It was reported on the news today that the government wants to speed up the closing down of the hotels that accommodate illegal immigrants / asylum seekers.
–
But all this means is he will kick the problem down and put them up in rented houses within the community.
–
Kier, you have not convinced me. You clearly do not understand or appreciate the voters concerns.
-email – ifitwasup2me@hotmail.com
email = ifitwasup2me@hotmail.com
–
–
Stamp duty remains one of the most contentious aspects of property ownership and transfer in the United Kingdom. The rules around what constitutes a main residence, and the additional charges levied upon second homes, have seen both genuine confusion and, at times, alleged exploitation. In recent weeks, the case of Angel Ryner, a prominent public figure, has brought these issues to the fore—her reported declarations regarding her residences in Hove and Manchester have raised questions not only about the technicalities of stamp duty law, but also about the responsibilities of those in the public eye to act transparently and in good faith.
–
–
To understand the current controversy, it is first necessary to lay out the facts as they have been reported. Angel Ryner, who owns a home in Manchester, has recently acquired a new property in Hove. Reports indicate that she has declared her Hove residence as her main home, thus avoiding the additional stamp duty that would ordinarily be due on the purchase of a second property. The UK’s stamp duty system imposes a surcharge on additional residential properties purchased by individuals, a measure intended to discourage speculative buying and to aid first-time buyers in a competitive market.
–
However, complicating matters is the fact that Ryner has not sold her Manchester property, nor has she expressed any intention to do so. For many, the declaration of a new main residence would typically follow the sale of a previous home, or at least a clear move away from it. In Ryner’s case, speculation abounds—has she transferred ownership of her Manchester house to her children, perhaps via a gift or a trust, in order to sidestep the rules? Or has she, as some allege, made contradictory statements about her place(s) of residence, potentially claiming both as her main home in different contexts?
–
–
The concept of ‘main residence’ is pivotal in stamp duty calculations. HMRC guidance states that an individual’s main residence is the property where they spend most of their time, where their family lives, and where they are registered for things like voting and healthcare. Yet the rules leave room for subjective interpretation, and in cases involving multiple properties, determining which is the main residence can be fraught with ambiguity.
–
In Ryner’s case, the Hove property is over 250 miles from her constituency, raising further questions about her connection to the community she represents. If she continues to own—and perhaps even occupy—the Manchester home, how can she credibly declare Hove as her main residence for stamp duty purposes? The lack of clarity is problematic not only for tax authorities but also for constituents who expect their elected representative to live amongst or close to them.
–
It is worth emphasising that, without direct evidence, any conclusions about Ryner’s intentions must remain speculative. Nonetheless, the possibilities are instructive. Transferring ownership of a property to children or placing it in a trust are legitimate means by which individuals can alter their stamp duty liabilities.
–
Should Ryner have gifted her Manchester home to her children, she could then declare her new Hove residence as her sole main home, thereby avoiding the surcharge. Of course, such arrangements must be genuine and not simply paper exercises, as HMRC is empowered to investigate cases where the spirit of the law may have been breached.
–
Yet, if Ryner has made public or official statements affirming both properties as her main residence, she risks not only legal repercussions but also significant damage to her reputation. Dual declarations would suggest a deliberate attempt to benefit from contradictory tax treatments, an act that would undermine public confidence and, some argue, should prompt her resignation.
–
–
Further complicating the narrative is Ryner’s accommodation in London. However, given that she does not own the London property, and that living away from home is a requirement for many MPs and professionals working in the capital, this aspect is arguably less relevant to the stamp duty discussion. It is important to distinguish between owned and rented accommodation, and between personal and professional obligations. To focus too much on the London property risks distracting from the substantive issues around main residence and second home taxation.
–
–
The question of residence is not merely a fiscal matter. For Ryner’s constituents in Manchester, the knowledge that their MP’s primary home is hundreds of miles away is understandably disquieting. Representation implies not only formal duties but also a genuine connection to the locality. While parliamentary work may require frequent travel and periods spent elsewhere, a fundamental expectation remains: that an MP should understand and share the lived experience of those they serve. The perception that Ryner is no longer a local figure, but rather a distant administrator, is likely to fuel dissatisfaction and calls for accountability.
–
–
Ryner’s situation shines a light on the need for reform. The stamp duty surcharge on second homes was introduced to curb property speculation and to make home ownership more accessible. However, the system’s reliance on the declaration of a ‘main residence’ is open to manipulation.
–
One solution, as suggested in previous articles, is to levy stamp duty not simply on the purchase price of a new property, but on the difference between the sale value of the previous main residence and the new acquisition. In Ryner’s case, as she has not sold her Manchester house, she would be required to pay stamp duty on the full value of the Hove property. This approach would make it harder for individuals to avoid the surcharge by retaining ownership of multiple homes.
–
To further address potential loopholes, a tiered surcharge could be introduced for cases where the value difference exceeds a set threshold—say, £500,000. Most house movers would not be affected, but those acquiring substantial second homes would face higher charges, reflecting their ability to pay and discouraging speculative investments.
–
–
Given the public interest and the high profile of those involved, an inquiry into Ryner’s actions would be appropriate. Such an investigation should aim not only to establish the facts, but also to clarify the rules and recommend improvements. Expert advice will be crucial, both for navigating the legal complexities and for ensuring that future policies are robust, fair, and transparent.
