Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adriana Marin, Lecturer in International Relations, Coventry University

The US president, Donald Trump, has signalled a new approach to tackling the “narco-terrorists” in Latin America, and particularly Venezuela, making it clear he is willing to use military force against them. A report in the New York Times that Trump had issued a “secret directive” to the Pentagon to employ force against certain drug cartels appeared to be borne out by a US strike, on September 2, on a Venezuelan speed boat in the southern Caribbean that killed 11 people.

The president said the strike was against members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan gang he has branded “narco-terrorists”.

The situation escalated when two Venezuelan fighter jets flew over US Navy ships in the Caribbean Sea two days later in a move that the Pentagon condemned as “highly provocative”.

The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has warned that operations against drug cartels “will happen again”. He added that previous US drug policies had not worked and “what will stop them is when you blow them up”.

Trump released a grainy video on social media of a speeding boat after the September 2 incident. US officials said the boat was carrying drugs, but attempts at verification were inconclusive. A Venezuelan government official had questioned whether the video depicted what Washington claimed.

The operation raises legal questions over proportionality and use of force. If this was an intentional strike against a non-state armed group, it signals a significant shift in US policy. The deployment of counterterrorism methods – once directed at al-Qaida or the Islamic State – against a Latin American criminal cartel represents a dramatic escalation with serious implications.

This also fits within a wider Trump initiative to take on drugs cartels including issuing a US$50 million (£37 million) reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, who the Trump administration links with drug smuggling. In early 2025, the US designated the TdA as a foreign terrorist organisation (FTO), along with several other Latin American cartels.

The decision was unusual. FTO status has historically been applied to ideologically driven groups, not profit-orientated criminal organisations. Yet the designation unlocked the ability of the US to use counterterrorism measures and a political commentary that frames gangs as wartime adversaries rather than criminals.

The US has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , which governs maritime enforcement, but it generally treats many of its provisions as international law. Domestically, only Congress can declare war under the constitution, while the president acts as commander-in-chief. Previous administrations have relied on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force as the legal basis for counterterrorism operations abroad, but this has never been applied to drug cartels. This creates a grey zone: Washington claims authority to act, but both the international and domestic legal foundations remain contested.

Read more:
Guyana’s president wins another term in election watched keenly by Venezuela and US

Expanding the fight

FTO designation expands what can be done under domestic law. However, it does not create a right to kill
suspects in international waters. Such a shift is important, as it changes what would usually fall within the remit of policing, reframing it as armed conflict. This militarisation introduces the apparatus of warfare: missiles, warships, and rules of engagement that lower thresholds for the use of lethal force.

By conflating organised crime with terrorism, responses risk becoming militarised in ways that lack accountability. A warning from the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth that “it won’t stop with just this strike” is another suggestion that this is a campaign rather than a one-off action. Militarised counter-narcotics operations are not new, but framing them through the lens of counter-terrorism is, and suggests a wider use of military force.

Proponents of a hardline approach contend that cartels such as TdA resemble insurgent organisations. Working across borders, they adapt quickly and use violence, they diversify into trafficking, extortion and protection rackets, while exploiting migration flows and infiltrating law enforcement.

From this perspective, conventional criminal justice tools are ineffective. Extraditions are often delayed and prosecutions unreliable because cartels frequently operate across borders, benefit from corrupt protection networks and are difficult to apprehend.

Yet conflating organised crime with terrorism carries serious risks. Unlike al-Qaida or the Islamic State, TdA seeks profit and control, not radical political change. Labelling it a terrorist organisation risks blurring legal boundaries. The designation of an act as terrorism often shift rules of engagement from due process to battlefield logic, lowering the threshold for lethal force.

The legal basis is also tenuous. FTO status broadens domestic authorities but does not itself provide a licence to use force under international law. Any claim of self-defence would require also imminent danger, this has not been shown.

