On Friday, Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister resigned. The previous week, the Daily Telegraph had started investigating her purchase of a new home in Brighton. Rayner had divorced her husband but for the sake of her family both parties had continued to use the family home. However, Rayner had now purchased a property in Brighton.
To help fund the purchase, she has sold her share in the family home. She has sold it to a trust fund that exists for their disabled son over which she and her ex-husband are trustees. The problem was that she now had three homes, her grace and favour accommodation in London, the family home in her constituency and her new place, which was her primary residency. She had taken her name off of the constituency home deeds and so identified the new home as her primary residency. This meant that she was liable for less stamp duty tax if it wasn’t a second home. However, the Telegraph identified that she was also identifying the constituency home as the primary one for council tax purposes and living between there and London. This meant she had underpaid tax.
By Friday, the PM’s advisor has confirmed this to be so and concluded that she has fallen short of the standards expected of ministers. Rayner resigned.
Now, looking at the story, people will come to different conclusions. Some will see a sympathetic figure trying to manage life after divorce and care for a vulnerable child too. She may have made mistakes and acted unwisely but these things happen. Others will see a hypocrite who happily revelled in pursuing her opponents for their mistakes and who pursued multiple property ownership whilst being the housing minister in a government who frowned upon such things. They may conclude that whilst not illegal tax evasion, her actions amounted to the still questionable tax avoidance.
What struck me though was the response from Rayner, her allies in government and supporters both when the story emerged and even after her resignation. What we have seen as a narrative that she was the victim of a political, sexist and classist attack. It was only because she was female and working class that she was being treated unfairly.
I believe that this is where she and the government came unstuck. Imagine a different scenario. What if when the news first broke, she had acknowledged that tax and housing are complex issues, quickly got advice and then rectified her mistake. She still may not have survived but perhaps would have stood a fighting chance. The additional problem was that she seems to have not recognized the complexities of multiple home ownership, further added to by her involving the trust fund for which she is a trustee. She would have been wise to get advice from the start. As well as legal advice, she would have also been wise to consider the political implications.
It seems to me that we see here an example of complacency, not just by Rayner but by the government. They didn’t seem to consider the possibility that they could get things wrong and that suggests a moral complacency. “We are the good guys.” This led to indignation and an instinct to respond to questions and criticism by seeking to attack, distract and blame. Once that was the response, I think her political fate was sealed. Others may also have sealed their own long term political fate too.
Once again, it is easy to judge. However, what I think we see here is an example of fallen human nature. Do we become complacent? How do we respond to challenge and criticism?
Faithroots 