Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
This sort of random stealth taxation and pointless petty bureaucracy is a terrible idea. I'm therefore generally pretty sympathetic to anyone who finds themselves ensnared by it.
However, the big difference between people like you and me and Rachel Reeves is that she is part of the government, and we are not. Ultimately the existence of this stupid licencing is something she has control over. And given that, she should get shafted for it to the maximum extent the law allows, and then resign in disgrace. If that happened to politicians more often, maybe we'd get less daft bureaucracy in the first place.
It doesn't actually appear to be a stealth taxation scheme, as opposed to a self-funding scheme intended to ensure rental properties meet minimum standards. It's also fairly recent.
Kemi skewered Sir Keir on his tax pledges at PMQs, and it was quite beautifully done
At prime minister’s questions, Kemi Badenoch used her first question to ask precisely that. Does the manifesto commitment not to raise those three taxes still stand?
“I’m glad she wants to talk about the economy,” came the answer, followed by more than a minute of untranscribable waffle. It was a yes/no question. A yes or a no would have done.
Down on the opposition front benches, Badenoch did not try especially hard to conceal her delight. She grinned a grin of pure, malign pleasure. She looked, for a moment, like Tim Curry’s evil hotel concierge in Home Alone 2.
“Well, well, well,” came her reply, eventually. “A fascinating answer.” Not even the most assiduous PMQs nerd could have seen what was coming next. She had, she explained, asked the exact same question, word for word, three months ago. And what reply did she get then? “He said the word ‘yes’ and sat down again with his smug grin.”
As the late Richie Benaud liked to put it: “ash everywhere”. Starmer’s middle stump was doing cartwheels. It has been one of the prime minister’s preferred tactics, for a while, to give a one-word “yes” or “no” to a question that he considers beneath him, then sit down again and fail to conceal his self-satisfaction. It’s a tactic that would eventually come back to bite him, and it has.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
This sort of random stealth taxation and pointless petty bureaucracy is a terrible idea. I'm therefore generally pretty sympathetic to anyone who finds themselves ensnared by it.
However, the big difference between people like you and me and Rachel Reeves is that she is part of the government, and we are not. Ultimately the existence of this stupid licencing is something she has control over. And given that, she should get shafted for it to the maximum extent the law allows, and then resign in disgrace. If that happened to politicians more often, maybe we'd get less daft bureaucracy in the first place.
It doesn't actually appear to be a stealth taxation scheme, as opposed to a self-funding scheme intended to ensure rental properties meet minimum standards. It's also fairly recent.
I suspect it's not been around long enough to have developed much precedent in the way of fines for non compliance.
“It doesn't actually appear to be a stealth taxation scheme”
Where do the £30K fines go? To pay for socialist policies like go green plastic drinking bottles, the consultants brought in for the Miners Strike Remembrance activities, the new lanyards inscribed with the words to the red flag song.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
This sort of random stealth taxation and pointless petty bureaucracy is a terrible idea. I'm therefore generally pretty sympathetic to anyone who finds themselves ensnared by it.
However, the big difference between people like you and me and Rachel Reeves is that she is part of the government, and we are not. Ultimately the existence of this stupid licencing is something she has control over. And given that, she should get shafted for it to the maximum extent the law allows, and then resign in disgrace. If that happened to politicians more often, maybe we'd get less daft bureaucracy in the first place.
It doesn't actually appear to be a stealth taxation scheme, as opposed to a self-funding scheme intended to ensure rental properties meet minimum standards. It's also fairly recent.
I suspect it's not been around long enough to have developed much precedent in the way of fines for non compliance.
“It doesn't actually appear to be a stealth taxation scheme”
Where do the £30K fines go? To pay for socialist policies like go green plastic drinking bottles, the consultants brought in for the Miners Strike Remembrance activities, the new lanyards inscribed with the words to the red flag song.
Kemi skewered Sir Keir on his tax pledges at PMQs, and it was quite beautifully done
At prime minister’s questions, Kemi Badenoch used her first question to ask precisely that. Does the manifesto commitment not to raise those three taxes still stand?
“I’m glad she wants to talk about the economy,” came the answer, followed by more than a minute of untranscribable waffle. It was a yes/no question. A yes or a no would have done.
Down on the opposition front benches, Badenoch did not try especially hard to conceal her delight. She grinned a grin of pure, malign pleasure. She looked, for a moment, like Tim Curry’s evil hotel concierge in Home Alone 2.
“Well, well, well,” came her reply, eventually. “A fascinating answer.” Not even the most assiduous PMQs nerd could have seen what was coming next. She had, she explained, asked the exact same question, word for word, three months ago. And what reply did she get then? “He said the word ‘yes’ and sat down again with his smug grin.”
As the late Richie Benaud liked to put it: “ash everywhere”. Starmer’s middle stump was doing cartwheels. It has been one of the prime minister’s preferred tactics, for a while, to give a one-word “yes” or “no” to a question that he considers beneath him, then sit down again and fail to conceal his self-satisfaction. It’s a tactic that would eventually come back to bite him, and it has.
The sale of the Telegraph Media Group has been thrown into fresh turmoil after the company’s own newspaper linked its presumed new owner to the suspected ringleader of the alleged Chinese spy ring in Westminster.
The new Reeves allegations don't impress me much. It must be easy to make mistakes like this. A distraction from the things that are important atm.
It does play into the narrative that the majority who aren't trying to pull a fast one can all too easily fall into these minor indescretions and if you aren't a government frontbencher the punishments can be severe e.g. David Lammy not having a fishing licence for one photoshoot. The woman tipping a tiny amount of coffee down the drain. These is the story today about inconsistent parking rules in Liverpool.
£1000 for a license for the right to lease your own house seems very expensive.
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 .
Do you believe that the media or Starmer would have kept quiet if a Tory Chancellor had done the same?
And would you be bitching about the non-storyness of it all?
I mean how many people even think they’d need a licence to rent out their own home . There’s lots of things to criticize Reeves for but this story is really just a simple error in which she had nothing to gain by not getting the licence.
Is ignorance of the law a valid defence now?
How many councils require a licence? I have no idea if I'd need one if I rented out my home, I know I'd need EPC, gas and electrical safety certs.
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 .
Do you believe that the media or Starmer would have kept quiet if a Tory Chancellor had done the same?
And would you be bitching about the non-storyness of it all?
I mean how many people even think they’d need a licence to rent out their own home . There’s lots of things to criticize Reeves for but this story is really just a simple error in which she had nothing to gain by not getting the licence.
Is ignorance of the law a valid defence now?
Now that the law is written on hundreds of thousands or millions of pages, not ten sides of goat skin, it might be time to address this canard. Of course, the whole of our justice system relies on pretending it's true, so it's hard.
The new Reeves allegations don't impress me much. It must be easy to make mistakes like this. A distraction from the things that are important atm.
