I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
First Rayner and now Reeves. We need to reintroduce the death penalty for transgressing Labour MPs. In fact, on the basis that all Labour MPs must be guilty of something, we need to hang them all immediately. I’m surprised some of our PB tories haven’t already suggested it.
This is the first Presidential cycle I am not betting early on in decades. I probably would if Betfair were willing to offer the Don.
Where would you price him approx?
I'd expect there would be lots of layers in the 8-16 odds range and I'd be happy to backing anywhere in that. Not thought much about a fair price, maybe between 3 and 4.
Similar but a bit higher with me. I'd lay at 5 or less and anything like 12 or longer I'd consider value to back.
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
First Rayner and now Reeves. We need to reintroduce the death penalty for transgressing Labour MPs. In fact, on the basis that all Labour MPs must be guilty of something, we need to hang them all immediately. I’m surprised some of our PB tories haven’t already suggested it.
They have both admitted guilt. If the tenant gets their £38k back then that seems a fair resolution to me. No death penalty or resignation required.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
Isn't the better solution to not fine the lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early?
Councils have zilch money after social care - you can see why they love raising a few £00,000 by fining people for the smallest misdemeanor as they hope many will pay up without complaining
Not entirely unconnected with why these landlord and HMO registration schemes are proving so popular with local councils in the first place….
Oh I covered that as well earlier - Councils love things that are self financing - so if they have to do anything connected to landlord properties making landlords pay their costs via licensing makes perfect sense - end result a small fiefdom for a manager that is cost neutral to the Council...
Things like landlord licensing, parking enforcement have social benefits too. That it happens to generate revenue for that council is a bonus.
I pay £100 per year to park my car on the street. That's brilliant value because 1) that land is worth loads more than that 2) it means I can park close to my flat 3) that cash can be used to fund local services. Benefits far outweigh the costs.
How do we make tackling shoplifting a revenue generator so that it happens?
What if we introduce prize money for the police/security guards (who hold a letter, marking them out as approved) so that there's a financial incentive for retrieving stolen goods?
If insurance companies have to pay the prize money, they might be keener to encourage preventive measures.
He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.
Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?
They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.
I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.
The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.
I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.
We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -
Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK. Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves
Cumbria: 🤡
What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.
Yes. Countries like Hungary, Turkey or Serbia may be a better model for what happens in the US.
Mussolini style Fascism, not Hitler style Nazism.
The only direct Nazi analogy is probably Stephen Miller, who does bear an uncanny resemblance to Goebbels.
The original version of the piece called Stephen Miller the Temu Goebbels but I deleted it as I am usually uncomfortable calling Jewish people Nazis with the exception of some in Bibi’s cabinet.
I was genuinely shocked to find out that Miller is Jewish. It doesn't really compute. A bit like nativist JD Vance being married to the daughter of Indian immigrants.
Yet you've watched 'The Jewish State' commit a genocide?
It's different in Israel because Jews are the majority there and behave no differently from anyone else in the majority and perhaps worse than some. By contrast Jews in the diaspora are (frequently persecuted) minorities and so it's odd to see one of them advocating for nativist policies that would quite likely see them victimised if really acted upon. Especially when you consider their long history of persecution and historical involvement in civil rights causes. You'd just think that Miller would know better. The whole "Jews will not replace us" thing would you might think have woken him up, too. It's odd.
It is indeed surprising in view of their proud recent history of civil rights causes particularly South Africa but as time has worn on and confidence has grown the persecution complex is switched on and off as it suits particularly in the US. It is a great shame and it brings shame to those who don't behave or think like that. Happily there are still some.
Edited: I see that @IanB2 has raised the same point.
This is the strongest evidence yet that arguing about tribal politics is futile. It is not credible to believe that Labour and their supporters would not have jumped all over this had it been a Minister of the last government, the pious tutting and sour faced disapproval about people not being on top of their briefs, abiding by the rules etc would have been insufferable. Now they try to excuse it as a trivial oversight
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
If she rented her property through a lettings agency with a full management contract she could reasonably have expected them to take care of this aspect or at least to have informed her of the requirement. The agency would normally handle all of this kind of paperwork, like the gas safety certificate, albeit for a steep fee. I don't think anyone is saying the rules don't apply, simply that her job shouldn't be at risk over it. FWIW I rent in Southwark and have registered, only because I went to the council website to check. It's not very well advertised. On the other hand, it's not very onerous. You pay £900 and give them some paperwork then you're good for 5 years.
From a tenants perspective landlords not knowing the rules, not being bothered to know the rules or expecting the estate agent to know and follow the rules is why we end up with increasing regulation. The sector is full of people who think they can make easy money without bothering to learn how to be a landlord.
Perhaps this will serve to improve knowledge among landlords, a teachable moment as they say. I think the increasing regulation is designed specifically to push rogue actors out of the sector. Like all regulation it also comes with costs and may fail to deter truly rogue players.
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
You don't need to swear
Yes, I do.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
If you recycle your waste paper and the recycling people (never ones to be concerned about littering) happen to spill something with your name and address on it, you get fined, not them.
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.
But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
As a landlord with properties in different council areas I know the rules are different but that’s why I always get a letting agency involved.
I am shocked her letting agency hasn’t picked it up, looking at them they are well established.
Rachel Reeves might have a decent claim of negligence against them.
Looking at my last few rentals the letting agency confirm there’s no local licensing requirements required/in place.
Looks like there might be a bigger issue at Southwark Town Hall. From the guy behind London Centric;
I’d been hearing about so many issues/cock-up/mistakes on this very specific licensing issue in Southwark that I’d been trying to find a way into the story for the last few weeks. Guess the chancellor has given me the top line…
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
You don't need to swear
Yes, I do.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
If you recycle your waste paper and the recycling people (never ones to be concerned about littering) happen to spill something with your name and address on it, you get fined, not them.
