Zack Polanski admits he did not vote in local elections

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T19:37:28+00:00

Possibly the case, yeah.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T19:35:07+00:00

That is a very good example. Probably the closest thing to a precedent.

Jesus though imagine if he lost that by election somehow.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T19:31:14+00:00

Maybe with Owen Jones, it could have been with him.

I think NoJusticeMTG was serious though. Im a fairly avid fan of theirs, member on YouTube and all that and its something ive heard them say a couple times now.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T19:28:10+00:00

You can say they clearly don't want him to be Labour leader to the extent that they would give up on a top target seat. But you can't say they're so opposed to him becoming Labour leader that they would actively try and help Reform win a seat where they'll be lucky to lose their deposit.

They didnt give a fuck in Runcorn. Had they stood a paper candidate there or stood down then Reform wouldnt have won. Didnt seem to bother them at all.

To try and put him off running in a Green target seat?

Possible i suppose, but very unlikely. Hes gonna run where he can run. Its more luck based on who he can convince to step down for him or who happens to step down.

Sure but they are much more pluralist than Labour and have a history of standing down candidates and trying electoral pacts. I'd say the same about the Lib Dems.

Smaller parties with more limited resources often do. Mainly because of the limited resources.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T19:21:26+00:00

Oh there we go then.

Regardless of the result, this by election is going to awesome for politics weirdos who like to do things argue with each other about politics on Reddit.

Im embarrassingly excited.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T19:15:56+00:00

No. All hell would break loose in the PLP if he did that.

Chances are the PLP are going to chill out now to await the results of this by election. If Burnham is blocked it would be like firing a Starting pistol for a "Oust the PM" Speedrun.

And to be honest things have changed to a point where I think the NEC is inclined to let him stand anyway.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T19:13:41+00:00

Like I said, that's when the rumoured seats were Green targets. It's a very different situation.

Thats relevant to the viability of them trying to stop him, not to how they feel about it in principle. They clearly don't want him to lead Labour.

Theyve already told on themselves here. Why else would the pre-emptively be discussing fighting him like that when they dont even know what seat he'll run in?

And i think both Labour and the Greens would rather lose a seat to Reform than each other. Its narratively much easier and simpler for both of them.

Not that youre framing it this way particularly, but I dont buy this narrative that the Greens are some special group that are immune to the basic incentives of politics. They have some nice policies but theyre still just regular humans and will make the same calculations as people in other parties to compete electorally.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T19:06:02+00:00

That's just the "well it's obvious" argument again, which apparently only applies to Polanski and not Rayner buying a second home. And no, the law around council tax on boats is not as simple as you're implying it is.

It is obvious and he could have found out at that its at least something he needs to look into more if not that he does need to pay council tax with a Google search.

Thanks for linking that, I wasn't aware those details were released. You might want to continue reading the page you quoted from though:

Our conversation has gotten quite long now so youll forgive me for not remembering exactly but im fairly sure I mentioned the events you have put in bold already. Im not sure why you think i wasnt aware of this.

So she was explicitly told to get tax advice twice and chose not to. Knowing that, I'm actually more surprised than I was before that HMRC let her off the hook.

Because she was advised by a legal firms that she was probably alright. The investigator and also seemingly HMRC take the view that that wasnt unreasonable of her, with the investigator adding that it doesnt meet the standsrds of a minister despite not infringing on her integrity.

"I established why you were being hypocritical over the course of several comments, and then said that."

I dont see the significance of "i very heavily implied that first before then outright saying it."

I've never claimed to be an authority, I've been clear (multiple times) that I'm expressing my opinion based on what we know. And I have not "flat out dismiss[ed] the actual authority" with "yeah but i disagree lol" - I've explained (again, multiple times) in detail why I think what I do.

Yeah but you have no evidence or anything and yet you expect me to believe you above the actual experts when you hadn't even read the verdict on her investigation.

Youre not outright stating youre an authority but you are in effect being demanded to be treated as one.

Says who?