Risks in the region

This strike delivers Maduro a propaganda gift. For years, Venezuela has portrayed US pressure as imperial aggression designed to undermine its sovereignty. The destruction of a Venezuelan vessel by a US missile, even in international waters, appears to validate that claim. It is likely to give Maduro an opportunity to rally domestic supporters, consolidate control over security institutions and court sympathetic foreign allies who share his anti-US position.

Neighbouring governments face a dilemma. Many are weary of cartel violence, human trafficking, and the effects of criminal infiltration. Some may even welcome Washington’s tougher approach. Yet few leaders wish to legitimise unilateral US military action. Even if there is some support for tougher action against cartels, regional political leaders are likely to divide over whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks of being drawn into conflicts they did not sanction.

Finally, there is a deterrence paradox. High-profile strikes may remove leaders, but they rarely dismantle networks. Instead, groups splinter, adapt and sometimes embed further into civilian life. The “balloon effect” – squeezing crime in one place only to displace it elsewhere – remains a constant. In short, military action does not usually eliminate criminal economies, it often changes or moves them. Militarisation risks fuelling escalation.

The US strike against the TdA blurs the line between law enforcement and war. It sets a precedent where states can justify cross-border assassinations under the guise of “counter-terrorism” against criminal suspects. The question is not whether TdA is violent – it is. The real issue is whether labelling it as “terrorism” legitimises a military approach that could be counterproductive, unlawful and dangerous. Washington’s new “narco-terrorism” doctrine risks fuelling the very instability it claims to fight.

Adriana Marin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why the US new military operation against Latin American drug cartels stokes regional tensions – https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-new-military-operation-against-latin-american-drug-cartels-stokes-regional-tensions-264645

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Heba Ghazal, Senior Lecturer, Pharmacy, Kingston University

A dangerous new drug adulterant is spreading through America’s illicit opioid supply, and it’s making overdoses significantly harder to reverse. Medetomidine, a veterinary sedative normally used to sedate pets, is increasingly being mixed with heroin and fentanyl, creating a cocktail that experts warn could be far deadlier than previous street drug combinations.

Known as “flysky” on the streets, this animal tranquilliser has already been linked to at least two overdose deaths in Pennsylvania and represents a troubling evolution in the continuing opioid crisis. Unlike traditional opioid overdoses, those involving medetomidine can’t be effectively treated with naloxone, the medication paramedics use to reverse overdoses.

The emergence of medetomidine mirrors the earlier spread of xylazine, another veterinary sedative that earned the nickname “zombie drug” for its ability to cause severe, treatment-resistant skin wounds. The earliest confirmed detection of medetomidine as a street drug adulterant occurred in Maryland, where it was found in a synthetic opioid mixture probably containing fentanyl.

From there, the drug spread rapidly. Traces appeared across multiple US states and into Canada, and by early 2024, medetomidine was linked to overdose clusters in Philadelphia and other locations, following the same geographical pattern that xylazine had taken years earlier.

What makes medetomidine particularly concerning is its extraordinary potency. Medetomidine is an alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist – a type of drug that affects the nervous system. While approved only for veterinary use in the UK to sedate animals and provide pain relief for pets, experts estimate it may be 200 to 300 times more potent than xylazine when used as a drug adulterant.

This extreme potency means that even tiny amounts can have devastating effects. Users experiencing medetomidine-laced drug overdoses typically display extreme drowsiness, muscle twitching, dangerously low heart rate and blood pressure, and laboured breathing.

Chicago cases from 2024 revealed additional concerning symptoms: extremely high blood pressure, severe confusion and critically low blood oxygen levels – often dropping below 90%, a threshold that can cause organ damage.

Perhaps most alarming is medetomidine’s resistance to naloxone, the opioid overdose-reversal drug that has saved countless lives. While naloxone can counteract heroin and fentanyl by blocking opioid receptors in the brain, medetomidine affects the body through entirely different pathways. This means there is no approved antidote for medetomidine poisoning, leaving healthcare professionals with limited options when treating overdoses involving this adulterant.