Frightens me off recycling.
It might be 20 miles away, but my relationship with the recycling centre where I take our household waste every few weeks is a lot less fraught than with the council-run collections in Britain.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
You don't need to swear
Yes, I do.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
If you recycle your waste paper and the recycling people (never ones to be concerned about littering) happen to spill something with your name and address on it, you get fined, not them.
Frightens me off recycling.
Hilariously, the council where I live, refuse to take shredded paper as recycling.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
You don't need to swear
Yes, I do.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
If you recycle your waste paper and the recycling people (never ones to be concerned about littering) happen to spill something with your name and address on it, you get fined, not them.
Frightens me off recycling.
It might be 20 miles away, but my relationship with the recycling centre where I take our household waste every few weeks is a lot less fraught than with the council-run collections in Britain.
Our collections are pretty good. Green bin (paid for garden waste) on Monday, recycling (card, plastic, metal, glass) on Wednesday and waste on Thursday. All every other week.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
In Scotland you need to be registered as a landlord on the Landlord Register (funnily enough) which is a national thing. There is also the Scottish Landlord's Agent Register which anyone acting as an agent requires to be on. There are also now complicated provisions about deposits being held by 3rd parties. There are also requirements for both gas and electrical fitting certificates. There are increasingly onerous requirements for insulation and energy efficiency. If you need any more reasons not to be a landlord in Scotland let me know but people are already voting with their feet and getting out.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
You don't need to swear
Yes, I do.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
If you recycle your waste paper and the recycling people (never ones to be concerned about littering) happen to spill something with your name and address on it, you get fined, not them.
Frightens me off recycling.
Hilariously, the council where I live, refuse to take shredded paper as recycling.
It's not hilarious, it can't be recycled for some reason.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
In Scotland you need to be registered as a landlord on the Landlord Register (funnily enough) which is a national thing. There is also the Scottish Landlord's Agent Register which anyone acting as an agent requires to be on. There are also now complicated provisions about deposits being held by 3rd parties. There are also requirements for both gas and electrical fitting certificates. There are increasingly onerous requirements for insulation and energy efficiency. If you need any more reasons not to be a landlord in Scotland let me know but people are already voting with their feet and getting out.
You've missed the rent control bit that stops you increasing rents to the current market level..
Has the Independent Ethics Adviser suggested Reeves should go?
Should we ignore what he says if we don't like the answer?
I think (?) he's already cleared her.
(Edit) at least according to Starmer. ...The prime minister said that he had consulted Sir Laurie Magnus, the Conservative-appointed independent ethics adviser, whose unflinching approach did for Rayner and several other ex-ministers besides and that they had agreed that no further investigation would be necessary...
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
In Scotland you need to be registered as a landlord on the Landlord Register (funnily enough) which is a national thing. There is also the Scottish Landlord's Agent Register which anyone acting as an agent requires to be on. There are also now complicated provisions about deposits being held by 3rd parties. There are also requirements for both gas and electrical fitting certificates. There are increasingly onerous requirements for insulation and energy efficiency. If you need any more reasons not to be a landlord in Scotland let me know but people are already voting with their feet and getting out.
The deposit thing is dead simple and prevents arseholes holding onto cash for flimsy reasons (it took me 6 months to extract my deposit after uni). As is everything else - ensuring that the flat won't explode is not an onerous provision and takes a gas engineer 10 minutes for a small fee.
The landlords jumping ship because of these provisions are, very clearly, wankers.
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.
But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
Has the Independent Ethics Adviser suggested Reeves should go?
Should we ignore what he says if we don't like the answer?
Starmer has refused to refer the matter to the Independent Ethics Adviser.
Not according to the BBC:
"The prime minister said that he had consulted Sir Laurie Magnus, the Conservative-appointed independent ethics adviser, whose unflinching approach did for Rayner and several other ex-ministers besides and that they had agreed that no further investigation would be necessary.
Sir Keir said that this was because the breach was inadvertent, Reeves had acted promptly to rectify it by applying for the licence, and had apologised.
"The ministerial code makes clear that in certain circumstances, an apology is a sufficient resolution," Sir Keir wrote."
I don’t blame opposition politicians from going after Reeves . But really if people are going to have to resign over something like this it sets such a low bar that you’re in danger of turning off anyone even trying to get into politics.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
Reeves and her party have enthusiastically extended the Process State.
My local council fined a lady several hundred pounds for putting out her recycling boxes too early. Which is “Fly Tipping”, apparently.
Until we impose the same on the politicians, they will do nothing about it.
How early is too early? Because an awful lot around here go out at lunchtime the day before. Especially now the nights are darker and wetter.
Sadly it's too simple to make accusations like this. Malmsbury should know better.
My bins go out before it gets dark the evening before. As our bin collectors come by 7am, it's too dark to put things out.
The lady in question was going on holiday. So she put her recycling bins out a bit before 24 hours before the collection. Something like 4 hours.
Only a jobsworth of the most fucking stupid kind would claim that three recycling boxes, provided by the fucking council, filled with the appropriate fucking recycling is fucking fly tipping.
The sane thing would be to put a piece of paper through the letter box saying please don’t.
Note that when I complained to the same council about a “builder”* who left multiple pallets of bricks completely blocking the pavement, for 5 days, I was told that they would do nothing.
So literal tons of bricks - nothing. Council recycling boxes - massive fine
*obvious illegal operation
You don't need to swear
Yes, I do.
It’s exactly this kind of crap that makes people want to burn the system down.
