Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told any about this licensing stuff. Now it is we were told, said go and organise it and left it at that. Sure she is still safe though.
Good job she doesn't have a job that requires very careful consideration of complex laws in minute detail.
Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told about this licensing stuff. Sure she is still safe though.
Called it.
I said she was fine because in the engagement letter as a landlord you ask the lettings agency what licences/certificates you need, and if they replied with the wrong info then she didn't know about it.
Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told any about this licensing stuff. Now it we were told, said go and organise it and left it at that. Sure she is still safe though.
Anyhoo, Kemi Badenoch has embarrassed herself, she needs to stop shooting her mouth off, patience is a virtue, leave it to somebody like the party chairman to deal with it.
For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.
I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.
Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
Meghan is pretty ghastly, with all the entitlement of an American multimillionaire.
Can't quite see how she merits "ghastly".
The big takeaway from that poll is the influence that the media, particularly in this case Murdoch press, have on public opinion, with Harry and Meghan having a negative rating 2/3 of that of someone who paid £12m to someone who accused him of rape.
The only compelling reason to keep the Monarch is that the UK electorate would vote in someone far worse.
King Nige has a certain horrible inevitability about it...
You know what, I think he'd actually be pretty good at that, and somewhat more harmless than him being PM. He'd also presumably be less racist than Prince Philip.
Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told about this licensing stuff. Sure she is still safe though.
I'll be in a minority but to me it doesn't really help her. One thing that grates is she is coming up to a defining Budget, and fighting to keep her job, yet couldn't find this email or remember it ahead of providing the info to the ethics advisor. Either spectacular incompetence, or spectacular arrogance. But her arse is now covered and we move on.
Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told any about this licensing stuff. Now it is we were told, said go and organise it and left it at that. Sure she is still safe though.
Good job she doesn't have a job that requires very careful consideration of complex laws in minute detail.
Pretty sure that even Kemi would struggle to make that one stick. And we all know that Kemi never gaffes, because she told us so.
For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.
I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.
Do you have a link to that data?
I'd be surprised if White British support was as high as 5:1, but I could be wrong.
We'd also need to control for age, as young people tend to be more sceptical of monarchy but become more nuanced with age.
Anyhoo, Kemi Badenoch has embarrassed herself, she needs to stop shooting her mouth off, patience is a virtue, leave it to somebody like the party chairman to deal with it.
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:
Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.
And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.
“I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”
He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”
Reeves was aware she needed a licence, but never paid for one
Whatever the estate agent has said, it remains the landlord's responsibility
A diligent person would have double-checked
The Chancellor ought to be the epitome of diligence
I never called for her to lose her job, and never really expected her to
I strongly contested, and continue to contest, the ludicrous notion the she could somehow be unaware of a policy that she had been campaigning in favour of for over eighteen months, before it affected her personally
Yesterday Reeves said in her letter to Starmer she didn't know she needed a licence but today's e mails shows she did and asked the letting agent to sort out one
Anyhoo, Kemi Badenoch has embarrassed herself, she needs to stop shooting her mouth off, patience is a virtue, leave it to somebody like the party chairman to deal with it.
The shine such as it was is definitely coming off. It started to go wrong when she told the country how she got a fellow pupil expelled. In the good old days the Mirror would have set up a vaigrant selling the Big Issue with a sign saying ;
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
The difference is two fold. One Rayner was avoiding a large amount of tax on her deal (and it was all very stinky around valuations, money taken out of trust funds etc) and secondly she lied, threw the lawyers under the bus, and they immediately turned around and went no no no you don't, you are a bullshitter.
Reeves has not dodged tax, despite "misrembering" initially, the people she threw under the bus has held their hands up and taken the blame.
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Rentoul needs to do his research . Southwark council sends a warning letter to get a licence , only if that is ignored will action be taken . I’ve been a huge fan of Rayner but even I had to admit defeat and she couldn’t stay in her job but I hope she will make a return to the cabinet in the future .
Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told any about this licensing stuff. Now it is we were told, said go and organise it and left it at that. Sure she is still safe though.
Good job she doesn't have a job that requires very careful consideration of complex laws in minute detail.