The withdrawal process is equally tricky. Philadelphia health officials report that people withdrawing from medetomidine-laced drugs experience dangerous spikes in blood pressure and heart rate – symptoms severe enough to trigger a heart attack in some cases. Users also endure uncontrollable nausea and vomiting, intense anxiety, restlessness and violent shaking.

Understanding why dealers add these veterinary drugs to street opioids requires examining the economics of the illicit drug trade. According to a 2022 DEA report, a kilogram of xylazine powder can be bought from Chinese suppliers for as little as U$6.00 (£4.44). This rock-bottom pricing allows drug traffickers to increase their profit margins significantly while making weak or diluted opioid batches feel more potent to users.

These sedatives also serve as effective cutting agents (substances used to add bulk and weight to drugs without requiring expensive active ingredients). For dealers, it’s a win-win. They can stretch their supply while creating a product that feels stronger and lasts longer than pure opioids alone.

Managing new drug adulterants like medetomidine presents unique difficulties for both medical professionals and law enforcement. The drugs make intoxication and withdrawal symptoms more severe and complicated, while also making it harder to identify which specific substance is causing particular symptoms in a patient.

Medetomidine compounds these problems because it’s rapidly metabolised by the body, making it difficult to track the timing and duration of its effects. Additionally, these veterinary sedatives are not included in routine drug screenings or toxicology tests, meaning their presence often goes undetected by medical professionals and law enforcement, despite their potentially lethal effects.

UK response

While no cases of acute medetomidine toxicity have been published in the UK, the country has already experienced problems with xylazine, a similar veterinary sedative.

British health authorities have detected xylazine in 35 cases through toxicology tests and drug seizures. Of 16 people found to have xylazine in their systems, 11 cases proved fatal – deaths that occurred primarily during May 2022 and August 2023.

In response to the growing threat, the government has taken decisive action. Over 20 dangerous substances have been banned as part of efforts to combat synthetic drugs and improve public safety.

Xylazine is now controlled as a class C substance, carrying penalties of up to two years in prison for possession and up to 14 years for production and supply.

The government is also working to better equip police, healthcare workers and Border Force agents to tackle this evolving threat through improved training and detection capabilities.

The case of medetomidine highlights a disturbing reality about modern drug policy: the illicit drug supply continues to change in unpredictable and dangerous ways. Neither medetomidine nor xylazine was developed for human consumption, and there are no human studies examining their drug interactions, lethal doses or safe reversal protocols.

As these veterinary sedatives become more common in street drugs, the challenge for healthcare professionals continues to grow. Traditional overdose response protocols, built around reversing opioid effects with naloxone, become inadequate when faced with multi-drug combinations that affect the body through completely different mechanisms.

Read more:
‘There has never been a more dangerous time to take drugs’: the rising global threat of nitazenes and synthetic opioids

For users, families and communities already devastated by the opioid crisis, the emergence of medetomidine represents yet another layer of risk in an already dangerous landscape.

As the drug supply becomes increasingly unpredictable, the need for comprehensive approaches to drug policy – encompassing everything from harm reduction to treatment access to law enforcement – becomes ever more urgent.

Heba Ghazal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. An animal sedative keeps turning up in opioid deaths – what you need to know about medetomidine – https://theconversation.com/an-animal-sedative-keeps-turning-up-in-opioid-deaths-what-you-need-to-know-about-medetomidine-264080

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Audrey O’Grady, Associate Professor in Biology, University of Limerick

Imagine a mum who can have children from two different species. Family gatherings would be interesting, to say the least. In the insect world, this is no joke. A new study published in Nature shows that queens of the Iberian harvester ant (Messor ibericus) routinely lay eggs of not just to their own kind, but also of males of another species, Messor structor.

The researchers even coined a word for it, xenoparity, meaning “foreign birth”. It pushes the boundaries of what we mean by “species”. And this is the first known case in the animal kingdom of this happening as part of an animal’s life cycle.