It does play into the narrative that the majority who aren't trying to pull a fast one can all too easily fall into these minor indescretions and if you aren't a government frontbencher the punishments can be severe e.g. David Lammy not having a fishing licence for one photoshoot. The woman tipping a tiny amount of coffee down the drain. These is the story today about inconsistent parking rules in Liverpool.
£1000 for a license for the right to lease your own house seems very expensive.
Welcome to The Land Of The Fee.
It’s seems to be great when it imposed on Themuns. Not so much, when It’s Our Own.
Round my way, a lady who put her recycling boxes out a few hours more than 24 hours before collection, was given a multi-hundred pound fine. For “Fly Tipping”.
I suspect her sympathy for the CoE will be somewhat limited.
Technology note: just noticed automatic subtitles on YouTube videos working for sung lyrics on pop songs for the first time. (Not perfectly but pretty good unless the vocals are a bit weirdly-delivered).
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
This sort of random stealth taxation and pointless petty bureaucracy is a terrible idea. I'm therefore generally pretty sympathetic to anyone who finds themselves ensnared by it.
However, the big difference between people like you and me and Rachel Reeves is that she is part of the government, and we are not. Ultimately the existence of this stupid licencing is something she has control over. And given that, she should get shafted for it to the maximum extent the law allows, and then resign in disgrace. If that happened to politicians more often, maybe we'd get less daft bureaucracy in the first place.
It doesn't actually appear to be a stealth taxation scheme, as opposed to a self-funding scheme intended to ensure rental properties meet minimum standards. It's also fairly recent.
I suspect it's not been around long enough to have developed much precedent in the way of fines for non compliance.
“It doesn't actually appear to be a stealth taxation scheme”
Where do the £30K fines go? To pay for socialist policies like go green plastic drinking bottles, the consultants brought in for the Miners Strike Remembrance activities, the new lanyards inscribed with the words to the red flag song.
Kemi skewered Sir Keir on his tax pledges at PMQs, and it was quite beautifully done
At prime minister’s questions, Kemi Badenoch used her first question to ask precisely that. Does the manifesto commitment not to raise those three taxes still stand?
“I’m glad she wants to talk about the economy,” came the answer, followed by more than a minute of untranscribable waffle. It was a yes/no question. A yes or a no would have done.
Down on the opposition front benches, Badenoch did not try especially hard to conceal her delight. She grinned a grin of pure, malign pleasure. She looked, for a moment, like Tim Curry’s evil hotel concierge in Home Alone 2.
“Well, well, well,” came her reply, eventually. “A fascinating answer.” Not even the most assiduous PMQs nerd could have seen what was coming next. She had, she explained, asked the exact same question, word for word, three months ago. And what reply did she get then? “He said the word ‘yes’ and sat down again with his smug grin.”
As the late Richie Benaud liked to put it: “ash everywhere”. Starmer’s middle stump was doing cartwheels. It has been one of the prime minister’s preferred tactics, for a while, to give a one-word “yes” or “no” to a question that he considers beneath him, then sit down again and fail to conceal his self-satisfaction. It’s a tactic that would eventually come back to bite him, and it has.
Kemi skewered Sir Keir on his tax pledges at PMQs, and it was quite beautifully done
At prime minister’s questions, Kemi Badenoch used her first question to ask precisely that. Does the manifesto commitment not to raise those three taxes still stand?
“I’m glad she wants to talk about the economy,” came the answer, followed by more than a minute of untranscribable waffle. It was a yes/no question. A yes or a no would have done.
Down on the opposition front benches, Badenoch did not try especially hard to conceal her delight. She grinned a grin of pure, malign pleasure. She looked, for a moment, like Tim Curry’s evil hotel concierge in Home Alone 2.
“Well, well, well,” came her reply, eventually. “A fascinating answer.” Not even the most assiduous PMQs nerd could have seen what was coming next. She had, she explained, asked the exact same question, word for word, three months ago. And what reply did she get then? “He said the word ‘yes’ and sat down again with his smug grin.”
As the late Richie Benaud liked to put it: “ash everywhere”. Starmer’s middle stump was doing cartwheels. It has been one of the prime minister’s preferred tactics, for a while, to give a one-word “yes” or “no” to a question that he considers beneath him, then sit down again and fail to conceal his self-satisfaction. It’s a tactic that would eventually come back to bite him, and it has.
Nearly 200,000 people on benefits could have their debts to their energy supplier cancelled, if they make some effort to pay what is owed.
Unpaid bills and fees have soared in recent years with energy prices so high, leaving a record £4.4bn owed to suppliers.
Up to £500m could be knocked off the total under plans that regulator Ofgem wants to take effect early next year.
But that will also require the cost to be covered through an extra £5 added to everyone's gas and electricity bill. Households on a price cap tariff already typically pay £52 a year to deal with historic debt as part of the £1,755 annual bill.
My point really is for women to not be made to feel like victims if they don’t actually feel that way. And they shouldn’t be forced to think they’re now damaged and need hours of therapy to get over an incident .
My point is that, regardless of how a woman reacts, the man's behaviour is wrong and needs to be stopped. Therapy is not forced on anyone. Women should not be made to feel guilty or damaged or ashamed. They feel what they feel. And everyone responds differently.
But regardless men do not get a free pass to assault women just because some are better able to deal with the consequences. Women who are assaulted by men are victims of a crime. But they do not have to see themselves as victims or live like that. It is their choice. Their responses do not ever excuse or justify or minimise the men's criminal behaviour.
My point really is for women to not be made to feel like victims if they don’t actually feel that way. And they shouldn’t be forced to think they’re now damaged and need hours of therapy to get over an incident .
My point is that, regardless of how a woman reacts, the man's behaviour is wrong and needs to be stopped. Therapy is not forced on anyone. Women should not be made to feel guilty or damaged or ashamed. They feel what they feel. And everyone responds differently.
But regardless men do not get a free pass to assault women just because some are better able to deal with the consequences. Women who are assaulted by men are victims of a crime. But they do not have to see themselves as victims or live like that. It is their choice. Their responses do not ever excuse or justify or minimise the men's criminal behaviour.
This is such a simple point but it takes men a very long time to get. We do eventually though so it's worth repeating
The sale of the Telegraph Media Group has been thrown into fresh turmoil after the company’s own newspaper linked its presumed new owner to the suspected ringleader of the alleged Chinese spy ring in Westminster.
The Telegraph’s own hacks have been doing a lot of digging in to a number of potential bidders over the past couple of years. It’s almost as if the newsroom is trying to ambush the sale.
Kemi skewered Sir Keir on his tax pledges at PMQs, and it was quite beautifully done
At prime minister’s questions, Kemi Badenoch used her first question to ask precisely that. Does the manifesto commitment not to raise those three taxes still stand?
“I’m glad she wants to talk about the economy,” came the answer, followed by more than a minute of untranscribable waffle. It was a yes/no question. A yes or a no would have done.