The property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday, left the business immediately the same day having agreed to do the licence (that day?), and didn't have a handover with anyone else in the business to say "hey I'm picking something up for the husband of the Chancellor that needs done next week".
Well, if nothing else, bit of an internal shitshow. Did the company check if there was any other important stuff this person who exited was supposed to be picking up or did that fall through the cracks too?
For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.
I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.
Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
Meghan is pretty ghastly, with all the entitlement of an American multimillionaire.
Can't quite see how she merits "ghastly".
The big takeaway from that poll is the influence that the media, particularly in this case Murdoch press, have on public opinion, with Harry and Meghan having a negative rating 2/3 of that of someone who paid £12m to someone who accused him of rape.
The only compelling reason to keep the Monarch is that the UK electorate would vote in someone far worse.
Meghan and Harry were booed at the LA Dodgers game this week. Presumably, the Murdoch press are not to blame for their unpopularity over there too?
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
The difference is two fold. One Rayner was avoiding a large amount of tax on her deal (and it was all very stinky around valuations, money taken out of trust funds etc) and secondly she lied, threw the lawyers under the bus, and they immediately turned around and went no no no you don't, you are a bullshitter.
Reeves has not dodged tax, despite "misrembering" initially, the people she threw under the bus has held their hands up and taken the blame.
Besides, the bottom line is that Sir Laurie Magnus judged that Rayner needed to go and that Reeves didn't.
If you think the PM's ethical adviser is behaving unethically, that's a big claim you are making. Hope there is some big evidence to go with it.
I see the Tories are continuing to flog a dead horse . It’s irrelevant now what Reeves said yesterday . The estate agent apologized and has taken responsibility.
For me, the most interesting feature of the monarchy polls isn't the party split, it's the ethnic split. In the last one I saw, White British supported retaining the monarchy by 5:1 while Others were evenly split. As the country's ethnic mix changes, we are likely to see support for the monarchy falling gently over the decades.
I suppose it shows that heritage really matters in shaping attitudes and that, while individuals may escape their past, people en masse often don't.
Nah, they’ve seen how the Royals treated a non white member of the family.
Meghan is pretty ghastly, with all the entitlement of an American multimillionaire.
Can't quite see how she merits "ghastly".
The big takeaway from that poll is the influence that the media, particularly in this case Murdoch press, have on public opinion, with Harry and Meghan having a negative rating 2/3 of that of someone who paid £12m to someone who accused him of rape.
The only compelling reason to keep the Monarch is that the UK electorate would vote in someone far worse.
Meghan and Harry were booed at the LA Dodgers game this week. Presumably, the Murdoch press are not to blame for their unpopularity over there too?
News Corp isn't a US corporation? Astounding if true. [But I have no idea what, if anything, its newspapers say about Mr and Mrs Sussex.]
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Rentoul needs to do his research . Southwark council sends a warning letter to get a licence , only if that is ignored will action be taken . I’ve been a huge fan of Rayner but even I had to admit defeat and she couldn’t stay in her job but I hope she will make a return to the cabinet in the future .
Tbf Rentoul has formidable insight into current Labour politics. Soon as Rayner resigned as DL he knew who would replace her and he called it without hesitation and with great authority. Emily Thornberry.
Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:
Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.
And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.
“I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”
He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”
I see the Tories are continuing to flog a dead horse . It’s irrelevant now what Reeves said yesterday . The estate agent apologized and has taken responsibility.
Problem with making a mountain out of a molehill you need to justify why it’s a mountain which means desperate attempts to justify what you said yesterday
Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:
Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.
And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.
“I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”
He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”
I see the Tories are continuing to flog a dead horse . It’s irrelevant now what Reeves said yesterday . The estate agent apologized and have taken responsibility.
Why the tories
There is some indication two disgruntled ex cabinet minsters are gunning for her and who leaked the original story ?
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
The difference is two fold. One Rayner was avoiding a large amount of tax on her deal (and it was all very stinky around valuations, money taken out of trust funds etc) and secondly she lied, threw the lawyers under the bus, and they immediately turned around and went no no no you don't, you are a bullshitter.
Reeves has not dodged tax, despite "misrembering" initially, the people she threw under the bus has held their hands up and taken the blame.