And then they wonder why Reform is high in the polls.
If you recycle your waste paper and the recycling people (never ones to be concerned about littering) happen to spill something with your name and address on it, you get fined, not them.
Frightens me off recycling.
Hilariously, the council where I live, refuse to take shredded paper as recycling.
It's not hilarious, it can't be recycled for some reason.
I think it's because it doesn't play well with automatic sorters, because the pieces are so small and lightweight. It can be recycled if it's collected as separated waste (as e.g. the companies that manage shredding and disposal of confidential paper waste for commercial clients do). Otherwise it can sometimes be put in the green bin for composting, but even then you generally have to put it inside a paper bag so it doesn't get blown all over the place during collection.
He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.
Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?
They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.
I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.
The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.
I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.
We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -
Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK. Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves
Cumbria: 🤡
What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.
Yes. Countries like Hungary, Turkey or Serbia may be a better model for what happens in the US.
Mussolini style Fascism, not Hitler style Nazism.
The type of thing I typically see on my feeds that we are stage 6 of 7 of authoritarian takeover, and those elements are all present, judicial overturn, sacking and appointment of the pliant, ICE deployed in cities with the military present, a new level of kleptocracy.
The thing is, a lot of those elements in themselves are sat in the early stages, done very selectively - much of the ordinary judiciary is unaffected, if you read the Wikis on each ICE deployment there are day by day flashpoints, but they are small in number and full military rule doesn't seem too apparent on the streets yet - touches of it in Chicago perhaps.
If you say we are nearly there, a lot of people might go, well if we're at stage 6 already, authoritarianism isn't that bad. They didn't come to eat the face of anyone I know yet. What that misses is that stage 4/5/6 themselves are in their very early rollout, select cities even on the Blue side, deployments still claimed to be time limited for fiscal reasons. It's sort of like saying Universal Credit was rolled out by 2013.
This is what I'm saying comes with a risk and an opportunity. Trump could hold back if there is any political expedience to be had in not going too much further with this. But also, those mid stages could still be applied far, far more widely.
There is also a loyalty factor - loyalty to the flag, the constitution. I don't see this as being done by outright military disobedience, for which people would be replaced, but almost every US soldier from the brass down has grown up in a full democracy with that drilled into them. Any command can be diluted and minimally complied with if it looks too obviously anti-democratic, and in the end the clash politics is trying to invite doesn't come to pass and not much hapoens. You might think ICE have already passed this point, but day by day, action by action, perhaps some element of this does apply.
It could be wishful thinking, but the extent to which democracy is culturally embedded in the US is materially different from post-WW1 German democracy, from Hungarian or South American democracy and that might dictate that some of the individual flashpoints that could happen don't, that the standard playbook of sending Texans into Chicago doesn't play out as full impunity, and that the way back from this is less fraught than supposed.
Yes, it's serious, but I retain the chink of hope that America's slide is not terminal.
Extremely bad things are certainly happening. The critical thing is "are they reversible". Mussolini's regime was already in a fair deal of trouble by the late 1930s, ramshackle and chaotic as well as violent and brutal. The utter incompetence of the Italian war machine significantly hampered the German war effort. . The trains did not "run on time" either.
Basically the message is do not let populist media tarts run your country, they will inevitably screw it up.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
In Scotland you need to be registered as a landlord on the Landlord Register (funnily enough) which is a national thing. There is also the Scottish Landlord's Agent Register which anyone acting as an agent requires to be on. There are also now complicated provisions about deposits being held by 3rd parties. There are also requirements for both gas and electrical fitting certificates. There are increasingly onerous requirements for insulation and energy efficiency. If you need any more reasons not to be a landlord in Scotland let me know but people are already voting with their feet and getting out.
The deposit thing is dead simple and prevents arseholes holding onto cash for flimsy reasons (it took me 6 months to extract my deposit after uni). As is everything else - ensuring that the flat won't explode is not an onerous provision and takes a gas engineer 10 minutes for a small fee.
The landlords jumping ship because of these provisions are, very clearly, wankers.
The problem comes in the *way* that the process is implemented.
In a sane universe, you’d get a qualified gas plumber in to test. Then he’d upload a certification (with some photos of the meter, stove etc) on the spot, that Property X had passed inspection by Plumber Y.
Same with ‘leccy.
That would be a Service State, where the purpose of the State is to provide good services to the citizens.
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
If she rented her property through a lettings agency with a full management contract she could reasonably have expected them to take care of this aspect or at least to have informed her of the requirement. The agency would normally handle all of this kind of paperwork, like the gas safety certificate, albeit for a steep fee. I don't think anyone is saying the rules don't apply, simply that her job shouldn't be at risk over it. FWIW I rent in Southwark and have registered, only because I went to the council website to check. It's not very well advertised. On the other hand, it's not very onerous. You pay £900 and give them some paperwork then you're good for 5 years.
From a tenants perspective landlords not knowing the rules, not being bothered to know the rules or expecting the estate agent to know and follow the rules is why we end up with increasing regulation. The sector is full of people who think they can make easy money without bothering to learn how to be a landlord.
Perhaps this will serve to improve knowledge among landlords, a teachable moment as they say. I think the increasing regulation is designed specifically to push rogue actors out of the sector. Like all regulation it also comes with costs and may fail to deter truly rogue players.
Not necessarily a fan of the over regulation either, but it is here because a significant chunk of landlords don't think they have to know or do anything about being a landlord. If they either learn or leave the sector that is a good thing.
I don’t blame opposition politicians from going after Reeves . But really if people are going to have to resign over something like this it sets such a low bar that you’re in danger of turning off anyone even trying to get into politics.
