The public hounding of Angela Rayner is both ugly and alarming. It is a fact of human nature that most of us enjoy seeing public figures humiliated. But the British system of democracy, widely held to be one of the world’s least corrupt, depends on a culture where people at least try to overcome this base instinct. Instead our tradition is one where we choose to judge the actions of others fairly, equally and on their own merits whether they be friend or political foe. If we reject this culture and instead call for the metaphorical beheading of public figures because what they have done “smells bad” — rather than any proof of deliberate wrong-doing — then we are admitting that we no longer believe in the values of fairness or impartiality.
Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary stands accused of deliberately avoiding tax after it was revealed that she underpaid stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on a flat she purchased in the seaside town of Hove. Outrage has swept Westminster and, indeed, the nation. Today — when Britain’s economy stands on the brink of collapse — almost every newspaper has devoted its front page to the story. Rayner’s political opponents are not even attempting to disguise their glee at her predicament. Calls for her resignation are mounting by the minute.
Just because Rayner has responsibility for housing policy does not mean she should know the ins and outs of UK trust legislation
Everyone has an opinion about this larger-than-life working-class figure. She is a hero to some, a horror to others. But whether or not we approve of Rayner should be irrelevant when it comes to taking a fair-minded view on her financial affairs. What matters, surely, is the truth. Either Rayner has acted deliberately to avoid paying the tax she knew was due, or she hasn’t. If she is guilty, she should resign. If not, it would be wrong, unfair and damaging to democracy for the press, public and political enemies to hound her out of office.
So, what are the facts? In May, Rayner completed the purchase of an £800,000 property in Hove. This raised eyebrows for a number of reasons, including that the seaside town is more than 250 miles from her constituency in Ashton under Lyne, Manchester. It emerged that Rayner had paid £30,000 in stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on the transaction, which is the amount due at the lower tax rate for a primary residence, not the higher rate for a second home as this property was assumed to be. If the Hove flat was Rayner’s “second home”, she should have handed over the sum of £70,000. Forced to explain why she had not paid the larger amount, Rayner’s allies explained that she no longer owned her family home in Ashton, having been removed from the deeds in January of this year.
Rayner’s team told the press that she had taken professional advice on the transaction and had paid the correct amount of tax but was not allowed to speak freely about certain aspects of her personal and financial affairs due to a court order protecting her children.
Yet the story would not go away, fuelled by gratuitous headlines claiming Rayner had “dodged” £40,000 of tax. On Wednesday, all was revealed as Rayner sat down for a candid interview with Beth Rigby of Sky News in an attempt to set the record straight. Rayner told Rigby that in 2020, her disabled son received a financial award to provide for his life-long care. Rayner and her now ex-husband Mark set up a trust to manage the money, and put their family home into the trust to ensure that their son could always live in the specially adapted home. In 2023, the Rayners divorced, and began what is known as a “nesting” arrangement, where the children remain in the family home and the two parents take it in turns to stay in the property to care for the children. Earlier this year, Rayner decided to take her share of equity from the house — which had been bought jointly with her ex-husband in 2018 — and use it as a deposit for the new flat in Hove.
Like everyone who purchases property, Rayner used the services of lawyers to handle the transaction, including advising her how much SDLT was due. But after questions were raised, Rayner says she engaged an expert counsel who advised that her lawyers were wrong, and that, although her name is no longer on the deeds of the Ashton home, Rayner is deemed to have “an interest” in the property for tax purposes because the beneficiary of trust — her son — is under 18. Therefore the higher amount of SDLT should have been due on the Hove property, and Rayner has promised to pay the money in full.
Rayner says she was able to reveal these details to Rigby because she had applied to lift the court order that was protecting her son’s privacy, and the application had been granted on Tuesday evening.
In response to the interview, senior journalists and politicians have said that her behaviour is inexcusable, that as Housing Secretary she should have known what tax was due and therefore her failure to pay it is deliberate tax avoidance. In a particularly cynical headline, the Telegraph claimed that “Rayner used disabled son’s NHS compensation to buy second home.” Even those who are not convinced the wrongdoing was purposeful say that she must resign because the “optics are bad”.
But is this fair? The British conveyancing and tax systems are notoriously complicated (a subject for another day). For anyone whose financial affairs are more complicated than having one basic tax rate PAYE job and renting a flat, the services of lawyers and accountants are essential to making sure that those arrangements are sensible and legal. There are more than 350 000 accountants and 11 000 conveyancing solicitors in the UK. If ordinary people with no training in tax or property law could manage their own affairs, these professionals would be unemployed.
Just because Rayner has responsibility for housing policy does not mean she does — or should — know the ins and outs of UK trust legislation. I very much doubt Health Secretary Wes Streeting could safely remove a brain tumour or Energy Secretary Ed Miliband could construct a wind turbine. While Rayner may have a technical “interest” in the Ashton property according to tax law, any normal person can see that she no longer “owns” that home. Tax expert Max Warburton admitted that “even I didn’t know about the tax rule she broke.”
If Rayner’s account of the matter is accurate, she acted reasonably and responsibly in trusting the professional advice she received, and can’t be blamed for her advisors’ mistakes. She has now referred herself to the Government’s ethics tsar who will investigate and report to the prime minister. If it is found that Rayner is not telling the truth and acted improperly, she will rightly have to resign or be sacked. But until and unless that happens, we should give Angela Rayner the benefit of the doubt.
We have recently witnessed a revival of interest in Britain’s heritage and traditions, with thousands raising the St George’s Flag, a resurgence of interest in Remembrance Day parades and increasing alarm at the impact of mass migration on our culture.
But one essential aspect of British character and tradition that must not be forgotten is our sense of fair play, something for which we are rightly famous around the world. It is not in our culture to submit to mob rule, and “innocent until proven guilty” is a time-honoured yardstick. Stable democracies like ours rely on people rising above tribalism and vindictiveness and treating their political opponents fairly. Politicians should be attacked and sacked for poor policy decisions rather than cynically undermined for political gain. In more timeless British words of wisdom, we should “play the man not the ball”.
Rayner herself must bear some responsibility for creating the political anti-culture we now inhabit in which public figures are called on to resign the minute there is any sniff of wrongdoing, and before any due process can take place. During the last parliament, Starmer, Rayner and their colleagues on the Labour benches focused relentlessly on “bringing down” Conservative politicians — from Boris Johnson and Priti Patel to Suella Braverman and Nadhim Zahawi — for perceived and minor misdemeanours. Perhaps if Rayner et al had concentrated more on preparing for government they wouldn’t now be so desperately unpopular with voters; what goes around comes around. But being a political hypocrite does not make someone guilty of tax fraud.
Angela Rayner should neither be damned because she called Tories “Scum” or excused because she has endured difficult personal circumstances. She should be judged on whether or not she has broken the rules, and whether or not any other sensible people would have acted similarly in her position.
When politicians and journalists give in to the temptation to treat someone unreasonably out of personal animosity or in pursuit of political gain, we undermine the very British culture of fairness that has for so long supported our stable and prosperous democracy. And we discourage good, reasonable, fair-minded people, or anyone with unusual personal circumstances, from standing for election. For that, Britain will pay a heavy price.