Down on the opposition front benches, Badenoch did not try especially hard to conceal her delight. She grinned a grin of pure, malign pleasure. She looked, for a moment, like Tim Curry’s evil hotel concierge in Home Alone 2.
“Well, well, well,” came her reply, eventually. “A fascinating answer.” Not even the most assiduous PMQs nerd could have seen what was coming next. She had, she explained, asked the exact same question, word for word, three months ago. And what reply did she get then? “He said the word ‘yes’ and sat down again with his smug grin.”
As the late Richie Benaud liked to put it: “ash everywhere”. Starmer’s middle stump was doing cartwheels. It has been one of the prime minister’s preferred tactics, for a while, to give a one-word “yes” or “no” to a question that he considers beneath him, then sit down again and fail to conceal his self-satisfaction. It’s a tactic that would eventually come back to bite him, and it has.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
But you’re not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Robert.
For Starmer to lose one senior minister over their housing empire might be considered unlucky, to have a second senior minister also in trouble over her housing empire only a couple of months later…
Rachel Reeves seems to have a separate (non-verified) TwiX account for constituency matters.
I welcome Leeds City Council's decision to expand their selective landlord licencing policy to include the Armley area.
While many private landlords operate in the right way, we know that lots of private tenants in Armley face problems with poorly maintained housing. (1/3)
This scheme means private landlords in the area will be required by law to obtain a licence for any residential property they are seeking to let and must meet certain standards to ensure the property is safe and in a decent state of repair. (2/3) https://x.com/RachelforLWP/status/1980224617865457790
Maybe this is what prompted the Chancellor to wonder about Lambeth.
ETA: RR's social media manager cannot spell ‘licensing’.
Rachel Reeves seems to have a separate (non-verified) TwiX account for constituency matters.
I welcome Leeds City Council's decision to expand their selective landlord licencing policy to include the Armley area.
While many private landlords operate in the right way, we know that lots of private tenants in Armley face problems with poorly maintained housing. (1/3)
This scheme means private landlords in the area will be required by law to obtain a licence for any residential property they are seeking to let and must meet certain standards to ensure the property is safe and in a decent state of repair. (2/3) https://x.com/RachelforLWP/status/1980224617865457790
Maybe this is what prompted the Chancellor to wonder about Lambeth.
ETA: RR's social media manager cannot spell ‘licensing’.
Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves MP and local Labour Councillors push for more selective licensing in Leeds to tackle "rogue" landlords - Jan 2023
The Labour MP for Leeds West and and local Labour Councillors are reportedly calling for selective licensing to be used to improve Private Rented Sector housing standards in the Armley area of the city.
Can't really claim total ignorance of the existence of this kind of scheme. Given her, her husband, her sister, the dog, etc are all in politics, you also thought they might be a bit more aware than your average regular down the dog and duck.
That been said think I would be pretty pissed with the letting agent if they didn't mention it at all nor inquired are you properly licensed to rent this property out.
What Starmer better hope with this immediate ruling out of any need for further action is this is the extent of the story and the Mail aren't sitting on say paperwork from the letting agency that says notice to all landlords you are now required to have a licence. Its your responsibility to ensure you have before rental period begins.
Whoever setup Rayner left all the breadcumbs ready for her to throw herself in the massive hole by giving the BS about taking legal advice and nobody told me nuffin.
You can now register cameos for fake people you’ve created in sora...shakes head. Won't somebody think of the polar bears.
But who would pay for that?
Cameo was great during the pandemic when you could get some actually quite famous people to wish you a happy birthday for $100, but as soon as theatres/comedy clubs reopened and film/TV production restarted most of them went back to their day job.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
He’d apparently been working on training Ukranian military, then turned to work for the enemy and handed over locations of military sites. He faces a significant jail sentence, hopefully the British government lets the Ukranians deal with him and doesn’t intervene.
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.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
Why does the letting agent suddenly have a responsibility for this?
You are hiring them to find and manage tenants not to ensure you comply with the law (obviously Hampstead is a far more sensible council so you don’t need a licence)
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.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
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.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
The best thing government could do to deter crap landlords, is to permit the building of millions more houses so that the market moves in favour of renters.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
Why does the letting agent suddenly have a responsibility for this?
You are hiring them to find and manage tenants not to ensure you comply with the law (obviously Hampstead is a far more sensible council so you don’t need a licence)
I think at this point its just the two of us talking to one another!
Not true. I employ a full service agent precisely because they do the hard work of ensuring I am compliant with ever-changing regulations.
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.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
The best thing government could do to deter crap landlords, is to permit the building of millions more houses so that the market moves in favour of renters.
Agreed. But until they do that, less optimal solutions need to be found.
He’d apparently been working on training Ukranian military, then turned to work for the enemy and handed over locations of military sites. He faces a significant jail sentence, hopefully the British government lets the Ukranians deal with him and doesn’t intervene.
If found guilty, he should be hanged as a traitor.
He’d apparently been working on training Ukranian military, then turned to work for the enemy and handed over locations of military sites. He faces a significant jail sentence, hopefully the British government lets the Ukranians deal with him and doesn’t intervene.
If found guilty, he should be hanged as a traitor.
Good morning, everyone.
Jack Straw was Home Secretary when the death penalty was axed. I think it applied to treason and/or setting fire to the royal dockyards, or suchlike.
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
Interesting if it's a straight fiscal swap or not. Cutting NICs by 3ppt and raising Income Tax by 3ppt sounds fair but would actually increase revenues.
Pensioners would not be happy, they pay income tax but not NI (maybe they should pay both but they don't now) so would be a clear tax rise for pensioners.
After the winter fuel debacle I suggest Starmer and Reeves avoid Skegness, Bexhill, Eastbourne etc unless they want to be pelted with rotten fruit
Separate IT tax rate for basic rate pensioners, held at the current level.
That would be an insanely unfair policy. And would lead us down an inevitable route to high taxes on the young and low taxes for the old, leading to the eventual economic collapse of the UK and possible civil war.
90% chance I reckon.
My money would be on the young, though some of the pensioners on their electric scooters could do some damage.
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
Interesting if it's a straight fiscal swap or not. Cutting NICs by 3ppt and raising Income Tax by 3ppt sounds fair but would actually increase revenues.
Pensioners would not be happy, they pay income tax but not NI (maybe they should pay both but they don't now) so would be a clear tax rise for pensioners.
After the winter fuel debacle I suggest Starmer and Reeves avoid Skegness, Bexhill, Eastbourne etc unless they want to be pelted with rotten fruit
Separate IT tax rate for basic rate pensioners, held at the current level.
That would be an insanely unfair policy. And would lead us down an inevitable route to high taxes on the young and low taxes for the old, leading to the eventual economic collapse of the UK and possible civil war.
90% chance I reckon.
My money would be on the young, though some of the pensioners on their electric scooters could do some damage.