The most typical reproduction strategy in the natural world involves a mother and father of the same species who breed and produce sons and daughters, also of the same species.

However, there are exceptions to the rule. Social insects, ants in particular, are known to violate it. A 1999 study found that 17 out of 164 central Europe ant species are known to create hybrid offspring.

Typically, in ant colonies, fertilised eggs develop into workers and queens and unfertilised eggs develop into males. All the ants that we usually see foraging are females who cannot reproduce (workers), but do all the other work. Ants that breed, female queens and males, normally have wings and can be seen during mating flights. Afterwards, males often die while the females found new colonies.

However, in some ant species, unfertilised eggs develop into female clones of the mother. This process is called parthenogenesis.

Generally, ant colonies which include different ant species may contain either one or several queens that can mate with either single or multiple males. Some ant species produce only wingless males that mate inside the nest and never participate in nuptial flights.

In 2002 an even more interesting reproduction strategy was found in two seed harvester ant species, common in southwestern US, whose queens lost their ability to produce female workers of their own kind. They need to mate with a male from a different species to lay eggs that develop into hybrid species female workers. This cross-species mating is essential for the survival of both species.

The new discovery

The article provides startling insights into ant reproduction. Workers (females) in these colonies are hybrids. Like the seed harvester ants, the Iberian harvester queens can’t make workers on their own. They need sperm from M. structor, and the daughters are half M. ibericus, half M. structor. This is similar to social hybridogenesis documented in other harvester ants, where only cross-species daughters become workers.

But the fascinating part is that Iberian harvester queens produce ordinary M. ibericus sons as well as M. structor sons. These males aren’t hybrids. They’re clones, carrying only their father’s DNA. Iberian harvester queens act almost like a rental womb. This resembles male-only cloning known from some clams and a stick insects.

The researchers sequenced the DNA of hundreds of Iberian harvester ants and repeatedly found this same pattern.

M. ibericus and M. structor split from a common ancestor millions of years ago. They look and behave differently in the wild, with M.ibericus having smaller queens. Yet one is now literally producing the other. Multiple colonies of M.ibericus live together in habitats ranging from pastures to suburban areas. But M.structor ants are a mountain species and their colonies live separately. The two ant species can live close together in overlapping habitats in lanes and fields near mountains.

The cloned M. structor sons raised inside M. ibericus colonies don’t just differ genetically, they even look odd. Compared with their wild cousins, they appear almost hairless.

The most probable explanation of how this reproduction strategy evolved is a phenomenon called sperm parasitism. This is when females of one species use sperm of the males of another species to stimulate asexual reproduction or even partially incorporate the male’s genome into their offspring.

Over time, they cut out the middleman (adult M.structor males) and started making their own supply of cloned M. structor males. Instead, they mate with these clones that hatch in the colony nest.

It shows that evolution can re-engineer reproduction in radical ways. People sometimes like to think nature follows straight paths. Parents make their own species. Colonies stick to one lineage.

But evolution doesn’t care about our rules. So the next time you see ants marching across a path, remember, somewhere in southern Europe, there’s a queen casually running a two-species household. And you thought your family tree was complicated.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. One queen ant, two species: the discovery that reshapes what ‘family’ means in nature – https://theconversation.com/one-queen-ant-two-species-the-discovery-that-reshapes-what-family-means-in-nature-264384

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tomas Jernberg, Professor, Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet

As a cardiologist, I frequently meet patients who have stopped taking medicines that could keep them alive. Often it’s because they’ve seen a dramatic headline or a worrying TV report about a drug they rely on. But sometimes, patients are right to pay attention: new studies really can overturn decades of medical practice.

Few drugs illustrate this tension better than beta blockers. Long prescribed after heart attacks, these medicines can be life-saving for some people, helpful for others and useless – or even harmful – for the rest.

Beta blockers have been used for more than 40 years in almost all patients with heart attacks. But this practice was based on studies done before modern treatments were available, and before we could detect very small heart attacks that do not affect the overall function of the heart.