Spot on. I don't blame those on the right on here for having a bit of fin and pearl-clutching at Reeve's expense but unless there's something we haven't been told, this one isn't going to fly.
I don’t blame opposition politicians from going after Reeves . But really if people are going to have to resign over something like this it sets such a low bar that you’re in danger of turning off anyone even trying to get into politics.
Spot on. I don't blame those on the right on here for having a bit of fin and pearl-clutching at Reeve's expense but unless there's something we haven't been told, this one isn't going to fly.
She proudly backed such laws and regulations.
You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
Especially if her tenants get a year of rent back.
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
About 50% more, in fact.
And quite a lot more than many private pensions.
If @NickPalmer thinks this is merely a "nice to have" then he's living in a world far removed from the rest of us.
He’s trolling you all, and won’t be running in 2028.
Read the article, Trump running or not isn't the issue, will the likes of the Trump crime family, Vance, and Miller give up power after the shithousery/corruption they have engaged in?
They have made untold billions manipulating the markets with insider information. A quiet tithe of those billions will be quite enough to manipulate enough of the voters (by persuasion or exclusion) to win another close election.
I doubt it will be Trump himself, but someone from the billionaire class, put forward to prevent an investigation into how they have turned democracy into kleptocracy, or more accurately a kakistocracy if it is one of the Trump offspring.
The alternative - of losing - risks having billonaires hanging from lamp-posts by piano wire and confiscation of all their assets to resume paying for food stamps.
I am thankful for your posts. It is good to see at least one quite dry, hard line Tory is across this.
We've had a cornucopia of Tory minimisation this morning -
Sandpit: he's not running, so it's all OK. Casino: the Dems don't get it - possibly true, but for this discussion very much a second order question - the Dems getting it would help a little but it is not primarily about that any more Big G: Ho hum, Rachel Reeves
Cumbria: 🤡
What I don't know is how far, how fast the Republicans will go, a lot of norms have been torn apart, but I don't necessarily think the left narrative that we are at the edge of Naziism today is the best one - we still always default to Germany rather than Chile or many other elsewheres which perhaps give more credible trajectories, we know Trump has a tendency to push then back down, and there is a lot of road yet to go - a crumb of reassurance, but the amount yet to go is also a worry of how much further this can go. The question is, how far down this road are we and how far are we going.
Yes. Countries like Hungary, Turkey or Serbia may be a better model for what happens in the US.
Mussolini style Fascism, not Hitler style Nazism.
The type of thing I typically see on my feeds that we are stage 6 of 7 of authoritarian takeover, and those elements are all present, judicial overturn, sacking and appointment of the pliant, ICE deployed in cities with the military present, a new level of kleptocracy.
The thing is, a lot of those elements in themselves are sat in the early stages, done very selectively - much of the ordinary judiciary is unaffected, if you read the Wikis on each ICE deployment there are day by day flashpoints, but they are small in number and full military rule doesn't seem too apparent on the streets yet - touches of it in Chicago perhaps.
If you say we are nearly there, a lot of people might go, well if we're at stage 6 already, authoritarianism isn't that bad. They didn't come to eat the face of anyone I know yet. What that misses is that stage 4/5/6 themselves are in their very early rollout, select cities even on the Blue side, deployments still claimed to be time limited for fiscal reasons. It's sort of like saying Universal Credit was rolled out by 2013.
This is what I'm saying comes with a risk and an opportunity. Trump could hold back if there is any political expedience to be had in not going too much further with this. But also, those mid stages could still be applied far, far more widely.
There is also a loyalty factor - loyalty to the flag, the constitution. I don't see this as being done by outright military disobedience, for which people would be replaced, but almost every US soldier from the brass down has grown up in a full democracy with that drilled into them. Any command can be diluted and minimally complied with if it looks too obviously anti-democratic, and in the end the clash politics is trying to invite doesn't come to pass and not much hapoens. You might think ICE have already passed this point, but day by day, action by action, perhaps some element of this does apply.
It could be wishful thinking, but the extent to which democracy is culturally embedded in the US is materially different from post-WW1 German democracy, from Hungarian or South American democracy and that might dictate that some of the individual flashpoints that could happen don't, that the standard playbook of sending Texans into Chicago doesn't play out as full impunity, and that the way back from this is less fraught than supposed.
Yes, it's serious, but I retain the chink of hope that America's slide is not terminal.
Extremely bad things are certainly happening. The critical thing is "are they reversible". Mussolini's regime was already in a fair deal of trouble by the late 1930s, ramshackle and chaotic as well as violent and brutal. The utter incompetence of the Italian war machine significantly hampered the German war effort. . The trains did not "run on time" either.
Basically the message is do not let populist media tarts run your country, they will inevitably screw it up.
Was Kemi's Stanford University offer claim ever cleared up?
Labour, being useless in opposition as well as in government missed a trick. Kemi Badenoch I believe claimed at one point that she was so clever she had hacked, I think it was, Hattie Harman's computer.
Labour in opposition, could have done everyone a favour and made a big deal out of the outrageous Jenrick- Desmond affair, which looks dodgy to the point of possible law breaching, but they didn't.
Labour in Government aren't very good at politics or they might have cast more shade than they have on The Curious Case of the House at Frinton on Sea by Nigel Farage.
I wouldn't be sorry to see the back of Reeves but the people making the accusations seem to be mired in even deeper scandals.
And don't forget it is the Mail who have busted the story that brings down a Chancellor three weeks before the Budget, and the Mail are employing on a six figure salary for 5 minutes a week the man whose scandalous behaviour through COVID and beyond brought the Conservative Party to it's knees.
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.
But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.
