As a publication, we don’t make a habit of calling for people’s heads.
Politics in Britain has become far too fond of the ritual humiliation of public figures, a perpetual “gotcha” culture where every error is inflated into a resignation demand. We have generally tried to avoid joining the mob.
But sometimes the hypocrisy becomes so staggering that silence becomes complicity.
This week it emerged that Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice used a complex corporate structure that allowed his company to avoid nearly £600,000 in corporation tax on more than £3 million in profits. The arrangement involved registering a property company as a Real Estate Investment Trust despite failing to meet the typical eligibility rules – a structure that tax experts described as “highly aggressive tax planning.”
It may well have been legal. That will be the defence. But surely it won’t pass muster when it comes to Britain’s political outrage machine. Right?
If you cast your mind back just a few months, Angela Rayner was found to have underpaid roughly £40,000 in stamp duty on a property purchase, provoking a furious response from the political and media establishment. The story dominated headlines, opponents demanded accountability, and the pressure became so intense that Rayner ultimately resigned from her government and party roles after an ethics investigation concluded she had not met the highest standards expected of ministers.
There was no nuance then.
There were no gentle reminders that complex tax rules can trip people up. No patient lectures about how “technically legal” arrangements are simply the product of a sophisticated tax system.
Instead there were calls for heads to roll.
Many of the loudest voices demanding Rayner’s resignation were from the same political tribe that now finds itself strangely quiet. Including Tice himself. And therein lies the rub.
If underpaying £40,000 in tax through a complex property arrangement was grounds for political destruction, then avoiding nearly £600,000 through elaborate corporate structuring surely deserves at least equal scrutiny.
Yet so far the outrage has been conspicuous by its absence.
Perhaps that is because the political ecosystem is very good at hunting witches – but only when the accused belongs to the other side.
So let’s be clear. We do not relish writing this. We do not believe resignation demands should be thrown around lightly.
But if the standards applied to Angela Rayner meant she had to go, then the same standards must apply here.
Otherwise the message is simple: accountability is only for your opponents.
And that is a far greater scandal than any tax bill.