Recently, two studies on beta blockers in patients with heart attacks were reported in the news. The Spanish-Italian study received the most attention. Media reports suggested that most heart attack patients did not benefit from beta blockers, and that in women the drug might even increase the risk of hospitalisation and death.

Reports like this can make people stop taking their medication.

At the same symposium in Madrid, the second study – which got less attention – showed almost the opposite. Patients with heart attacks did benefit from beta blockers. And if there were differences between the sexes, women might actually have had more benefit than men.

The heart of the matter: ejection fraction

A key to understanding the different results is something called the left ventricular ejection fraction. This is the percentage of blood in the left chamber of the heart – its main pumping chamber – that is pushed out into the body with each heartbeat. Normally, ejection fraction should be at least 50%.

If we look at all the studies together, including one I led and presented last year, the picture becomes clearer. Patients with an ejection fraction of 50% or higher after a heart attack do not benefit from beta blockers. But patients with an ejection fraction below 50% do benefit. And this is true for both men and women.

The European guidelines from 2023, as well as the recently published American guidelines, still recommend beta blockers after most heart attacks. Many doctors are therefore reluctant to change a therapy tradition that has been in place for 40 years.

My colleagues and I are now planning to pool data from the recent large studies on patients with heart attacks and an ejection fraction of 50% or more. The results, expected later this year, will probably give definite answers about beta blockers in this population and change future guidelines.

But many patients clearly benefit from beta blockers, including those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (with or without a prior heart attack), angina pectoris (chest pain caused by reduced blood flow to the heart), or various heart rhythm disturbances.

Beta blockers can also be prescribed for other reasons, such as high blood pressure, migraine prevention, tremors, as well as off-label use for stress and anxiety. For patients, it’s not easy to know all the reasons why beta blockers are prescribed, and in some cases, they may not be suitable at all. So I’ll end with a good, if not very novel, piece of advice: always consult your doctor before making any changes to your medication.

Tomas Jernberg’s employer (Karolinska Institutet) has received a grant from MSD for a research project performed by Dr. Jernberg but not related to this article.

– ref. Heart attack patients: do you still need beta blockers? A cardiologist explains – https://theconversation.com/heart-attack-patients-do-you-still-need-beta-blockers-a-cardiologist-explains-264409

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent University

Angela Rayner has resigned as the UK’s deputy prime minister after a report found she had breached the ministerial code by not paying enough stamp duty on her second home.

In her resignation letter she said she deeply regretted what she maintained was an error, and the report from the prime minister’s ethics adviser said she had “acted with integrity” despite the breach. However, it was still enough to force Rayner, who was also housing secretary, to step down, prompting a cabinet reshuffle.

We asked Thomas Caygill, senior lecturer in politics at Nottingham Trent University, to explain what was likely to happen next and what the affair could mean for the government.

Why did Angela Rayner have to resign?

At the 2024 general election, Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised the British public that any government he led would work to clean up politics after years of Tory sleaze. When in opposition, both he and Rayner took a very firm line in response to scandals among Conservative ministers, including Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.

So the Labour pair have, in a way, made a rod for their own backs. Rayner had no choice but to resign after the findings of the report prepared by the prime minister’s independent ethics adviser (Sir Laurie Magnus) concluded that she did not meet the “highest possible standards of proper conduct”. If you set high ethical standards, you have to meet them without exception.

What happens now?

Rayner’s resignation leaves a gap around the cabinet table. She served as both secretary of state for housing, communities and local government and deputy prime minister. The first post will need filling and has triggered a wider cabinet reshuffle.

Starmer does not necessarily need to appoint a new deputy prime minister as the role is technically a mere honorific, given to a member of the cabinet to signify seniority. The office was vacant between 2015 and 2021, for instance. However, Starmer may feel the need to shore up his position after recent rebellions amongst his own MPs.