Besides, the bottom line is that Sir Laurie Magnus judged that Rayner needed to go and that Reeves didn't.
If you think the PM's ethical adviser is behaving unethically, that's a big claim you are making. Hope there is some big evidence to go with it.
I see the Tories are continuing to flog a dead horse . It’s irrelevant now what Reeves said yesterday . The estate agent apologized and have taken responsibility.
Why the tories
There is some indication two disgruntled ex cabinet minsters are gunning for her and who leaked the original story ?
Apparently the Daily Mail found the info . It’s pretty clear now that if you’re a big name in the cabinet you’d better make sure all your affairs are in order .
Reeves was aware she needed a licence, but never paid for one
Whatever the estate agent has said, it remains the landlord's responsibility
A diligent person would have double-checked
The Chancellor ought to be the epitome of diligence
I never called for her to lose her job, and never really expected her to
I strongly contested, and continue to contest, the ludicrous notion the she could somehow be unaware of a policy that she had been campaigning in favour of for over eighteen months, before it affected her personally
An apology from PB tories is in order. But I don't suppose we'll be getting one. One rule for them, different rule for everybody else.
Ministers falling foul of everyday tripwires seems to me to be pretty unhelpful in our long, and seemingly lost, quest for good government. It strikes me that the country might be well served if the cabinet had the option to have a civil-service check on their arrangements perhaps once a quarter. They could decline, and there would have to be a cost if their affairs were disorderly, but insulating them from and correcting minor matters and letting them get on with making the usual pigs ear seems perhaps a sensible idea.
Robert Peston @Peston · 1m PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so
Reeves is toast!
Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?
If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
The difference is two fold. One Rayner was avoiding a large amount of tax on her deal (and it was all very stinky around valuations, money taken out of trust funds etc) and secondly she lied, threw the lawyers under the bus, and they immediately turned around and went no no no you don't, you are a bullshitter.
Reeves has not dodged tax, despite "misrembering" initially, the people she threw under the bus has held their hands up and taken the blame.
Besides, the bottom line is that Sir Laurie Magnus judged that Rayner needed to go and that Reeves didn't.
If you think the PM's ethical adviser is behaving unethically, that's a big claim you are making. Hope there is some big evidence to go with it.
Me?
I should have said "one thinks" of course, but that felt over-provocative, given the header.
OT. Paul Allen's house on Cap Ferrat was recently sold to an American hedge fund manager Izzy Englander following his death. It's rumoured to have cost its new owner 105 million Euros. That's exactly the same price paid by Liverpool for Alexander Izak
Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:
Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.
And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.
“I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”
He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”
Reeves was aware she needed a licence, but never paid for one
Whatever the estate agent has said, it remains the landlord's responsibility
A diligent person would have double-checked
The Chancellor ought to be the epitome of diligence
I never called for her to lose her job, and never really expected her to
I strongly contested, and continue to contest, the ludicrous notion the she could somehow be unaware of a policy that she had been campaigning in favour of for over eighteen months, before it affected her personally
Oh dear. Thoughts are with you at this difficult time.
Reeves was aware she needed a licence, but never paid for one
Whatever the estate agent has said, it remains the landlord's responsibility
A diligent person would have double-checked
The Chancellor ought to be the epitome of diligence
I never called for her to lose her job, and never really expected her to
I strongly contested, and continue to contest, the ludicrous notion the she could somehow be unaware of a policy that she had been campaigning in favour of for over eighteen months, before it affected her personally
Oh dear. Thoughts are with you at this difficult time.
Ministers falling foul of everyday tripwires seems to me to be pretty unhelpful in our long, and seemingly lost, quest for good government. It strikes me that the country might be well served if the cabinet had the option to have a civil-service check on their arrangements perhaps once a quarter. They could decline, and there would have to be a cost if their affairs were disorderly, but insulating them from and correcting minor matters and letting them get on with making the usual pigs ear seems perhaps a sensible idea.
All this story has told me is that anyone who wants to be a politician is a f&&&ing stupid masochistic idiot
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
He’s clearly an idiot then.