If it comes to drone warfare some of the elderly can certainly drone on pretty effectively too.
He’d apparently been working on training Ukranian military, then turned to work for the enemy and handed over locations of military sites. He faces a significant jail sentence, hopefully the British government lets the Ukranians deal with him and doesn’t intervene.
If found guilty, he should be hanged as a traitor.
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.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
Is £900 to cover the costs of the scheme and enforcement or to make up for the shortfalls in council funding generally? I suspect the latter, although perhaps landlords are fair game in that context.
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 .
How is it difference than what Ang resigned for? It’s exactly the same excuse being made for embezzling public money by not paying it as rules stated - oh I didn’t know, silly me.
As the story stands tonight it is completely different.
Reeves says her letting agency did not mention anything about a licence being required.
Rayner's advisors told her to get more, and detailed, legal and financial advice iirc and she didn't.
It highlights a couple of issues that are not quite understood in some of the discussions about housing. The first issue is that Housing policies are set locally and may vary within the locale. So you might need a licence in one borough but not another. You might also need a licence within one set of streets only. And it can change from year to year. The agent should have known this but property agencies are not regulated so anyone unqualified can set up.
The second issue is the cost of getting it wrong is very high for landlords. The Rent Repayment Order looks like a shoe-in for the tenants. There will be no excuse as the agent is not the responsible party here. The good news is that she can still use s21 to get rid of the tenants but that disappears in a few months when the tenants will have a tenancy for life.
The other costs for landlords are where they fail on protecting deposits for even one day and can be fined up to 3 times the rental income. There are lots of downsides to being a landlord and the new Renters Rights Act expects a number of landlords to leave the industry though according to the Impact Statement for the RRA these will be the 'bad' landlords.
The karma here is that these rules that trip up politicians are through their own design.
My point really is for women to not be made to feel like victims if they don’t actually feel that way. And they shouldn’t be forced to think they’re now damaged and need hours of therapy to get over an incident .
Yes, obviously they need to “man up”….
This site - not all posters, but certainly some - has been at its absolute worst over the last few days in terms of its attitudes towards women, and its belittling of violence against women.
Cyclefree and I may disagree on the precise definition of a woman, but on her substantive points raised downthread, and her frequent observations about men on this site repeatedly and systematically belittling women's so-called lived experience, I couldn't agree more.
Precisely so, and we've had a few erstwhile liberal semi-retired men rally round each other to support that this is just a political opinion being expressed. All because they want to be seen to back their side.
Curious story to me here, the government has spent 5 years funding a battle between HMRC and the NHS over whether VAT applies on hospital parking. Why does it matter whether it does or doesn't? We are just paying lawyers a fortune and blocking the courts to decide whether the money sits in one of the publics bank accounts or another.
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.
I rent a flat in Southwark and luckily knew about the requirement for a license (it is complicated - it doesn't even apply to all wards in the borough). I don't use a lettings agent so I did my own research into the regulatory requirements. The license is valid for 5 years so the cost is only £180/year or £15/month. The borough has a responsibility to ensure that landlords fulfill all their statutory responsibilities - to get the license you need to show that the property meets energy efficiency targets and has had gas and electricity safety checks - and enforcement costs money so it makes sense to have landlords not the general taxpayer meet the cost. In practice of course the cost will be met my the landlord and tenant combined. I don't think the regime is unreasonable - it was introduced to deal with specific rogue landlord type issues. As for Reeves, I think it is the letting agents' fault assuming she has a full management deal with them. They usually deal with regulatory requirements like the annual gas safety check.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
I wonder which politician will get confused/caught out first trying to refer to it as a 2% increase, and which opposition politician does a good job of pointing out that 20p to 22p is actually a 10% increase in income tax.
He’d apparently been working on training Ukranian military, then turned to work for the enemy and handed over locations of military sites. He faces a significant jail sentence, hopefully the British government lets the Ukranians deal with him and doesn’t intervene.
If found guilty, he should be hanged as a traitor.
Good morning, everyone.
Jack Straw was Home Secretary when the death penalty was axed. I think it applied to treason and/or setting fire to the royal dockyards, or suchlike.
It’s within Ukrainian jurisdiction. I see no argument against applying the death penalty in wartime, since killing the enemy is the point.
Russia used Gaza as ‘cover’ for cyberattacks Prince, whose firm is responsible for protecting over a fifth of the internet, had expected an outbreak of cyber warfare tantamount to “World War 3” after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, but was surprised when the number of cyberattacks actually dropped dramatically.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
Why does the letting agent suddenly have a responsibility for this?
You are hiring them to find and manage tenants not to ensure you comply with the law (obviously Hampstead is a far more sensible council so you don’t need a licence)
The Letting Agent does not suddenly have a responsibility for this, other than regulatory requirements laid on them, and contractual responsibility to the Landlord.
The responsibility is with the Principal, which is why if the agent misappropriates deposit money, the Landlord is still in the frame to the tenant - the LL's recourse is against the Agent.
He’d apparently been working on training Ukranian military, then turned to work for the enemy and handed over locations of military sites. He faces a significant jail sentence, hopefully the British government lets the Ukranians deal with him and doesn’t intervene.
If found guilty, he should be hanged as a traitor.
Good morning, everyone.
Jack Straw was Home Secretary when the death penalty was axed. I think it applied to treason and/or setting fire to the royal dockyards, or suchlike.
It’s within Ukrainian jurisdiction. I see no argument against applying the death penalty in wartime, since killing the enemy is the point.
Yes but only if Ukraine has no interest in future help from Britain, which seems unlikely.
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.
The existence of a license is not really in question, though it is by Council Area.
Because when there was not strong regulation, some LLs exploited tenants. Therefore the Housing Act 2005.
There is a real question as to why the regulation in England costs about 5x as much as it does in Scotland.
OTOH a National Register was passed into law this week under the Renters Rights Bill.
Since it's very short term, it's a minor offence for most Councils - their real concern is exploitation of and danger to the tenant.
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.
Quite satisfying to see the Dutch Farage, Geert Wilders, being hoist by his own petard as his bubble deflates in the general election. What I think has a parallel with the UK is those parties that were prepared to cooperate with him have been punished severely. Like Farage, Wilders was promoting unworkable and probably illegal policies. The voters were not impressed. New PM mpst likely from the Liberal D66, who tripled their number of seats. Ed Davey will be chuffed to see his ally take power.
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.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
The best thing government could do to deter crap landlords, is to permit the building of millions more houses so that the market moves in favour of renters.
And yet the experience so far is that the number of homes being let is increasing faster than the number being built.
This will always be the case because housing is such an attractive investment and landlords can often buy with cash, making them more attractive buyers. There's a reason I've stored my wealth in a let flat, and I live in an area with the highest housing growth anywhere in the UK (I think).
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.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
And such actions could reduce housing supply still further.
Bad landlords that don't provide decent accommodation are a noticeable minority but plenty of good ones will throw in the towel over this.