But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
Significant collaboration between the Conservatives and Reform in the Commons yesterday over Nigel Farrage''s 10 min rule nill on leaving the ECHR.
Kemi led 87 Conservative MPs to vote for Farrage's Bill with Sir John Whiitingdale acting as Teller with Danny Kruger. Jenrick, Braverman and Gavin Williamson all signed the Bill.
It's in neither party's interests to admit it but if this is what is being done publicly, the level of co operation that is going on behind the scenes probably exceeds it.
That will go down well on PB. It's the most suggested change and from a wide variety of posters across the spectrum.
Are you new here? Responses will be: A] betrayal of manifesto, outrage, Reeves must go B] doesn't go far enough, confirms why I could never vote Labour, weak etc.
If true, this is what a number of us on here have been suggesting for years. Stop taxing earned income more than unearned income.
(Yes, I know this in itself doesn't do that but it's a start.)
Bart is going to be dancing on the ceiling.
What would be a stupid political mistake is not creating a separate IT rate for basic rate pensioners. So this would only hit those on over 50k
Yes, we have some rich pensioners in this country. But equally, we have some poor ones.
I’m not sure the rank and file Labour members will jump for joy at increasing tax on basic rate pensioners
So exempt them.
Over complicating things.
It would make sense to keep the IT personal allowance above the basic State Pension (just from an admin savings point of view) but separate rates? Nah.
Why should a pensioner on <£50k be taxed less than a worker on the same?
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
But who the hell would know???
The right-wing witch hunt begins! Who the HELL would know you need a licence in certain areas?! The agency is at fault here, as they should have ensured she had the required paperwork and licensing in place!
I have to admit I had never heard of the licence. Perhaps this is an England only rule?
In Scotland you need to be registered as a landlord on the Landlord Register (funnily enough) which is a national thing. There is also the Scottish Landlord's Agent Register which anyone acting as an agent requires to be on. There are also now complicated provisions about deposits being held by 3rd parties. There are also requirements for both gas and electrical fitting certificates. There are increasingly onerous requirements for insulation and energy efficiency. If you need any more reasons not to be a landlord in Scotland let me know but people are already voting with their feet and getting out.
The deposit thing is dead simple and prevents arseholes holding onto cash for flimsy reasons (it took me 6 months to extract my deposit after uni). As is everything else - ensuring that the flat won't explode is not an onerous provision and takes a gas engineer 10 minutes for a small fee.
The landlords jumping ship because of these provisions are, very clearly, wankers.
That will go down well on PB. It's the most suggested change and from a wide variety of posters across the spectrum.
Are you new here? Responses will be: A] betrayal of manifesto, outrage, Reeves must go B] doesn't go far enough, confirms why I could never vote Labour, weak etc.
Lol yes. There'll be a plot twist making it a terrible idea.
Triumph for the think tank that pushed that idea. Interesting question as to whether it breaks manifesto promise. In a way yes, it raises taxes they promised not to... but the spirit was protecting workers and by lowering NI they sort of have achieved that...
Has the Independent Ethics Adviser suggested Reeves should go?
Should we ignore what he says if we don't like the answer?
Starmer has refused to refer the matter to the Independent Ethics Adviser.
Not according to the BBC:
"The prime minister said that he had consulted Sir Laurie Magnus, the Conservative-appointed independent ethics adviser, whose unflinching approach did for Rayner and several other ex-ministers besides and that they had agreed that no further investigation would be necessary.
Sir Keir said that this was because the breach was inadvertent, Reeves had acted promptly to rectify it by applying for the licence, and had apologised.
"The ministerial code makes clear that in certain circumstances, an apology is a sufficient resolution," Sir Keir wrote."
That will go down well on PB. It's the most suggested change and from a wide variety of posters across the spectrum.
Are you new here? Responses will be: A] betrayal of manifesto, outrage, Reeves must go B] doesn't go far enough, confirms why I could never vote Labour, weak etc.
Lol yes. There'll be a plot twist making it a terrible idea.
C] it's a good idea but they should have done it differently and therefore it's actually terrible
That will go down well on PB. It's the most suggested change and from a wide variety of posters across the spectrum.
It won’t go down well with the selfish arseholes if they are personally affected (not that there are any of those on here 😄) or those that think we should pay no tax and receive no public services, but it should be acceptable to the sensible majority.
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
If she rented her property through a lettings agency with a full management contract she could reasonably have expected them to take care of this aspect or at least to have informed her of the requirement. The agency would normally handle all of this kind of paperwork, like the gas safety certificate, albeit for a steep fee. I don't think anyone is saying the rules don't apply, simply that her job shouldn't be at risk over it. FWIW I rent in Southwark and have registered, only because I went to the council website to check. It's not very well advertised. On the other hand, it's not very onerous. You pay £900 and give them some paperwork then you're good for 5 years.
From a tenants perspective landlords not knowing the rules, not being bothered to know the rules or expecting the estate agent to know and follow the rules is why we end up with increasing regulation. The sector is full of people who think they can make easy money without bothering to learn how to be a landlord.
Perhaps this will serve to improve knowledge among landlords, a teachable moment as they say. I think the increasing regulation is designed specifically to push rogue actors out of the sector. Like all regulation it also comes with costs and may fail to deter truly rogue players.
Not necessarily a fan of the over regulation either, but it is here because a significant chunk of landlords don't think they have to know or do anything about being a landlord. If they either learn or leave the sector that is a good thing.
There's a certain type of "accidental landlord" who has to rent out their own property on a temporary basis because of eg a temporary overseas posting, to cover the mortgage and council tax and avoid the risks associated with an empty property, who may rent through a full service lettings agency who promises to take care of everything. I think it is reasonable to expect a little less of this category of landlord. Reeves, it seems to me, is in this category. It is embarrassing and PB Tories should enjoy themselves, but thus isn't a resigning matter.