Rayner has also resigned as deputy leader of the Labour party, a position she was directly elected to by party members and which is unconnected with the position of deputy prime minister. She did not have to resign this post as a result of the Magnus report – since it related to her conduct in ministerial office – but she presumably did so to avoid being a further distraction for the government and party.

The cabinet does have the power to appoint a temporary deputy leader or leave the position vacant until the party conference (starting on the September 28). There are some rumours that justice secretary Shabana Mahmood could be appointed as temporary deputy leader.

However there will need to be a new election with a timeline set by Labour’s National Executive Committee. There is no set time so it could be over in weeks or it could take months. It is unlikely that the NEC will meet before early next week to make that decision.

We can expect Labour’s conference (September 28 to October 1) to become a showcase of potential candidates for deputy leader. Nominees must be a Labour MP.

They will also need the support of 20% of Labour MPs and either 5% of local Labour parties (CLPs) or at least three affiliates (at least two trade unions) amounting to 5% of affiliated supporters. There will then be a vote of all party members and affiliated supporters.

Who might replace Rayner in either role?

We can probably expect the winner of the deputy party leader contest to be a big challenger to Starmer’s authority – most likely from the left of the party. Names currently being touted are Emily Thornberry (current chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee) and Rosena Allin-Khan. Both MPs served as shadow ministers while Labour were in opposition but were not invited to join the government last July after Labour’s election victory.

A challenger to Starmer is most likely given the mood of the parliamentary and wider party following poor poll ratings and recent rebellions over welfare reform. Anneliese Dodds is another potential contender. She resigned from government last year over cuts to international development.

Why is this situation so damaging for Keir Starmer?

Starmer is now in a more perilous position without Rayner. She was popular with the left of the party and seen as a key bridge between him and the wider party. Monday saw the launch of the phase two of Starmer’s government which has now been overshadowed by Rayner’s tax affairs and subsequent resignation.

Rayner was a rival to Starmer and no longer having her in government bound by collective ministerial responsibility will mean she is able to criticise the government and Starmer more vocally. She has also been key to the development and introduction of the employment rights bill, although this is now in its final stages and expected to become law in the coming months. It is undoubtedly one of her achievements in office.

She is also a northern working-class woman and her departure is symbolic in this regard, especially as Lucy Powell has also now left government as part of the wider reshuffle.

The only upside for Starmer is that he can now reshuffle his cabinet to cement phase two of his government. However, reshuffling as a result of a scandal could project government instability – something Labour promised to stop ahead of the 2024 general election. Reshuffles can be a chance to turn a moment of weakness into a moment of strength but that will be far harder in this case.

What should we expect for Rayner now?

We can expect Rayner to take a step back for now. However she remains an MP and is a vocal member of the party. In time she will likely become an active backbencher and a potentially vocal critic of the government (now that she is not bound by collective ministerial responsibility).

With just under four years left of Labour’s term, if she avoids being a critic, she could re-enter government in the future. What happens will depend on how she sees her own future.

How damaging is this for Labour?

This is damaging for the party, it has already seen a rapid decline in its poll ratings over the course of the past year. It harms the party’s reputation further, after promising change and promising to bring an end to scandal, they have been tinged by it again.

This plays into Reform UK’s hands who are trying to argue that the two main parties are cut from the same cloth. Nigel Farage will be filled with glee that this has all exploded during the Reform UK conference, where he is seeking to cement himself and his party as the real opposition to Labour.

This of course doesn’t mean Labour will lose the 2029 general election, however it is feeding a narrative that Labour will find hard to break unless it can prove to the British people that it is delivering on its promises. Starmer said on Monday that the government was moving into its delivery phase, and it’s not a moment to soon.

Thomas Caygill is currently in receipt of a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant for research on post-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament and has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. What will Angela Rayner’s resignation mean for Keir Starmer’s government? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/what-will-angela-rayners-resignation-mean-for-keir-starmers-government-expert-qanda-264714

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben Mayfield, Lecturer in Law, Lancaster University

The debate over former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner’s tax arrangements demonstrated that there are few topics more complex than the law of trusts. It was politically awkward, to say the least, when a deputy PM and housing secretary had to admit getting it wrong, and underpaying £40,000 in stamp duty.