A better policy would be encouraging more people to bring their property to market for rent, so renters have more choice.
Russia used Gaza as ‘cover’ for cyberattacks Prince, whose firm is responsible for protecting over a fifth of the internet, had expected an outbreak of cyber warfare tantamount to “World War 3” after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, but was surprised when the number of cyberattacks actually dropped dramatically.
It’s difficult to keep track of all the hacking and cyberattacks going on in the past few months - and I get paid to keep track of what’s going on in the world of IT vulnerabilities!
Russia does appear to be the main culprit, along with China and North Korea. Russia targets pretty much every country involved in supporting Ukraine in the war.
There’s also plenty of hackers targeting Russia as well, several government agencies and O&G companies have been hacked in recent months too.
As with AWS, CLoudflare is one of the companies no-one has heard of, but on whose infrastructure large parts of the internet rely.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
This sort of random stealth taxation and pointless petty bureaucracy is a terrible idea. I'm therefore generally pretty sympathetic to anyone who finds themselves ensnared by it.
However, the big difference between people like you and me and Rachel Reeves is that she is part of the government, and we are not. Ultimately the existence of this stupid licencing is something she has control over. And given that, she should get shafted for it to the maximum extent the law allows, and then resign in disgrace. If that happened to politicians more often, maybe we'd get less daft bureaucracy in the first place.
It doesn't actually appear to be a stealth taxation scheme, as opposed to a self-funding scheme intended to ensure rental properties meet minimum standards. It's also fairly recent.
I suspect it's not been around long enough to have developed much precedent in the way of fines for non compliance.
They have had that scam in Scotland for ages, you have to pay government money to register as a landlord and not optional, just another of their ponzi schemes. They will soon need those barracks for the homeless renters.
Quite satisfying to see the Dutch Farage, Geert Wilders, being hoist by his own petard as his bubble deflates in the general election. What I think has a parallel with the UK is those parties that were prepared to cooperate with him have been punished severely. Like Farage, Wilders was promoting unworkable and probably illegal policies. The voters were not impressed. New PM mpst likely from the Liberal D66, who tripled their number of seats. Ed Davey will be chuffed to see his ally take power.
It looks like Wilders' party, the PVV, is down 11 seats, but the far-right JA21 and FvD parties are up 8 and 4 seats respectively.
The British equivalent would be Farage losing seats while the BNP and Robinson's Advance gained seats, which doesn't seem great to me.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
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.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
And such actions could reduce housing supply still further.
Bad landlords that don't provide decent accommodation are a noticeable minority but plenty of good ones will throw in the towel over this.
A better policy would be encouraging more people to bring their property to market for rent, so renters have more choice.
Opening up homes to buy and reducing pressure on the rental market as a result.
I think the system we have in Scotland is perfectly reasonable - a country wide registration scheme that costs £82 per year. The rental market is far bigger than socially optimal so if it shrinks a bit I'm not sure why anyone other than landlords could complain.
Quite satisfying to see the Dutch Farage, Geert Wilders, being hoist by his own petard as his bubble deflates in the general election. What I think has a parallel with the UK is those parties that were prepared to cooperate with him have been punished severely. Like Farage, Wilders was promoting unworkable and probably illegal policies. The voters were not impressed. New PM mpst likely from the Liberal D66, who tripled their number of seats. Ed Davey will be chuffed to see his ally take power.
Yes, its pleasing to see, and after Caerphilly last week too.
It looks like the Putin supported parties of the right are not going to get it all there way.
Telegraph reporting Reeves might raise income tax and cut a corresponding amount from employees NI.
That seems more plausible to me than a straightforward rise.
Interesting if it's a straight fiscal swap or not. Cutting NICs by 3ppt and raising Income Tax by 3ppt sounds fair but would actually increase revenues.
Pensioners would not be happy, they pay income tax but not NI (maybe they should pay both but they don't now) so would be a clear tax rise for pensioners.
After the winter fuel debacle I suggest Starmer and Reeves avoid Skegness, Bexhill, Eastbourne etc unless they want to be pelted with rotten fruit
Separate IT tax rate for basic rate pensioners, held at the current level.
That would be an insanely unfair policy. And would lead us down an inevitable route to high taxes on the young and low taxes for the old, leading to the eventual economic collapse of the UK and possible civil war.
90% chance I reckon.
It could mean lower/neutral taxes on PAYE employees (already paying NI + IT), no change for basic rate pensioners
Paid for by increased tax on income that is not NI’d.
Why would this be unfair?
-- I may have misunderstood what you are suggesting --
It's all very complicated because you have different rates and different thresholds for NICs and IT. If you had a different basic rate for pensioners, that would mean that pensioners with income of up to £37,700 - the median salary - would be taxed at a lower rate than people in work. In addition to the fact they still won't be paying what remains of NICs on pension income.
I think that's pretty intolerable tbh.
You don’t - employee NI and income tax rates have been aligned since at least 2022 - can’t be arsed to look further than the first page on google for the actual date they were aligned.
My point here is that unless yo include pensioners you really aren’t going to raise anything
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.
Agreed on the bureaucracy point. On the latter question, an attempted answer: Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality. Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
And such actions could reduce housing supply still further.
Bad landlords that don't provide decent accommodation are a noticeable minority but plenty of good ones will throw in the towel over this.
A better policy would be encouraging more people to bring their property to market for rent, so renters have more choice.
I don't know. In the 10 years or so I have been a landlord there have been several bouts of regulation and accompanying fears of complexity. But I have a good agent who manages everything for me, and they are local so their fee supports the local economy.
I concede it would be different without an agent, but there is enough profit in the market that a rational landlord would just employ an agent to manage the bureaucracy rather than duck out of the market.
As for your final paragraph, I can't quite see it. Aside from empty properties, how does bringing a property to market for rent so anything other than shift one family in and one out without sating demand? Perhaps I am missing something.
(As an aside I am not sure if I am now included in your 'erstwhile liberal semi-retired' group after I disagreed with you on here last night. My intention was not to defend Foxy but to defend the freedom of speech that this site does so well, notwithstanding Leon's perennial grumbling. If it came across as an attack, I apologise. I am also very, very far away from semi-retired and not sure I count as a liberal, so I'm probably safe).
Quite satisfying to see the Dutch Farage, Geert Wilders, being hoist by his own petard as his bubble deflates in the general election. What I think has a parallel with the UK is those parties that were prepared to cooperate with him have been punished severely. Like Farage, Wilders was promoting unworkable and probably illegal policies. The voters were not impressed. New PM mpst likely from the Liberal D66, who tripled their number of seats. Ed Davey will be chuffed to see his ally take power.
It looks like Wilders' party, the PVV, is down 11 seats, but the far-right JA21 and FvD parties are up 8 and 4 seats respectively.
The British equivalent would be Farage losing seats while the BNP and Robinson's Advance gained seats, which doesn't seem great to me.