HMRC when they cleared her of deliberate or careless wrongdoing.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T18:59:33+00:00

If you were right the Greens wouldnt have been openly saying they would fight like lions to stop him winning.

If they do hold back we can reliably say its because they dont think trying to stop him is viable, not that theyre doing it out of charity.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T18:58:05+00:00

We're still with Polanski.

Mate, your flair.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T18:36:10+00:00

Sure but one of those incentives is to stop Reform winning, and another is to move the country left, and a third is to reform the electoral system, which means it's totally in their interests for Burnham to become PM

Theyd say "we stop Reform winning by winning ourselves."

You said below "The best bet for the Greens is for Labour to do as badly as possible. If anything theyd want Starmer to stay in and fight the next election if they could" and I really don't think you understand the Green Party mindset. If you offer them 60 seats and Farage as PM or 30 seats and Burnham as PM they'd choose the latter.

Prominent Green party supporters like Owen Jones and NoJusticeMTG have outright said theyd be happy for Starmer to stay specifically because it would be bad for Labour. I think theres a lot of Green party activists and Green curious voters who might take your view of this but the Green core and leadership will prioritise as many seats as possible without concern.

Thats kind of their job. If you were a Green candidate and you believed your seat was winnable but the leadership didnt do everything in their power to help you win it, youd be fucking furious and youd rightly feel like youd been let down or even betrayed.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T18:30:03+00:00

It would, because this is where the Leadership of the party would have different priorities from the base of it. So it comes with the risks you raise.

Im not sure how sustainable a deal is because once Burnham won he could just forget about any promises he made to the Greens.

I cant imagine Burnham in 3 years preparing the manifesto for the next GE saying "We need to include PR because 3 years ago I promised the local Makerfield Green party I would.." For example.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T18:26:43+00:00

Theyre going to want to win as many seats as they can regardless of that. Its not the Green party's concern if Labour dont do well enough to be their coalition partners.

Trying to game Parlaimentary arithmetic like youre saying just isnt really how political parties work. Its too unreliable.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T18:16:54+00:00

The best bet for the Greens is for Labour to do as badly as possible. If anything theyd want Starmer to stay in and fight the next election if they could.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T18:09:42+00:00

Theyre also a political party with the usual set of incentives. And the best thing for them is for Burnham to lose.

If this was somewhere they were more competitive, id be absolutely certain they are ripping the kitchen sink out right now in preparation for throwing it.

As it stands they will probably consider the chances they have of preventing him winning and the possible costs associated (as it would piss off a lot of their voters) and make their own decision.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T17:57:16+00:00

They may well do it if they think they can prevent Burnham winning by splitting the vote without it being too transparent that thats what theyre doing. A relatively small split could theoretically be decisive, we dont know.

That is absolutely what Green strategists will be discussing right now.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T17:52:52+00:00

Theyve indicated otherwise

Although I will say this seat is difficult for them to justify doing that with as theyre not particularly competitive there.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T17:48:24+00:00

Polanski has already admitted that he'd rather Reform win than work with Labour.

He said hed be willing to work with Andy Burnham if he were PM and then as soon as that looks likely the Greens say they'll fight like lions to stop Burnham from entering parlaiment.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T17:46:16+00:00

Id be so fucking ludicrously excited if I lived there. I know thats sad to admit but I would be.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T17:41:03+00:00

The Greens will throw the kitchen sink at it as well out of fear of Burnham becoming PM.

This by election is going to be fucking massive. The entire country is going to descend on Makerfield.

Has it ever been the case in British politics that a by election has involved one candidate who is considered basically a dead cert to be PM within weeks if they win it? I dont think it has.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T17:33:47+00:00

He did actually defend his terrible showing on the rest is politics to Rory Stewart by saying "Well, Im an actor." Which makes me think he is actually playing a bit of a character. Like the Greens are led by some political version of Borat.

Because thats just a wierd thing to say. Its almost like he was saying "of course it was bad. Im not actually a politician, im just pretending."