Rayner was told by her lawyers to get professional advice, did not, and as a result underpaid her tax
Reeves was informed by her agent that she needed a license, asked them to obtain it, and received confirmation that they would. Her error was not to follow up to ensure that they had done so. Yes she’s responsible for not having a license but it was minor infringement.
Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told about this licensing stuff. Sure she is still safe though.
Called it.
I said she was fine because in the engagement letter as a landlord you ask the lettings agency what licences/certificates you need, and if they replied with the wrong info then she didn't know about it.
Your summary is not a correct rendition of the facts. So you didn’t call it.
The agency replied with the correct facts - she needed a licence. However they did not follow through on their promise to obtain it
I see the Tories are continuing to flog a dead horse . It’s irrelevant now what Reeves said yesterday . The estate agent apologized and have taken responsibility.
Why the tories
There is some indication two disgruntled ex cabinet minsters are gunning for her and who leaked the original story ?
Apparently the Daily Mail found the info . It’s pretty clear now that if you’re a big name in the cabinet you’d better make sure all your affairs are in order .
Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:
Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.
And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.
“I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”
He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”
Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:
Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.
And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.
“I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”
He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”
I see the Tories are continuing to flog a dead horse . It’s irrelevant now what Reeves said yesterday . The estate agent apologized and has taken responsibility.
Yes but the slightest inconsistency is enough to try to keep the story going.
A private individual would, I assume, do the necessary research before embarking on becoming a landlord and would discover if a licence were needed in the area where their property was located.
Rachel Reeves, as an MP and Chancellor, has other things on her plate (understandably) and in the blizzard of everything going on around her (and I can only guess what kind of working day she has), a tweet from three years ago would mean nothing. She probably wanted the lettings agent to deal with all the paperwork (that's what you pay them for I imagine) and assumed that had happened but it didn't and she has caught out.
The Lettings Agent has admitted the mistake but if there is a fine levied by Leeds Council, Reeves, as the landlord, would have to pay it. Is any of this a hanging offence? Hardly - the only bone those hostile to her still seem to be chewing is the inconsistency angle and while that looks bad, again, hardly worth a resignation.
Rentoul, wisely, asks why on this basis Rayner had to go. The problem is always when the story gets to such a point it becomes an unnecessary and damaging distraction at which point it no longer matters who did or said what and when.
In the same way, the only hope those hoping to undermine Reeves and force her out is to keep the story going somehow but absent any new evidence it's going to fade away.
Rachel Reeves probably does not spend a lot of time reading the LandlordTODAY website. But if she did, she might have seen this article, written earlier this year, highlighting complaints about licensing schemes like the one that has got the chancellor into difficulties. It says:
Phil Turtle, a compliance consultant at Landlord Licensing & Defence, says it is increasingly the case that a missed renewal notice, a buried letter, or a forgotten deadline can cost landlords their financial stability – and even their properties.
And he believes that selective licensing schemes, enforced with increasing rigour by local councils, are catching landlords off guard with fines that can spiral into the hundreds of thousands.
“I’ve seen landlords lose everything because they didn’t have a system in place to track compliance. One missed deadline can cost you £105,000, and if you’re operating through a limited company, that fine could double to £210,000.”
He points to a recent case in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, where a landlord faced a staggering £66,000 in fines for failing to license a single house converted into two flats. “The council hit the landlord’s limited company with £16,500 per flat and then fined him personally as the sole director another £16,500 per flat. That’s £66,000 for a simple oversight – and now he’s forced to sell the property to cover the cost.”
OT. Paul Allen's house on Cap Ferrat was recently sold to an American hedge fund manager Izzy Englander following his death. It's rumoured to have cost its new owner 105 million Euros. That's exactly the same price paid by Liverpool for Alexander Izak
I see the Tories are continuing to flog a dead horse . It’s irrelevant now what Reeves said yesterday . The estate agent apologized and has taken responsibility.
Yes but the slightest inconsistency is enough to try to keep the story going.
A private individual would, I assume, do the necessary research before embarking on becoming a landlord and would discover if a licence were needed in the area where their property was located.
Rachel Reeves, as an MP and Chancellor, has other things on her plate (understandably) and in the blizzard of everything going on around her (and I can only guess what kind of working day she has), a tweet from three years ago would mean nothing. She probably wanted the lettings agent to deal with all the paperwork (that's what you pay them for I imagine) and assumed that had happened but it didn't and she has caught out.