Rayner has resigned after being found to have breached the ministerial code in the wake of the stamp duty row. That erupted after she was said to have put her share of her constituency home in Greater Manchester in trust for her son, and to have bought another home in Hove, East Sussex, paying a lower rate of stamp duty than should be owed by a second homeowner.

In Rayner’s case, a probable oversight and a trust created with legitimate intentions got caught up in legislation designed to discourage tax avoidance and ownership of a second home. Of course, it also left her open to accusations of hypocrisy, as a member of a government that championed higher taxes for second homeowners.

Earlier in the week, Rayner had said she took legal advice on the purchase. But her conveyancers then claimed not to have advised her on any additional tax liabilities that might have arisen due to the existence of a trust for her child.

So what is a trust – and why are they controversial for tax purposes?

Trusts have a long history – it’s claimed that they were established to protect the property of knights who left England to join the Crusades. But despite these medieval origins, the modern trust still has a range of uses. For most people this will be as a mechanism for the ownership of land. All land has a legal title (the paperwork held by the Land Registry proving who owns the property in law).

But in addition to the legal title there will be what’s called an equitable interest in the land – this is, the right to the financial value of it. When two or more people buy a house together they create a trust. Both names appear on the legal title and both will be entitled to a share of the equity too. Because there is a trust, one party cannot sell the house without the agreement of the other.

The case of Rayner’s constituency home is an example of how trusts are commonly used – for the protection of family assets. Children below the age of 18 are unable to own land, so if parents want to gift them land they need to use a trust. The legal title is held by a trustee such as a parent, lawyer or friend and the child is entitled to the value of the property as it is held for their benefit.

Rayner and her ex-husband are said to have created a trust which bought her share of the constituency home for the benefit of their disabled son. This followed a payout for damages in the son’s medical negligence claim.

She retained no legal ownership of the house by the time she bought the Hove flat. A parent who creates a trust like this puts the financial value beyond their own reach and would be unable to sell the land to benefit from it personally.

Where Rayner came unstuck

But the Rayner case throws up an important question. Why, in the eyes of the law, is a parent who has given their only house away to a child in trust still considered a homeowner for stamp duty purposes? This introduces another use of the trust – the legal avoidance of tax. Trusts have been used to protect family assets from taxes such as inheritance tax – and so the government has tried to close loopholes and limit these opportunities.

This is what makes this situation so damaging for Rayner. As well as raising funds for the government, property taxes have also been used to nudge behaviour. For example an additional 5% rate of stamp duty is meant to discourage homeowners from tying up a second home. House price inflation has of course made this an increasing source of revenue for the government.

Read more:
Housebuyers hate stamp duty. Why hasn’t it been reformed before now?

The law taxes the buyers of second homes more heavily than those who own only one house. This is aimed at avoiding problems such as housing shortages in holiday destinations, and the kind of social disruption seen in places affected by the ownership of second or holiday homes in areas such as Wales and the Lake District.

In his time as chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown made many such trusts subject to inheritance tax. If a homeowner was able to avoid the higher rate of stamp duty by putting their property into trust for their children, this could open a new loophole similar to that of inheritance tax, but for stamp duty.

Before her resignation, Rayner’s political opponents also noted that, as deputy prime minister, she already enjoyed the use of Admiralty House. This is a grace-and-favour apartment in Whitehall which she did not, of course, own herself.

But perhaps the biggest question the controversy has raised is this. If a housing secretary, deputy prime minister and a team of experienced land lawyers are unable to accurately divine the correct rate of stamp duty, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Ben Mayfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How Angela Rayner managed to underpay stamp duty – family trusts and tax avoidance explained – https://theconversation.com/how-angela-rayner-managed-to-underpay-stamp-duty-family-trusts-and-tax-avoidance-explained-264706