Did Angela Rayner make a formal arrangement when she sought the so-called specialist advice that’s now left her in hot water? For if she did what the rest of us do when consulting experts – make an appointment, run a comb through our hair, sit in the waiting room watching afternoon telly – then surely there would be a paper trail of the consultation. Especially when the case involves someone who is not only Deputy Prime Minister but also Housing Minister.
Of course, Rayner may not have gone down the formal route. Ange could have asked a lawyer mate for an off-the-cuff opinion. Maybe over a bulbous glass of Rose on Hove beach. Or during a shared vape in the back of a dinghy. Nothing inherently wrong with that. I’m forever mithering professional friends for free advice, whether it’s about teeth whitening or if I can claim for a new frock (answer: no).
But if she did officially instruct heavyweight tax specialists or property lawyers to examine her – ahem – portfolio, that would show she intended to do the right thing. It would demonstrate she recognised her situation needed to be dealt with properly, through professional channels.
What’s more, having experienced an investigation last year about whether she avoided tax on the 2015 sale of her former council house (Rayner was cleared of any wrongdoing) you’d think she’d be particularly careful.
Which brings us to the central question: who were the “suits” dishing out such crummy, inaccurate advice? Advice that led Rayner to avoid £40,000 in stamp duty by telling the tax authorities her second home was, in fact, her main one. Shouldn’t we know who they are? Why the secrecy? I mean, would you use them if you needed a spot of conveyancing?
Rayner has confirmed she will have to pay more as a result of incorrectly paying the lower rate on the flat in Hove, East Sussex. She has also referred herself to the ministerial ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus who will no doubt ask for proof of the source of such erroneous counsel.
Meanwhile, the court of public opinion, impatient of any formal ruling, will make up its own mind about whether she made an innocent mistake or was guilty of rank hypocrisy. (Indefensibly, some knuckleheads have already sprayed “tax evader” graffiti on her Hove home.)
The fact remains we need to know who the central players were in this legal and finance drama. Stamp duty is a tax millions of ordinary hard working homeowners pay in full. The Deputy PM would have access to the best legal brains – so we need to know their names. Rayner has plenty of form hollering for transparency in opposition. Lets have some about her lawyers now.
So many questions need addressing if her defence is predicated on skewered advice. Will the relevant professional bodies such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority act? Did Rayner take notes during her consultation? Was the advice put in writing, as is standard practice?
Because this controversy presses a singular political bruise: voters cannot abide senior politicians appearing to live by different rules than everyone else. Unsurprisingly, the Tories smell blood. Alongside the standards probe, they’re demanding an HMRC investigation.
At the very least, Rayner could be open about who advised her. That would show she isn’t obfuscating. Her earnest interviews yesterday – complete with the classic promise that “everything was done proper” (is it too much to ask that a Deputy PM doesn’t mangle the English language?) – would look far more convincing if accompanied by a little hard transparency.
So fess up, Ange. Was it a casual conversation? Or a diarised appointment with the legal brass? Not such a hard call to make. Or is it?