–
The controversy surrounding Angel Ryner and her residential declarations underscores the urgent need to review and reform the UK’s stamp duty system. The current rules, while well-intentioned, are vulnerable to exploitation and fail to address the realities of modern property ownership. As public scrutiny intensifies, so too must the commitment of policymakers to ensure that taxation is equitable and that public representatives are held to the highest standards. Only then can trust be restored, not only in the tax system, but in the democratic institutions it supports.
–
The House of Lords, as the United Kingdom’s unelected upper chamber, continuously finds itself at the centre of debates surrounding democracy, fairness, and representation. Recent calls, such as those by Nigel Farage for the inclusion of peers from minor parties, have reignited conversations about the legitimacy and composition of the Lords. With the current make-up reflecting historical patterns more than present-day electoral realities, questions arise about whether the system adequately serves the modern British populace.
–
–
At present, the House of Lords comprises approximately 830 members, distributed as follows:
–
This structure is a byproduct of centuries of political evolution, with life peers, hereditary peers, and bishops all contributing to a complex tapestry of backgrounds and allegiances. However, the figures above highlight a significant imbalance. The numbers of Lords affiliated with major parties do not reflect recent election results or the popular vote, but are instead the outcome of decades of appointments, retirements, and the gradual reforms that have shaped the chamber.
–
–
To answer whether the House of Lords is fair, one must first define what fairness in political representation means. In a representative democracy, fairness is often equated with proportionality—the idea that the distribution of seats should, in some way, mirror the distribution of public support as expressed in elections. By this benchmark, the House of Lords falls short.
–
The Lords is not elected; its members are appointed, inherit their positions, or serve ex officio. This system has preserved valuable expertise and independence, especially among crossbenchers, but it also means that party-political appointees can entrench the dominance of established parties regardless of changes in public opinion. The current composition, therefore, is heavily skewed by historical results and does not adapt dynamically to the shifting political landscape.
–
While Labour currently enjoys a substantial majority in the House of Commons, twice as many people in the last general election voted for other parties than for Labour. Yet, Labour’s dominance is cemented by first past the post election result and does not accurately represent the current political preferences of the nation.
–
–
One of the most glaring issues with the House of Lords is its disconnection from the popular vote. The 2019 General Election saw the following approximate percentages:
–
The Lords’ current makeup does not reflect these numbers in any meaningful way. For instance, minor parties such as the Reform, Greens and SNP have a negligible presence, despite receiving millions of votes nationally. This lack of proportionality is not only unfair to voters who support smaller parties but also undermines the diversity of perspectives necessary for thorough scrutiny and debate.
–
–
The UK’s First Past the Post electoral system already tends to exaggerate the dominance of the two main parties in the House of Commons. Applying a similar “winner-takes-all” logic to the appointment of Lords compounds this distortion. As it stands, a party can receive a plurality of votes and yet command a disproportionate influence in both chambers. The Lords, far from acting as a corrective or counterbalance, ends up reinforcing the inequities found in the Commons.
–
Moreover, the presence of hereditary peers and life appointments means that the chamber evolves only slowly, if at all, in response to public sentiment. This inertia can breed disengagement and cynicism among voters, who may feel that their views are not just under-represented in government but ignored altogether.
–
–
To realign the House of Lords with the principles of fairness and democracy, a radical reimagining is required. One solution would be to allocate seats in the Lords according to the proportion of the popular vote each party receives in the most recent general election. Under this model, appointments would be distributed as follows:
–
If the total number of Lords were reduced from 830 to 500, the seat allocation would be:
–
In this scenario, each party leader would be responsible for appointing individuals to fill their party’s share of seats, following the result of each general election. This would ensure that the House of Lords reflects the current political climate and the electorate’s true preferences.
–
–
Adopting proportional representation for the House of Lords offers several key benefits:
–
–
Some critics may argue that proportional representation would turn the Lords into a “mini-Commons,” undermining its distinctiveness as a revising chamber. However, this can be mitigated by maintaining a proportion of crossbenchers or independent members, selected through an open and transparent process to bring in expertise from outside party politics.
–
Others may worry that party leaders would simply stack the Lords with loyalists. To counteract this, an independent appointments commission could vet all nominees to ensure they meet standards of integrity, expertise, and independence of thought.
–
Finally, the tradition-minded may mourn the loss of an ancient institution. Yet, the House of Lords has evolved many times over the centuries—from a bastion of hereditary privilege to a more modern, if imperfect, assembly. Reforming its composition would represent another step in its long adaptation to the needs of the British people.
–
–
The House of Lords as currently constituted is a relic of a political past that no longer serves the needs of the United Kingdom. Moving towards proportional representation, reducing the overall number of peers, and empowering all segments of society to have a voice would bring the Lords closer in line with the democratic ideals it is meant to serve.
–
Such reform would not only enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Lords but would also ensure that no single party could dominate with just a minority of the vote—a flaw that currently undermines the very purpose of the upper chamber. As the country continues to grapple with questions of constitutional reform, the time is ripe for a bold, principled, and representative House of Lords: one that reflects the will of the people and the full spectrum of British society.
If it was up 2 me 
Leave a comment