The Lettings Agent has admitted the mistake but if there is a fine levied by Leeds Council, Reeves, as the landlord, would have to pay it. Is any of this a hanging offence? Hardly - the only bone those hostile to her still seem to be chewing is the inconsistency angle and while that looks bad, again, hardly worth a resignation.
Rentoul, wisely, asks why on this basis Rayner had to go. The problem is always when the story gets to such a point it becomes an unnecessary and damaging distraction at which point it no longer matters who did or said what and when.
In the same way, the only hope those hoping to undermine Reeves and force her out is to keep the story going somehow but absent any new evidence it's going to fade away.
Rayner was tax evasion based on her failure to take advice and misreporting to the revenue
Reeves was an administrative oversight in failing to follow up with her agent to ensure they had done what they promised
I see the Tories are continuing to flog a dead horse . It’s irrelevant now what Reeves said yesterday . The estate agent apologized and has taken responsibility.
Yes but the slightest inconsistency is enough to try to keep the story going.
A private individual would, I assume, do the necessary research before embarking on becoming a landlord and would discover if a licence were needed in the area where their property was located.
Rachel Reeves, as an MP and Chancellor, has other things on her plate (understandably) and in the blizzard of everything going on around her (and I can only guess what kind of working day she has), a tweet from three years ago would mean nothing. She probably wanted the lettings agent to deal with all the paperwork (that's what you pay them for I imagine) and assumed that had happened but it didn't and she has caught out.
The Lettings Agent has admitted the mistake but if there is a fine levied by Leeds Council, Reeves, as the landlord, would have to pay it. Is any of this a hanging offence? Hardly - the only bone those hostile to her still seem to be chewing is the inconsistency angle and while that looks bad, again, hardly worth a resignation.
Rentoul, wisely, asks why on this basis Rayner had to go. The problem is always when the story gets to such a point it becomes an unnecessary and damaging distraction at which point it no longer matters who did or said what and when.
In the same way, the only hope those hoping to undermine Reeves and force her out is to keep the story going somehow but absent any new evidence it's going to fade away.
Rayner was tax evasion based on her failure to take advice and misreporting to the revenue
Reeves was an administrative oversight in failing to follow up with her agent to ensure they had done what they promised
Rayner could have survived, albeit damaged, but the story simply wouldn't go away over several days and each day seemed to bring new evidence undermining her defence.
Her initial response could have been more frank and honest which would have helped but the knives were clearly out for her including within elements of Labour and it's interesting the new Deputy Leader doesn't have the large policy brief.
As for Reeves, negligent certainly but that's all.
Odd that so many of these prominent politicians don’t go the extra mile to make sure that their own house is always in order. I always did, despite just being a lowly and briefly prominent local councillor.
The Prime Minister and his independent ethics adviser have received “new information” regarding the rental arrangements for the Chancellor’s family home, Downing Street has said.
No 10 added that Sir Keir Starmer has “full confidence” in Rachel Reeves.
A No 10 spokesman said: “Following a review of emails sent and received by the Chancellor’s husband, new information has come to light.”
“This information has been passed to the Prime Minister and his independent adviser.”
---
Did the Daily Mail have a follow up waiting for this evening?
I did speculate on the previous thread that I wonder if the Lettings Agency has screwed up as they are the ones that make sure everything is compliant.
Or the opposite, like Rayner, where they basically say your responsibility to ensure you comply.
If its the Lettings Agency who have screwed up not great for their business.
I’ve checked my agreements with my Lettings Agencies and they are clear they inform the landlord of what certificates are required in each area.
Seems the e mails are between the letting agent and Reeves husband
I expect the letting agent may have questions to answer
BREAKING - The King has taken further action on Prince Andrew and moved to formally strip all his titles. The former Duke of York will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and will leave Royal Lodge. “These censures are deemed necessary.”
Ministers falling foul of everyday tripwires seems to me to be pretty unhelpful in our long, and seemingly lost, quest for good government. It strikes me that the country might be well served if the cabinet had the option to have a civil-service check on their arrangements perhaps once a quarter. They could decline, and there would have to be a cost if their affairs were disorderly, but insulating them from and correcting minor matters and letting them get on with making the usual pigs ear seems perhaps a sensible idea.
