done for financial gain, it really seems like one of those life admin things that get forgotten about, like forgetting to MOT the car

It’s nearly £1000 that the Chacellor of the Exchequer said she didn’t know about, then we find out that she was told about it, was responsible for and then didn’t pay for it. In her initial letter it appears that she misled the Prime Minister, that could also have been one of those life admin things…but the moment this story broke she should have been all over the detail…but history shows, the Chancellor and details have a rocky relationship….

 

[Del Woppio]

It's a thousand pounds, but the licence lasts five years. I don't think that saving herself £4 a week was particularly influential in the matter.

The lack of licence is a nothing. There's been no material gain for her or harm to anybody else. An admin oversight that was corrected in swift order, everybody move on and stop frothing.

The fact that her second letter contradicts her first though, I think that's a bigger problem. You can't credibly go from "they told us we didn't need a licence" to "oh actually we knew we needed one but outsourced it and forgot" without having serious questions to answer regarding misleading the prime minister and the ethics advisor

 

[EpsomWolf]

All the Big Government Reforms the Media Hasn't Been Telling You About

You probably won’t have read much about these announcements over the past few weeks

bylinetimes.com

Worth taking a good look at the Crime and Policing Bill currently in the Lords.

The warnings direct action activists overstepping the mark will drive legislation that fucks up the rights of everybody while turning the place into a version of North Korea have long since fallen on deaf ears.

Seems the government aren’t prepared to sit around and be run ragged after all.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

It's a thousand pounds, but the licence lasts five years. I don't think that saving herself £4 a week was particularly influential in the matter.

The lack of licence is a nothing. There's been no material gain for her or harm to anybody else. An admin oversight that was corrected in swift order, everybody move on and stop frothing.

The fact that her second letter contradicts her first though, I think that's a bigger problem. You can't credibly go from "they told us we didn't need a licence" to "oh actually we knew we needed one but outsourced it and forgot" without having serious questions to answer regarding misleading the prime minister and the ethics advisor

She didn’t save herself £4 per week, she didn’t make the upfront payment. Maybe for her, £1000 is neither here nor there when she is pocketing £3000 a month while benefitting from free accommodation in Downing Street plus her grace and favour use of Dorneywood.

We are living in times where politicians come under intense scrutiny. This is no better or worse than what led to Rayner’s downfall and in her circumstances she did pay something…just the wrong something. But Rayner was ultimately responsible for getting it right…and so was Reeves. When politics is as much about perception as it is reality, the perception of Reeves is that she has not done something she was legally required to do and misled the Prime Minister about it. For the Prime Minister, it feeds the two tier narrative if it looks like Rayner and Reeves are treated differently.

 

[Del Woppio]

So different offences should be treated the same? Angela inadvertently underpaid a substantial amount of tax, by accidentally claiming that her primary residence was a five hour drive from her constituency. Rachel has not managed the admin of a rental properly. Those are not the same thing.

As I've said, the potential that she's misled the PM and the ethics investigator is far far more serious than this manufactured frothing

 

[Wilf Wolf]

Rightly or wrongly it’s beginning to look like Labour will need a new broom well before the next election. A new PM with more charisma than a bowl of cold soup and a Chancellor with no cobwebs in the cupboard. In the meantime let’s hope the incumbents lay some foundations for them to build on. Probably all comes down to whether the much heralded growth materialises.

 

[nimrod]

People didn't resign about embezzling millions on the back of a national health emergency so

Gaslit populace. get people focusing on relatively minor points rather than the great big fucking elephant in the room that's been paid billions in excess profits to shit on them from a great height.

 

[Tredman]

Gaslit populace. get people focusing on relatively minor points rather than the great big fucking elephant in the room that's been paid billions in excess profits to shit on them from a great height.

People are lapping it up.

 

[nimrod]

People are lapping it up.

everybody loves a pile-on for people they don't like. perspective goes out the window.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

So different offences should be treated the same? Angela inadvertently underpaid a substantial amount of tax, by accidentally claiming that her primary residence was a five hour drive from her constituency. Rachel has not managed the admin of a rental properly. Those are not the same thing.

As I've said, the potential that she's misled the PM and the ethics investigator is far far more serious than this manufactured frothing

Yes and no. I don't think Rayner should have been forced out and on that basis Reeves shouldn't be either...but Rayner was. £1000 or £4000 is irrelevant, the acts of omissions are not.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Greens 2nd place. People just need to hold their noses and vote for them now as voting for Labour will just split the progressive vote.

 

[BillyDee]

The bar for what wrong doings were needed to eventually be forced to resign was raised so high by the previous governments it needed to be lowered again, but this ain't it.