Significant collaboration between the Conservatives and Reform in the Commons yesterday over Nigel Farrage''s 10 min rule nill on leaving the ECHR.
Kemi led 87 Conservative MPs to vote for Farrage's Bill with Sir John Whiitingdale acting as Teller with Danny Kruger. Jenrick, Braverman and Gavin Williamson all signed the Bill.
It's in neither party's interests to admit it but if this is what is being done publicly, the level of co operation that is going on behind the scenes probably exceeds it.
I spent years thinking you were from Concan and were educated in Vasser. Hmm. 😎
That will go down well on PB. It's the most suggested change and from a wide variety of posters across the spectrum.
It won’t go down well with the selfish arseholes if they are personally affected (not that there are any of those on here 😄) or those that think we should pay no tax and receive no public services, but it should be acceptable to the sensible majority.
The budget needs to be extracting £££ from comfortably off, non hard working people (ie me and my ilk). This would seem to do that.
If true, this is what a number of us on here have been suggesting for years. Stop taxing earned income more than unearned income.
(Yes, I know this in itself doesn't do that but it's a start.)
Bart is going to be dancing on the ceiling.
What would be a stupid political mistake is not creating a separate IT rate for basic rate pensioners. So this would only hit those on over 50k
Yes, we have some rich pensioners in this country. But equally, we have some poor ones.
I’m not sure the rank and file Labour members will jump for joy at increasing tax on basic rate pensioners
So exempt them.
Increase the nil rate band so that anyone earning less than say £20k (which will cover those on the basic state pension plus a small personal pension, but not those with large final salary pensions or rental income) is no worse off.
If true, this is what a number of us on here have been suggesting for years. Stop taxing earned income more than unearned income.
(Yes, I know this in itself doesn't do that but it's a start.)
Bart is going to be dancing on the ceiling.
What would be a stupid political mistake is not creating a separate IT rate for basic rate pensioners. So this would only hit those on over 50k
Yes, we have some rich pensioners in this country. But equally, we have some poor ones.
I’m not sure the rank and file Labour members will jump for joy at increasing tax on basic rate pensioners
So exempt them.
The entire point is to tax pension income the same as employment income. Why would you exempt them?
Politics is the art of the possible.
Boil your frogs slooooowly.
I think, at the present moment, voters will interpret bold action (provided it doesn't crash the bond market) as confidence and they will interpret incremental action as timidity and uncertainty, and respond accordingly.
The WFP cut was a negligible move on the dial and created pandemonium. This is a time to go big.
In our new paper, we show that different prompts always map to different embeddings, and this property can be used to recover input tokens from individual embeddings in latent space. https://x.com/GladiaLab/status/1982818213206315120
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.
But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
You can make a start, obvs.
Yawn.
You think it's a hackneyed point but you epitomise the ills you are describing. You live in a house worth several million while decrying the iniquity of our housing market.
A lot of people that I know I'm their 30s that have bought have done so from landlords stopping renting.
Which I see as a net positive for society as a whole.
... I admit a balance needs to be struck so new building continues. But I'm not sure landlords regs are the main obstacle there.
The British obsession with (a) property ownership and (b) low-rise building in most small towns leads directly to the shortage of affordable rental properties and the gradual attrition of green space around them. It's AFAIK unique in Western Europe (though ownership in most countries is gradually rising anyway as prosperity increases) and also leads to people with minimal training making huge investments (e.g. property worth £250K) as the only way forward. I'm not arguing for all property to be rented, merely for it to be a reasonable option rather than the current extremes of luxury property or grim places that you try to buy your way out of ASAP.
The near-ban on no-fault evictions is a useful start on making renting a reasonable option. I can see that it will lead to some individual landlords selling up to property companies, but they do at least have a fair chance of understanding the regulations.
Says the single older person who never had a family or wanted one on a government guaranteed salary and pension.
The obsession, as you call it, of owning a property is about security. You have financial security because you have the insanely generous MP pension, the rest of the country doesn't have that.
Eh? You over-personalise the issue. Since you raise it: I'm married for the second time and happy stepfather to three children. The "insanely generous" MP pension that I get is £1450/month, which is nice to have but not really life-saving; the price which many MPs pay is an inability to resume their previous jobs when they're knocked out for reasons probably beyond their control. I was lucky (in finding two jobs which I could do afterwards).
Moving away from the personal: my issue is that we load all the problems of security into enabling part of the population to make an expensive investment in housing, with an incidental sprawl over the green belt, while the remainder of the population struggle, and it isn't regarded as an issue worth discussion by any party. That seems to me to be strange.
You do realise that £1,450 per month which is “nice to have” is comfortably more than the state pension?
Yes, I've been lucky, as I said. I'm not sure it counts as "insanely generous", though - MPs tend to pay the price of an interruption to their careers of uncertain duration. I was very fortunate to serve for 13 years and then get jobs afterwards.
But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
We've made it the main route to personal wealth accretion for people and at the same time inaccessible to a large part of the working population. One of those two things has to change. Perhaps both because they go together.
You can make a start, obvs.
Yawn.
You think it's a hackneyed point but you epitomise the ills you are describing. You live in a house worth several million while decrying the iniquity of our housing market.
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
If she rented her property through a lettings agency with a full management contract she could reasonably have expected them to take care of this aspect or at least to have informed her of the requirement. The agency would normally handle all of this kind of paperwork, like the gas safety certificate, albeit for a steep fee. I don't think anyone is saying the rules don't apply, simply that her job shouldn't be at risk over it. FWIW I rent in Southwark and have registered, only because I went to the council website to check. It's not very well advertised. On the other hand, it's not very onerous. You pay £900 and give them some paperwork then you're good for 5 years.