All this story has told me is that anyone who wants to be a politician is a f&&&ing stupid masochistic idiot
It's reinforced the sense that Fleet St would far prefer to go through your bins than do proper reporting too.
Robert Peston @Peston · 1m PA: Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agents used by Rachel Reeves to rent out her property in south London, have apologised to her for an "oversight" after they did not apply for a licence on her behalf, having offered to do so
Reeves is toast!
Why are Labour running away from an enquiry? Leaking one side of a story to the media is not balance like you get from enquiry is it?
If they don’t give it to the ethics advisor to investigate and report back, the ethics advisor must quit. For Starmer would be doing the total dirty on the ethics advisor, by doing the ethics advisors job for him and humiliatingly sidelining him.
I'm confused. Doesn't the estate agents' intervention demonstrate that Reeves is innocent?
Ministers falling foul of everyday tripwires seems to me to be pretty unhelpful in our long, and seemingly lost, quest for good government. It strikes me that the country might be well served if the cabinet had the option to have a civil-service check on their arrangements perhaps once a quarter. They could decline, and there would have to be a cost if their affairs were disorderly, but insulating them from and correcting minor matters and letting them get on with making the usual pigs ear seems perhaps a sensible idea.
All this story has told me is that anyone who wants to be a politician is a f&&&ing stupid masochistic idiot
It's reinforced the sense that Fleet St would far prefer to go through your bins than do proper reporting too.
Proper reporting costs real money - this was setting an intern a task for lols or a freelancer wanting to make a few quid
Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told any about this licensing stuff. Now it is we were told, said go and organise it and left it at that. Sure she is still safe though.
Good job she doesn't have a job that requires very careful consideration of complex laws in minute detail.
Hopefully the previous property manager takes it on the chin that it was his fault and not hers.
Gareth Martin, the owner of the agency, said that an employee who had offered to apply for a licence on behalf of Ms Reeves resigned before the tenancy began, and the company did not pick it up.
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told about this licensing stuff. Sure she is still safe though.
I'll be in a minority but to me it doesn't really help her. One thing that grates is she is coming up to a defining Budget, and fighting to keep her job, yet couldn't find this email or remember it ahead of providing the info to the ethics advisor. Either spectacular incompetence, or spectacular arrogance. But her arse is now covered and we move on.
Yes all very convenient, just a memory lapse on the e-mails etc
Reeves was aware she needed a licence, but never paid for one
Whatever the estate agent has said, it remains the landlord's responsibility
A diligent person would have double-checked
The Chancellor ought to be the epitome of diligence
I never called for her to lose her job, and never really expected her to
I strongly contested, and continue to contest, the ludicrous notion the she could somehow be unaware of a policy that she had been campaigning in favour of for over eighteen months, before it affected her personally
Comments
Mr Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said: “We alert all our clients to the need for a licence. In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients’ behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.
“Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/10/30/politics-latest-news-rachel-reeves-rent-house-budget-tories/
That isn't quite the story Reeves told last night. She said never been told any about this licensing stuff. Now it is we were told, said go and organise it and left it at that. Sure she is still safe though.
Good job she doesn't have a job that requires very careful consideration of complex laws in minute detail.
I said she was fine because in the engagement letter as a landlord you ask the lettings agency what licences/certificates you need, and if they replied with the wrong info then she didn't know about it.
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1983936008686112792
I'd be surprised if White British support was as high as 5:1, but I could be wrong.
We'd also need to control for age, as young people tend to be more sceptical of monarchy but become more nuanced with age.
Starmer is one.
If Reeves stays, why did Rayner go?
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Whatever the estate agent has said, it remains the landlord's responsibility
A diligent person would have double-checked
The Chancellor ought to be the epitome of diligence
I never called for her to lose her job, and never really expected her to
I strongly contested, and continue to contest, the ludicrous notion the she could somehow be unaware of a policy that she had been campaigning in favour of for over eighteen months, before it affected her personally
Confused !!!!!!