It did occur to me that these were just shifts within the three blocs of voters (radical right, centre right, and left), rather than anything more fundamental.
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?
Being a landlord is precious little to do with tenants, it's basically a bet on the government being too cowardly and incompetent to sort out housing supply, so your property rises in value.
For fifty years, that's been a stunning success.
And I see no sign that either the current shower or any likely replacement will change it.
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.
It's like any business. You deal with what's in front of you and if you can't deal with it - get out. There are some who regret (and complain loudly) about changes but to be realistic, they need to get out of the business.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
It would need to be CGT on primary residence though to raise what it is claimed she needs. That would create a melt down that would make the winter fuel allowance seem like a picnic. Does she really want to punch everyone who owns a house in the face like that?
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.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
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.
It's like any business. You deal with what's in front of you and if you can't deal with it - get out. There are some who regret (and complain loudly) about changes but to be realistic, they need to get out of the business.
I would advise no one to be a residential landlord. The cost and delay of getting rid of a defaulting tenant is horrendous.
Of course, there are landlords who will go down the non-legal path.
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.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
And we vote for them to bring in more regulation. The only way to get some compensation for this is to bet - which is why we are all here.
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
It would need to be CGT on primary residence though to raise what it is claimed she needs. That would create a melt down that would make the winter fuel allowance seem like a picnic. Does she really want to punch everyone who owns a house in the face like that?
CGT on primary residence would kill off the housing market so it's a rubbish idea.
But frankly it's crazy that you might think that's unfair. The lack of taxation on property gains is why it's such an absurdly popular place for your cash compared with other investments (and you get to live in it too!)
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
Income tax thresholds are already frozen until something stupid like 2028 - and the reason for increasing them afterwards will be pension related rather than anything else
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
She's not stupid enough to do that.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
She’s spent the last 18 months doing a load of politically and ideologically motivated little things, that have burned up a significant amount of political capital without raising much money. Hence borrowing £20bn last month.
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
One of the ways an authoritarian system exercises control issues by having lots of complicated rules that are difficult to follow. It makes it likely that everyone is a rule-breaker, even just unintentionally, and so encourages people to keep their heads down in the hope that they won't have attention directed to their actions.
We should make sure that rules and laws are ready for a law-abiding person to follow.
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.
It's like any business. You deal with what's in front of you and if you can't deal with it - get out. There are some who regret (and complain loudly) about changes but to be realistic, they need to get out of the business.
I would advise no one to be a residential landlord. The cost and delay of getting rid of a defaulting tenant is horrendous.
Of course, there are landlords who will go down the non-legal path.
Certainly if you are an active politician, it's good advice not to be a landlord. Apart from anything else, you are handing your tenants considerable leverage as a story about how you're not a decent landlord - whether true or not - will generally get publicity so long as the tenants are prepared to be named,
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
But you’re not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Robert.
For Starmer to lose one senior minister over their housing empire might be considered unlucky, to have a second senior minister also in trouble over her housing empire only a couple of months later…
Quite satisfying to see the Dutch Farage, Geert Wilders, being hoist by his own petard as his bubble deflates in the general election. What I think has a parallel with the UK is those parties that were prepared to cooperate with him have been punished severely. Like Farage, Wilders was promoting unworkable and probably illegal policies. The voters were not impressed. New PM mpst likely from the Liberal D66, who tripled their number of seats. Ed Davey will be chuffed to see his ally take power.
It looks like Wilders' party, the PVV, is down 11 seats, but the far-right JA21 and FvD parties are up 8 and 4 seats respectively.
The British equivalent would be Farage losing seats while the BNP and Robinson's Advance gained seats, which doesn't seem great to me.
It did occur to me that these were just shifts within the three blocs of voters (radical right, centre right, and left), rather than anything more fundamental.
There's a desperation on here because Reform continues to ride high - ATM the parties on the left are splintering much more than those of the left .
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.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
And we vote for them to bring in more regulation. The only way to get some compensation for this is to bet - which is why we are all here.
Gambling taxes look set to increase in the Budget.
It was stupid for Reeves and Starmer to make their pledges on Income Tax, VAT and Triple Lock, but they did make it central to their Ming Vase strategy. They have to stick to it, but that means tax increases elsewhere.
I expect that higher rate tax relief on pensions will go, as will most of the tax free lump sum on pensions. Quite possibly rather than just freezing the threshold for higer and additional rate tax they could be lowered etc
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.
I rent a flat in Southwark and luckily knew about the requirement for a license (it is complicated - it doesn't even apply to all wards in the borough). I don't use a lettings agent so I did my own research into the regulatory requirements. The license is valid for 5 years so the cost is only £180/year or £15/month. The borough has a responsibility to ensure that landlords fulfill all their statutory responsibilities - to get the license you need to show that the property meets energy efficiency targets and has had gas and electricity safety checks - and enforcement costs money so it makes sense to have landlords not the general taxpayer meet the cost. In practice of course the cost will be met my the landlord and tenant combined. I don't think the regime is unreasonable - it was introduced to deal with specific rogue landlord type issues. As for Reeves, I think it is the letting agents' fault assuming she has a full management deal with them. They usually deal with regulatory requirements like the annual gas safety check.
Assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord, 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 ?
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.
It's like any business. You deal with what's in front of you and if you can't deal with it - get out. There are some who regret (and complain loudly) about changes but to be realistic, they need to get out of the business.
Which is what I did.
I found being a landlord to be a massive pain in the arse, and the problems I had were with the tenants. I made no money out of it.
And that's before this latest raft of legislation came in.
Regarding Rachel Reeves and the landlord's license, it is fair to say it's complicated, and so I actually have some sympathy.
We -for example- rent out our house in Hampstead, because we live in the US. We don't have a landlord's license, and I'd never even heard of the thing, and the letting agent never even mentioned it to us.
So, when I read the story my first instinct was to think... f*ck... do I need a license?
Fortunately, I don't. But I can understand why you might not realise that you need one.
But you’re not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Robert.
For Starmer to lose one senior minister over their housing empire might be considered unlucky, to have a second senior minister also in trouble over her housing empire only a couple of months later…
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.
Welcome to the world of regulation, where the regulated pay for the privilege of being regulated.
And we vote for them to bring in more regulation. The only way to get some compensation for this is to bet - which is why we are all here.
Gambling taxes look set to increase in the Budget.
It was stupid for Reeves and Starmer to make their pledges on Income Tax, VAT and Triple Lock, but they did make it central to their Ming Vase strategy. They have to stick to it, but that means tax increases elsewhere.
I expect that higher rate tax relief on pensions will go, as will most of the tax free lump sum on pensions. Quite possibly rather than just freezing the threshold for higer and additional rate tax they could be lowered etc
However, I'm sure your final salary pensions in the NHS will be perfectly safe, so don't you worry.