From a tenants perspective landlords not knowing the rules, not being bothered to know the rules or expecting the estate agent to know and follow the rules is why we end up with increasing regulation. The sector is full of people who think they can make easy money without bothering to learn how to be a landlord.
Perhaps this will serve to improve knowledge among landlords, a teachable moment as they say. I think the increasing regulation is designed specifically to push rogue actors out of the sector. Like all regulation it also comes with costs and may fail to deter truly rogue players.
Not necessarily a fan of the over regulation either, but it is here because a significant chunk of landlords don't think they have to know or do anything about being a landlord. If they either learn or leave the sector that is a good thing.
There's a certain type of "accidental landlord" who has to rent out their own property on a temporary basis because of eg a temporary overseas posting, to cover the mortgage and council tax and avoid the risks associated with an empty property, who may rent through a full service lettings agency who promises to take care of everything. I think it is reasonable to expect a little less of this category of landlord. Reeves, it seems to me, is in this category. It is embarrassing and PB Tories should enjoy themselves, but thus isn't a resigning matter.
It would appear that Reeves has rented out her house (whether or not licensed to do so) on the assumption that she'll remain in No 11 Downing Street for the foreseeable future, or until 2029. Seems a tad risky to me.,
Oh, and Good Afternoon everyone. Been busy this morning.
If true, this is what a number of us on here have been suggesting for years. Stop taxing earned income more than unearned income.
(Yes, I know this in itself doesn't do that but it's a start.)
Bart is going to be dancing on the ceiling.
What would be a stupid political mistake is not creating a separate IT rate for basic rate pensioners. So this would only hit those on over 50k
Yes, we have some rich pensioners in this country. But equally, we have some poor ones.
I’m not sure the rank and file Labour members will jump for joy at increasing tax on basic rate pensioners
So exempt them.
Increase the nil rate band so that anyone earning less than say £20k (which will cover those on the basic state pension plus a small personal pension, but not those with large final salary pensions or rental income) is no worse off.
What about those with large [edit] Dc pensions? There seems to be a notion on PB that the money from the latter is somehow different for tax purposes, or should be.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
Punished how ?
AFAICS, the usual procedure where someone has failed to register and then rectifies the matter, is no punishment. The penalties appear to be there for enforcement purposes.
For example: ..Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, has called for Rachel Reeves to be prosecuted over her rental licence error. She has posted this on social media.
Labour run Southwark Council boasts of “cracking down on” and having a “zero tolerance approach to rogue landlords” and have prosecuted landlords for renting unlicensed properties. Rachel Reeves has made thousands from renting without following the licensing laws. Southwark Council must now take action on Rachel Reeves and prosecute her. Patel has also posted links (here and here) to stories on Southwark’s website about landlords being fined for not having a rental licence – although both these cases involved landlords ignoring warnings from the council about the need for a licence, which is not what Reeves did.
Patel has not always been so zealous about seeing people punished for breaking rules. As home secretary, she was found to have broken the ministerial code because she had bullied officials. But, with the support of Boris Johnson, PM at the time, she did not resign and remained in post..
If the Tories are ever to be taken seriously as a political party again, they need to grow up. The country's problems do not included failing to prosecute individuals for inadvertent breaches of regulations which have caused no harm. They absolutely do include overly prescriptive and onerous regulation. While this scheme is perhaps not that, the controversy provides an excellent opportunity to have that debate.
Frankly I couldn't give a damn about the party politics, or indeed Reeves herself.
And yet you go on and on and on making excuses....funny that.
Claiming that she deliberately flouted the law is about as credible as Liz Truss.
Ignorance of the law is not a credible defence. She's an MP and should know better. Why is it that Labour MPs seem to think it's ok for them to be ignorant of the law.
Is that what they are saying ? Or is it that she inadvertently breached the regulation, is taking steps to correct that, and that should (probably) be the end of the matter ?
As I commented on the last thread, assuming that Reeves is not a rogue landlord (which so far seems to be the case), and has in place gas and electric verification, EPC, etc, then it is ridiculous to be calling for her resignation.
The purpose of regulation is to ensure the safety of the property. It is not an end in itself, and to see an inadvertent breach of the rules, quickly rectified, as a resignation matter is effectively to say that regulation is indeed an end in itself.
Does the Tory party really want to take that stance, that regulation is an end in itself, and any technical breach should result in fines or criminal prosecution ? If so, then the party is in a worse state than I thought.
I guess we just have to take her word for that her property was compliant given that she refused to get the licence. We have a recent example of a Labour MP being a slumlord so it's not beyond reasonable doubt that her property wasn't fully compliant.
But once again it's the hypocrisy of her campaigning for this type of landlord licencing in her own constituency then failing to get the licence that she campaigned to bring into place.
One rule for them and another for the rest of us. Two tier Keir all over again.
As I said, depressing that you're interested only in party politics.
Labour campaign for and introduce regulations for landlords including licencing (which I actuay agree with) and then their own chancellor falls foul of them. You can't see that this is a problem for them? Reeves has flouted the rules and should be punished for it.
Punished how ?
AFAICS, the usual procedure where someone has failed to register and then rectifies the matter, is no punishment. The penalties appear to be there for enforcement purposes.
For example: ..Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, has called for Rachel Reeves to be prosecuted over her rental licence error. She has posted this on social media.