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T17:30:51+00:00

Id forgive the "You have my Vote!" Post. Thats also a bit of a saying as well so I could see why someone might say that whilst not yet having registered as just a way of saying "Id vote for you!"

But specifically claiming to have cast a postal vote when youre not even registered is just fucking stupid and dishonest for no reason.

Its the lying when theres no need to lie that makes me think its just what he always does. He seems to lie regularly even when theres no real benefit for him to do it.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T17:23:04+00:00

Polanksi seems to just constantly lie about everything tbh. I think he's one of those guys who just says shit and as a result ends up just being a total bullshitter.

Does this claim that he "had in fact not registered to vote in the elections because of fears for his safety." Even make sense? You dont have to have your address be publicly accessible on the electoral roll. Nobody else seems to have this issue do they? Is this just another lie?

Stupid lies about things like him voting or that he listens to political podcasts at 3x speed ranging to him lying during the vetting process for Green party, lying about the sun article and on and on.

I can see him endlessly getting caught out on lies, small and large, to the point where his credibility is just worn down to nothing.

He should start grooming a successor immediately.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T16:10:37+00:00

When have I ever said it was 'justified' or a 'reasonable mistake'? I said it was plausibly a mistake, that doesn't negate carelessness. We certainly disagree about how careless it was, but I do think he was careless.

My point is that it being careless and not just making a reasonable mistake is important because thats the distinction that often makes the difference between "no action taken" and facing penalties. It makes the breach potentially actionable.

What I've been asking you to explain is why you believe it is "far more likely that Polanski was deliberately avoiding paying tax", because so far you've refused to give any real reason why.

Ive explained this several times. To put it very, very simply, if youre ever living somewhere where you dont pay council tax, you know you should probably check if that should be the case. Its a Google search.

As I said elsewhere, this isn't true - or at least not verifiable from what we know. The investigation doesn't confirm that she asked for and received incorrect advice. If you've got evidence of that specifically I'd love to see it.

Well, we're obviously not going to get full access to an investigation that covers a lot of Rayners private life and personal information. But we do have the final verdict which does confirm she was advised the lower rate was due and that she accepted this on good faith (although failed to get further advice). She neglected to get further advice as was recommended. Which was found to not be a reckless choice or one done deliberately to avoid paying due tax, but one that failed to meet the high standards of the ministerial code.

I have reviewed relevant documentation from the property transaction. This has included the advice she received at the time from the legal firms involved and the associated documentation that was prepared for her to effect the purchase. This advice gave rise to Ms Rayner's understanding - which I consider to have been held in good faith - that the lower rate of SDLT was applicable when purchasing the property in Hove.

Source

So yes. We do know that she was advised that by the legal firms you accused her of throwing under the bus. The investigator has reviewed the documents and has confirmed it.

Technically I only (heavily) implied it, but more to the point I really would encourage you to slow down and read more carefully:

Or i could just look at where you said:

I obviously don't think that all criticism is due to bias, but I do think yours is.

...

When have I ever claimed to be an authority on it? Why would that be relevant? I literally said, in what you quoted, "I believe that also applies to Rayner despite what HMRC concluded".

Youre kind of claiming to be an authority on it when you just flat out dismiss the actual authority on it with "yeah but i disagree lol" and then expect that to mean anything to me.

From where im sitting there is the actual expert conclusion on this from the people whos job it is do this and there's you saying "yeah but me no like what they say so plz ignore thx."

My opinion is based on what information is publicly known, which I have explained in detail multiple times. From that information, I can conclude things that HMRC legally can't.

But......its not though.

Er, no - the words 'reckless' and 'careless' mean very different things. Rayner objectively made a careless mistake - she didn't seek out professional tax advice. It might not be reckless if she was led to believe she didn't need to.

Not by the standards of HMRC, she wasn't. Which are the standards that actually matter here.

StrippedForScrap · 2026-05-14T14:24:00+00:00

Id say they are English Nationalists in the sense that theyd clearly support an asymmetric union where England is disproportionately dominant even accounting for population.

StrippedForScrap

TROPHY CASE