One of the ways an authoritarian system exercises control issues by having lots of complicated rules that are difficult to follow. It makes it likely that everyone is a rule-breaker, even just unintentionally, and so encourages people to keep their heads down in the hope that they won't have attention directed to their actions.
We should make sure that rules and laws are ready for a law-abiding person to follow.
Not quite everyone.
There is an entire industry that exists to advise on regulations of all kinds. Often employing folk who used to be on the other side of the fence.
The more complicated the regulation, the better their living.
Comments
It's also fairly recent.
Secretary of State approves one of the largest landlord licensing schemes nationally
18 July 2023
https://services.southwark.gov.uk/news/2023/jul/secretary-of-state-approves-one-of-the-largest-landlord-licensing-schemes-nationally
I suspect it's not been around long enough to have developed much precedent in the way of fines for non compliance.
Where do the £30K fines go? To pay for socialist policies like go green plastic drinking bottles, the consultants brought in for the Miners Strike Remembrance activities, the new lanyards inscribed with the words to the red flag song.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/oct/29/telegraph-sale-turmoil-china-bidder-redbird-chair-spy-ring
£1000 for a license for the right to lease your own house seems very expensive.
I have no idea if I'd need one if I rented out my home, I know I'd need EPC, gas and electrical safety certs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd04d0yxnrvo
It’s seems to be great when it imposed on Themuns. Not so much, when It’s Our Own.
Round my way, a lady who put her recycling boxes out a few hours more than 24 hours before collection, was given a multi-hundred pound fine. For “Fly Tipping”.
I suspect her sympathy for the CoE will be somewhat limited.
After consulting his Independent Ethics Adviser, Starmer says that "no further investigation is necessary"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1983679979981566134
Unpaid bills and fees have soared in recent years with energy prices so high, leaving a record £4.4bn owed to suppliers.
Up to £500m could be knocked off the total under plans that regulator Ofgem wants to take effect early next year.
But that will also require the cost to be covered through an extra £5 added to everyone's gas and electricity bill. Households on a price cap tariff already typically pay £52 a year to deal with historic debt as part of the £1,755 annual bill.
BBC News - Thousands on benefits could have energy debt cancelled by Ofgem - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpzynky88o
But regardless men do not get a free pass to assault women just because some are better able to deal with the consequences. Women who are assaulted by men are victims of a crime. But they do not have to see themselves as victims or live like that. It is their choice. Their responses do not ever excuse or justify or minimise the men's criminal behaviour.
The Absence of War can be downstreamed from BBC iplayer:-
Political drama written by David Hare and starring John Thaw. Labour leader George Jones battles with his party on the campaign trail of a general election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002jm23/screen-two-the-absence-of-war
Screen Two
Landmark productions from some of the UK's greatest creative talents, as first seen in the 1980s and 1990s – part of the BBC's rich archive of classic drama.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p00g9mz1/screen-two
The Picnic
'I, Margie Starling, am perfectly, perfectly happy, right now!'... and why not?
Brothers in Trouble
Drama about a group of illegal Pakistani immigrants in a boarding house in 1960s England.
Stonewall
A young gay man arrives in New York in the summer of 1969.
The Precious Blood
Drama set in Belfast that asks if it is possible to have peace with justice.
The Absence of War
Labour leader George Jones battles with his party on the general election campaign trail.
Life After Life
Leo Doyle, after serving a life sentence, tries to rekindle an affair with his ex-fiancee.
The Blue Boy
A couple expecting their first baby spend time in the Highlands, hoping for a fresh start.
The Trial
Harold Pinter's screen adaptation of Franz Kafka's enigmatic masterpiece.
The Clothes in the Wardrobe
Nineteen-year-old Margaret is about to marry a dull middle-aged man. Can anyone help her?
The Lost Language of Cranes
Brian Cox stars in this challenging story of sexual identity and secrecy.
The Firm
Drama about a seemingly respectable estate agent who is also a football hooligan.
Sweet as You Are
A married college lecturer contracts HIV after having an affair with one of his students.
Businesses back Britain to succeed.
Great news from JPMorganChase that they'll be investing £300m+ in their Bournemouth campus.
When businesses invest in our economy, it means better jobs and opportunities for working people.
https://x.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1975864381331144957
Only a cynic would wonder if JPM is not downshifting jobs from Canary Wharf.
For Starmer to lose one senior minister over their housing empire might be considered unlucky, to have a second senior minister also in trouble over her housing empire only a couple of months later…
The party of the workers.
I welcome Leeds City Council's decision to expand their selective landlord licencing policy to include the Armley area.
While many private landlords operate in the right way, we know that lots of private tenants in Armley face problems with poorly maintained housing. (1/3)
This scheme means private landlords in the area will be required by law to obtain a licence for any residential property they are seeking to let and must meet certain standards to ensure the property is safe and in a decent state of repair. (2/3)
https://x.com/RachelforLWP/status/1980224617865457790
Maybe this is what prompted the Chancellor to wonder about Lambeth.
ETA: RR's social media manager cannot spell ‘licensing’.
The Labour MP for Leeds West and and local Labour Councillors are reportedly calling for selective licensing to be used to improve Private Rented Sector housing standards in the Armley area of the city.
https://home-safe.org.uk/news/2023/shadow-chancellor-rachel-reeves-mp-and-local-labour-councillors-push-for-more-selective-licensing-in-leeds-to-tackle-rogue-landlords
Can't really claim total ignorance of the existence of this kind of scheme. Given her, her husband, her sister, the dog, etc are all in politics, you also thought they might be a bit more aware than your average regular down the dog and duck.
That been said think I would be pretty pissed with the letting agent if they didn't mention it at all nor inquired are you properly licensed to rent this property out.
Whoever setup Rayner left all the breadcumbs ready for her to throw herself in the massive hole by giving the BS about taking legal advice and nobody told me nuffin.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1983531899600384419
While Russia is bombing civilian apartment blocks.
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1983732699048423829
Cameo was great during the pandemic when you could get some actually quite famous people to wish you a happy birthday for $100, but as soon as theatres/comedy clubs reopened and film/TV production restarted most of them went back to their day job.
https://x.com/peston/status/1983524453897175075
A 1p increase in the basic rate would raise £8.2bn, 1p on the 40p rate garners £2.1bn and 1p on the 45p rate just £230m.
If there were a 2p increase on all the rates that would potentially raise £20bn - which would be a meaningful contribution to filling the estimated £35bn budget hole she needs to fill.
https://x.com/euromaidanpress/status/1983564006943015281
He’d apparently been working on training Ukranian military, then turned to work for the enemy and handed over locations of military sites. He faces a significant jail sentence, hopefully the British government lets the Ukranians deal with him and doesn’t intervene.
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.
You are hiring them to find and manage tenants not to ensure you comply with the law (obviously Hampstead is a far more sensible council so you don’t need a licence)
On the latter question, an attempted answer:
Whilst housing supply is less than housing demand, landlords have more power than renters. The government has a legitimate role in balancing out that power by using its own powers to force landlords to comply with some basic levels of housing quality.
