Best Of

Incredible really

Rachel Reeves was celebrating the renting law being expanded in her constituency, at the same time she was breaking that law with her own house👇

Claiming that she wasn’t aware of these laws is about as credible as her CV.

https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1983802829971100152?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.

Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.

Is that what they are saying ?
Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?

As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.

The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.

Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ?
If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.

Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.

My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.

Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.

The prosecuting people for incredibly minor infractions of fly tipping regulations is more a reflection of the pressures on LA budgets than it is the process state.

What’s happened is that, knowing that LA budgets are under incredibly pressure from the demands of old age care & SEND provision, companies run by chancers have seen an opportunity to make money & have gone to said LAs with the following offer: “We will take over all littering & fly tipping enforcement at no cost to you, paid out of fines levied on those who break the rules”. The company knows that there is money to be made prosecuting all the minor trivial infractions that go on ever day at the rate of £100s a time & fully intends to exploit this to extract as many £ as possible from every easy target they can find. Naive (or desperate in some cases) LAs have taken this deal, throwing their own voters to the wolves in the process.

In other words, this another example of the UK state circling the drain as different parts of it engage in rent seeking behaviour, tearing down the public realm in the process.

Incredible really

Rachel Reeves was celebrating the renting law being expanded in her constituency, at the same time she was breaking that law with her own house👇

Claiming that she wasn’t aware of these laws is about as credible as her CV.

https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1983802829971100152?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.

Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.

Is that what they are saying ?
Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?

As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.

The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.

Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ?
If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.

I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.

But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.

One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.

As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.

Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.

But who the hell would know???

The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?!
The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!

https://x.com/narindertweets/status/1983640251982868825?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?

LAs in England were granted the power to require licensing by the 2004 Housing Act at the discretion of the Home Secretary. In Dec 2024 that permission was granted universally to every LA:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/selective-licensing-in-the-private-rented-sector-a-guide-for-local-authorities/selective-licensing-in-the-private-rented-sector-a-guide-for-local-authorities

Isnt this one of those things, good idea for an extreme situation happening in a single place, handed over as a universal. Why on earth should someone need a license to rent a house?

Because a liceeeeeense for your minkey solves everything. It is known.

https://youtu.be/jGb8EKwDkBE?si=A7V4Itluc94SVEtu

It’s Process State stuff.

The scum/slum landlords will carry on illegally letting their properties to 37 people per house. With an extra charge for the black mold.

The regular, reasonably honest people have another set of costs.

But, you ask, how do the scum get away with it? First, there is no enforcement. Second, layering.

I own a house. Well, actually, an offshore company owns a house via a couple of layers of Ltd’s. An onshore Ltd rents the house from the offshore company. The onshore Ltd then does all the illegal shit. If they are ever caught, the onshore Ltd goes bust - all it has are debts.

Incredible really

Rachel Reeves was celebrating the renting law being expanded in her constituency, at the same time she was breaking that law with her own house👇

Claiming that she wasn’t aware of these laws is about as credible as her CV.

https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1983802829971100152?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.

Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.

Is that what they are saying ?
Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?

As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.

The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.

Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ?
If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.

Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.

My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.

Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.

I see Starmer and Reeves have refused to rule out income tax rises.

Which I presume means income tax rises are coming.

It might do.

It used to be normal though for ministers to not publically comment on a budget in the weeks preceeding it being presented as it may influence market movements. This was a tradition that the last government often ignored.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/community/blogs/philip-fisher/whatever-happened-to-budget-purdah

You've thoroughly embarrassed yourself on here, and rather than accept and admit it you’ve kept digging.

A period of silence from you would be welcome.

I am afraid you are likely to be disappointed.

Indeed, your vanity and pomposity knows no bounds. So, we will draw our own conclusions.

Your stock has diminished on here due to your behaviour today.

Shame.

On the contrary - this place is interesting precisely because people are willing to state, and back up, controversial opinions.

I disagree with @foxy on this, but am pleased he has posted what he believes so it can be debated.

Moral outrage and attempted silencing over political opinions is a far less appealing attribute in a poster, in my opinion.

Incredible really

Rachel Reeves was celebrating the renting law being expanded in her constituency, at the same time she was breaking that law with her own house👇

Claiming that she wasn’t aware of these laws is about as credible as her CV.

https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1983802829971100152?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.

Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.

Is that what they are saying ?
Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?

As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.

The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.

Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ?
If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.

Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.

My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.

Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.

Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?

Rachel Reeves story has made the BBC.

Oh God more pearl clutching by the media . It’s a total non story but I’m sure will be cremated to death by the usual suspects who will call for Reeves to resign .

The issue is more the complexity of modern bureaucracy - this is a mildly embarrassing way of highlighting it.

The real question is why the f*** a citizen should have to pay £900 to the state to be allowed to rent out their house to another private individual.

Who would be a landlord now?

The new legislation coming down the road heaps on more regulation and restrictions on top.

The like of Blackrock, L&G and Lloyd’s. Small landlords will leave the market. I suspect that was the aim.

LOL.

He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.

Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?

They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.

I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.

The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.

I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.

We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -

Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK.
Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more
Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves

Cumbria: 🤡

What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.