Angela Rayner's tax scandal suddenly adds up once you realise Reform UK is in her backyard - Kelvin MacKenzie

Allister Heath reacts as Angela Rayner's lawyers deny giving her tax advice, saying they are being used as 'scapegoats' |

GB

Kelvin Mackenzie

By Kelvin Mackenzie


Published: 04/09/2025

- 22:13

Updated: 05/09/2025

- 00:42

The argument against a bigger mortgage is that the Deputy Prime Minister is all but certain to lose her seat in the next general election, writes the former editor of The Sun

What puzzles me about Angela Rayner's tax scandal is how she came to pay a whopping £800,000 for that flat in Hove in the first place.

Let’s look at how this saga started. There were two things going on at the same time.


The first was that Ms Rayner was getting divorced from her husband. They had three children, one of whom has serious challenges caused at birth.

Ms Rayner stated on Wednesday that her son Charlie, who was born prematurely, received an award five years ago, and a trust was established to protect his interests.

According to The Daily Telegraph, the payout resulted from an 11-year legal battle between the hospital where her son was born and the Rayner family.

Angela Rayner (left), Nigel Farage (right)

Angela Rayner's tax scandal suddenly adds up once you realise Reform UK is in her backyard - Kelvin MacKenzie

|

Getty Images

Sources suggest the NHS has paid compensation following the difficulties during her birth and care in 2008.

It is unclear how much money was paid out as part of the damages claimed; however, it was a large enough sum of money to buy the 25 per cent share of her house in Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester, which she had sold to the trust for £162,500.

That money was used as a deposit on the £800,000 Hove pad, with the rest being raised on a mortgage thanks to a £159,000 ministerial salary.

So I am left wondering why £162,000 of that NHS award to her son was used to buy a share of the property he always lived in and would never be sold.

There was an alternative. She could have gifted the 25 per cent to Charlie, who is now 17, instead of insisting that the trust (of which she is a trustee) pay the £162,000.

All that would have meant is that she would have either had to buy a smaller two-bed in Hove rather than a three-bed. Or she could have taken an even bigger mortgage.

The argument against the bigger mortgage is that she is almost going to lose her seat in the next general election, and nobody in their right mind would employ a woman who was embroiled in a well-publicised tax scandal and, in her professional capacity, is part of a government that's bankrupted the country.

I find it impossible to see how Ms Rayner survives the scandal.

Looking at the front bench during PMQs, you will see a hapless Starmer with a weeper on one side and a tax headache on the other.

I wonder if either will be there by Christmas.

More From GB News