Unfortunately, enforcing these quality levels costs money. Better that falls on landlords (and I am one) than on general taxation.
Not true. I employ a full service agent precisely because they do the hard work of ensuring I am compliant with ever-changing regulations.
Jack Straw was Home Secretary when the death penalty was axed. I think it applied to treason and/or setting fire to the royal dockyards, or suchlike.
Well done, Labour.
The second issue is the cost of getting it wrong is very high for landlords. The Rent Repayment Order looks like a shoe-in for the tenants. There will be no excuse as the agent is not the responsible party here. The good news is that she can still use s21 to get rid of the tenants but that disappears in a few months when the tenants will have a tenancy for life.
The other costs for landlords are where they fail on protecting deposits for even one day and can be fined up to 3 times the rental income. There are lots of downsides to being a landlord and the new Renters Rights Act expects a number of landlords to leave the industry though according to the Impact Statement for the RRA these will be the 'bad' landlords.
The karma here is that these rules that trip up politicians are through their own design.
The Times deletes article after its reporter was duped by impostor pretending to be former New York mayor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/29/times-de-blasio-fake-interview-mamdani
Newspaper of record!
The ignorance is astounding, as is the behaviour.
https://www.cityam.com/top-court-sides-with-hmrc-as-nhs-hospitals-liable-for-vat-on-parking-fees/
Research in Germany suggests the masks, symbolic of the Black Death, were not worn until hundreds of years after bubonic plague ravaged Eurasia
https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/plague-doctor-mask-black-death-h9bd9xndp (£££)
For when it comes up on QI.
Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince has said that Russia has been using the conflict in Gaza as a "cover story" for the recent wave of cyberattacks on British firms
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/russia-behind-major-uk-cyber-36155276
The true newspaper of record.
PB dwells behind Cloudflare, btw.
Russia used Gaza as ‘cover’ for cyberattacks
Prince, whose firm is responsible for protecting over a fifth of the internet, had expected an outbreak of cyber warfare tantamount to “World War 3” after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, but was surprised when the number of cyberattacks actually dropped dramatically.
...
“What caused the attacks in Europe to take off, was the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. Because that provided a proxy where the Russians had – at least – a cover story that it wasn’t them [behind cyber attacks], it was the Iranians.”
https://www.cityam.com/sower-of-chaos-russia-behind-uk-cyberattacks-says-cloudflare-boss/
The responsibility is with the Principal, which is why if the agent misappropriates deposit money, the Landlord is still in the frame to the tenant - the LL's recourse is against the Agent.
Because when there was not strong regulation, some LLs exploited tenants. Therefore the Housing Act 2005.
There is a real question as to why the regulation in England costs about 5x as much as it does in Scotland.
OTOH a National Register was passed into law this week under the Renters Rights Bill.
Since it's very short term, it's a minor offence for most Councils - their real concern is exploitation of and danger to the tenant.
The new legislation coming down the road heaps on more regulation and restrictions on top.
This will always be the case because housing is such an attractive investment and landlords can often buy with cash, making them more attractive buyers. There's a reason I've stored my wealth in a let flat, and I live in an area with the highest housing growth anywhere in the UK (I think).
Bad landlords that don't provide decent accommodation are a noticeable minority but plenty of good ones will throw in the towel over this.
A better policy would be encouraging more people to bring their property to market for rent, so renters have more choice.
Russia does appear to be the main culprit, along with China and North Korea. Russia targets pretty much every country involved in supporting Ukraine in the war.
There’s also plenty of hackers targeting Russia as well, several government agencies and O&G companies have been hacked in recent months too.
As with AWS, CLoudflare is one of the companies no-one has heard of, but on whose infrastructure large parts of the internet rely.
The British equivalent would be Farage losing seats while the BNP and Robinson's Advance gained seats, which doesn't seem great to me.
My guess is she freezes income tax thresholds, sounds off some shit about the "broadest shoulders" and whacks up top rate from 45p to 47p to sweeten the pill politically, even if it doesn't raise much (or any) money.
That still won't be enough so there's capital gains on property, IHT and pensions to look out for too but I assume HMT is doing it's usual shitspraying everything (and thus damaging any investment whatsoever) so when only one big bombshell lands people think it's not so bad.
I think the system we have in Scotland is perfectly reasonable - a country wide registration scheme that costs £82 per year. The rental market is far bigger than socially optimal so if it shrinks a bit I'm not sure why anyone other than landlords could complain.
This administration has only one card which is to stand in a bucket and try and tax us into prosperity by pulling as hard as it can on the handles.
It looks like the Putin supported parties of the right are not going to get it all there way.
My point here is that unless yo include pensioners you really aren’t going to raise anything
I concede it would be different without an agent, but there is enough profit in the market that a rational landlord would just employ an agent to manage the bureaucracy rather than duck out of the market.
As for your final paragraph, I can't quite see it. Aside from empty properties, how does bringing a property to market for rent so anything other than shift one family in and one out without sating demand? Perhaps I am missing something.
(As an aside I am not sure if I am now included in your 'erstwhile liberal semi-retired' group after I disagreed with you on here last night. My intention was not to defend Foxy but to defend the freedom of speech that this site does so well, notwithstanding Leon's perennial grumbling. If it came across as an attack, I apologise. I am also very, very far away from semi-retired and not sure I count as a liberal, so I'm probably safe).
For fifty years, that's been a stunning success.
And I see no sign that either the current shower or any likely replacement will change it.
Of course, there are landlords who will go down the non-legal path.
But frankly it's crazy that you might think that's unfair. The lack of taxation on property gains is why it's such an absurdly popular place for your cash compared with other investments (and you get to live in it too!)
If she’s not going to raise the basic rate, then it’s going to have to be a real war on higher-rate pension contribution tax relief, dragging a few hundred thousand people squarely into that 60% cliff at £100k. Cue the early retirements or part-time working from doctors, senior CS, air traffic controllers, and plenty of people in the City. Not to mention the hundreds of journalists currently stuffing their pensions to avoid the cliff.
We should make sure that rules and laws are ready for a law-abiding person to follow.
It was stupid for Reeves and Starmer to make their pledges on Income Tax, VAT and Triple Lock, but they did make it central to their Ming Vase strategy. They have to stick to it, but that means tax increases elsewhere.
I expect that higher rate tax relief on pensions will go, as will most of the tax free lump sum on pensions. Quite possibly rather than just freezing the threshold for higer and additional rate tax they could be lowered etc
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 ?
I found being a landlord to be a massive pain in the arse, and the problems I had were with the tenants. I made no money out of it.
And that's before this latest raft of legislation came in.
There is an entire industry that exists to advise on regulations of all kinds. Often employing folk who used to be on the other side of the fence.
The more complicated the regulation, the better their living.