Angela Rayner may well have been strengthened by the investigation, not hurt
For those of us who prefer politics to be “policy over personality”, this week brought a big win. Angela Rayner, deputy leader of the Labour party, has been entirely cleared by Greater Manchester Police, HMRC, and Stockport Council of wrongdoing in the process of selling her house in 2015. The investigation into the sale was started in response to complaints made by Tory MP James Daly and so it was seen by many as an attempt to smear Rayner.
Why suggest it was a smear? Well, supposing there was some tax that was dodged, the discrepancy was in the region of £3000. For comparison, Nadhim Zahawi’s error in his taxes just last year left £4.8 million in taxes unpaid. It also came to light that Graham Edwards, the Conservative Party treasurer, was also found to have dodged taxes in the region of £2 million. Hypocrisy is one of the most common word I have seen used to describe the situation.
However, it has come to pass that rather than causing damage to Rayner’s reputation, it has probably strengthened it. Because not only has she been cleared, but she was so certain of her innocence she put her job on the line over it.
The Bear mirrors the concerns of Michael Barton, former chief counstable of Durham Police, about inquiries like this:
“When did party politicians start thinking it was a good idea to pressurise the police – sometimes it looks like a commission – into fanciful investigations when the police are under such huge strain?We hope that this investigations serves as a lesson to politicians of the future. The Tories used the fact that Angela Rayner was being investigated as means to present her as untrustworthy and out of touch - and they made quite the song and dance about it. But the more loudly one shouts about allegations, the more foolish one looks when they are proven false. And in fact the more trustworthy it makes Rayner look by responding, not with argument or excuse, but by putting her very promising political career on the outcome of the investigation, and then being vindicated.“It boils down to trying to use the police to embarrass their political rivals and they should know better. I can see the pressure chief constables are under from senior politicians and certain allies in the media.”
Politicians should be scrutinised, but not attacked. If there was genuine concern of wrongdoing then the case should have been investigated. But political pressure to start investigations, and then using the existence of those investigations to slander, that is attack. Politics would be a better place if we kept a bit more focussed on the discrediting politicians based on their policy and their leadership, rather than trying to invent skeletons that don’t exist.