"I Would Have Had a Future if it Wasn't for Kemi"
Reeves has not dodged tax, despite "misrembering" initially, the people she threw under the bus has held their hands up and taken the blame.
Well, if nothing else, bit of an internal shitshow. Did the company check if there was any other important stuff this person who exited was supposed to be picking up or did that fall through the cracks too?
If you think the PM's ethical adviser is behaving unethically, that's a big claim you are making. Hope there is some big evidence to go with it.
https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/housing_conditions/private_sector_enforcement/rent_repayment_orders#offences-for-which-an-rro-can-be-made
There is some indication two disgruntled ex cabinet minsters are gunning for her and who leaked the original story ?
Pause
I'll get me coat...
Danny Kruger compared supporting Hamas to supporting LGBT rights.
What an absolute Mark Reckless.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nigel-farage-reform-chris-bryant-hamas-civil-service-b2853911.html
https://x.com/PDJSwallow/status/1983919177443238294
There's an interesting question here, though. Does the Mail try to keep this story going tomorrow, or pretend it never happened?
https://www.craincurrency.com/art-collectibles-and-property-management/billionaire-izzy-englander-buys-paul-allens-iconic-french
Rayner was told by her lawyers to get professional advice, did not, and as a result underpaid her tax
Reeves was informed by her agent that she needed a license, asked them to obtain it, and received confirmation that they would. Her error was not to follow up to ensure that they had done so. Yes she’s responsible for not having a license but it was minor infringement.
The agency replied with the correct facts - she needed a licence. However they did not follow through on their promise to obtain it
@michaelscherer
NEW: Stephen Miller, Marco Rubio, Kristi Noem, and others have taken over military homes that until recently housed senior officers.
https://x.com/michaelscherer/status/1983877316792012884
https://newsroom.walthamforest.gov.uk/press-releases/2c3a7480-f56a-463f-bce3-a6fdb1eb7383/two-landlords-given-large-fines-totalling-135-000-for-failing-to-meet-property-licensing-requirements
Starmer says he has “full confidence” in her
Reeves to hammer home owners despite making tens of thousands a year in rent thank to government housing
Firstworldproblem
A private individual would, I assume, do the necessary research before embarking on becoming a landlord and would discover if a licence were needed in the area where their property was located.
Rachel Reeves, as an MP and Chancellor, has other things on her plate (understandably) and in the blizzard of everything going on around her (and I can only guess what kind of working day she has), a tweet from three years ago would mean nothing. She probably wanted the lettings agent to deal with all the paperwork (that's what you pay them for I imagine) and assumed that had happened but it didn't and she has caught out.
The Lettings Agent has admitted the mistake but if there is a fine levied by Leeds Council, Reeves, as the landlord, would have to pay it. Is any of this a hanging offence? Hardly - the only bone those hostile to her still seem to be chewing is the inconsistency angle and while that looks bad, again, hardly worth a resignation.
Rentoul, wisely, asks why on this basis Rayner had to go. The problem is always when the story gets to such a point it becomes an unnecessary and damaging distraction at which point it no longer matters who did or said what and when.
In the same way, the only hope those hoping to undermine Reeves and force her out is to keep the story going somehow but absent any new evidence it's going to fade away.
No government agency should be allowed to charge tens of thousands in fines without due process
Izak cost Liverpool 125 million pounds or 142 million euros
@journoanna_
·
6h
A group of Labour Nottingham City Councillors have quit today to start the 'Nottingham People's Alliance'
They say the party locally and nationally has "abandoned traditional Labour values"
Read more: https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyk7r42qd9o
https://x.com/journoanna_
Reeves was an administrative oversight in failing to follow up with her agent to ensure they had done what they promised
BREAKING: King strips his brother Andrew of Prince title.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/10/jetten-turns-the-page-on-wilders-but-cant-close-the-book/
Wow.
Her initial response could have been more frank and honest which would have helped but the knives were clearly out for her including within elements of Labour and it's interesting the new Deputy Leader doesn't have the large policy brief.
As for Reeves, negligent certainly but that's all.
Wow, those lads at the council are big fans of the old written records, aren't they.
https://x.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1983974175589945497
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpwxTSHi3Og