Labour run Southwark Council boasts of “cracking down on” and having a “zero tolerance approach to rogue landlords” and have prosecuted landlords for renting unlicensed properties. Rachel Reeves has made thousands from renting without following the licensing laws. Southwark Council must now take action on Rachel Reeves and prosecute her. Patel has also posted links (here and here) to stories on Southwark’s website about landlords being fined for not having a rental licence – although both these cases involved landlords ignoring warnings from the council about the need for a licence, which is not what Reeves did.
Patel has not always been so zealous about seeing people punished for breaking rules. As home secretary, she was found to have broken the ministerial code because she had bullied officials. But, with the support of Boris Johnson, PM at the time, she did not resign and remained in post..
If the Tories are ever to be taken seriously as a political party again, they need to grow up. The country's problems do not included failing to prosecute individuals for inadvertent breaches of regulations which have caused no harm. They absolutely do include overly prescriptive and onerous regulation. While this scheme is perhaps not that, the controversy provides an excellent opportunity to have that debate.
Frankly I couldn't give a damn about the party politics, or indeed Reeves herself.
And yet you go on and on and on making excuses....funny that.
For those curious, this is the relevant part of the 2004 Housing Act.
95 Offences in relation to licensing of houses under this Part (1)A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing a house which is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 85(1)) but is not so licensed..
...
(3)In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) it is a defence that, at the material time—
(a)a notification had been duly given in respect of the house under section 62(1) or 86(1), or
(b)an application for a licence had been duly made in respect of the house under section 87,
and that notification or application was still effective (see subsection (7)).
(4)In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) it is a defence that he had a reasonable excuse—
(a)for having control of or managing the house in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), or
(b)for failing to comply with the condition,
as the case may be.
(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to [F50a fine] ...
In a lot of European countries running elections with proportional representation Trump would have set up his own party, got 7% in his first election, 16% in the second one and then crashed to 4% after flouncing out of a coalition where he was junior partner https://x.com/APHClarkson/status/1983660145780670877
I’d have more sympathy for Reeves if she was on the side of trying to cut back on petty bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it very much feels like Labour are fully on board with this stuff.
Not saying she should go, but at the same time this “well how would she have known, what a silly rule!” stuff, does fail to acknowledge that our politicians have been layering regulation on regulation onto the general public for decades now, and I’m pretty sure last time I checked that ignorance of these things isn’t a defence
If she rented her property through a lettings agency with a full management contract she could reasonably have expected them to take care of this aspect or at least to have informed her of the requirement. The agency would normally handle all of this kind of paperwork, like the gas safety certificate, albeit for a steep fee. I don't think anyone is saying the rules don't apply, simply that her job shouldn't be at risk over it. FWIW I rent in Southwark and have registered, only because I went to the council website to check. It's not very well advertised. On the other hand, it's not very onerous. You pay £900 and give them some paperwork then you're good for 5 years.
From a tenants perspective landlords not knowing the rules, not being bothered to know the rules or expecting the estate agent to know and follow the rules is why we end up with increasing regulation. The sector is full of people who think they can make easy money without bothering to learn how to be a landlord.
Perhaps this will serve to improve knowledge among landlords, a teachable moment as they say. I think the increasing regulation is designed specifically to push rogue actors out of the sector. Like all regulation it also comes with costs and may fail to deter truly rogue players.
Not necessarily a fan of the over regulation either, but it is here because a significant chunk of landlords don't think they have to know or do anything about being a landlord. If they either learn or leave the sector that is a good thing.
There's a certain type of "accidental landlord" who has to rent out their own property on a temporary basis because of eg a temporary overseas posting, to cover the mortgage and council tax and avoid the risks associated with an empty property, who may rent through a full service lettings agency who promises to take care of everything. I think it is reasonable to expect a little less of this category of landlord. Reeves, it seems to me, is in this category. It is embarrassing and PB Tories should enjoy themselves, but thus isn't a resigning matter.
In which case perhaps they could charge less too? No? Funny that.
It seems the tenant can reclaim rent paid. I think that is a fair outcome, sufficient disincentive for landlords generally and punishment for Reeves specifically. ps Rach - Don't go for a revenge eviction here.
If true, this is what a number of us on here have been suggesting for years. Stop taxing earned income more than unearned income.
(Yes, I know this in itself doesn't do that but it's a start.)
Bart is going to be dancing on the ceiling.
What would be a stupid political mistake is not creating a separate IT rate for basic rate pensioners. So this would only hit those on over 50k
Yes, we have some rich pensioners in this country. But equally, we have some poor ones.
I’m not sure the rank and file Labour members will jump for joy at increasing tax on basic rate pensioners
So exempt them.
Increase the nil rate band so that anyone earning less than say £20k (which will cover those on the basic state pension plus a small personal pension, but not those with large final salary pensions or rental income) is no worse off.
What about those with large [edit] Dc pensions? There seems to be a notion on PB that the money from the latter is somehow different for tax purposes, or should be.
[apols, muddled the abbreviation]
Yes, those with large pensions of any type should be treated equally. The issue is income amount, not type.
Comments
US can't cope with more than that.
Frightens me off recycling.
I am shocked her letting agency hasn’t picked it up, looking at them they are well established.
Rachel Reeves might have a decent claim of negligence against them.
Looking at my last few rentals the letting agency confirm there’s no local licensing requirements required/in place.
But that's not the point I was making, which is that it's odd that we are the only country in Europe (I think) to prioritise house ownership to the extent that we do.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/30/tories-will-not-deport-legally-settled-people-kemi-badenoch-katie-lam?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=bluesky&CMP=bsky_gu
I’d been hearing about so many issues/cock-up/mistakes on this very specific licensing issue in Southwark that I’d been trying to find a way into the story for the last few weeks. Guess the chancellor has given me the top line…
https://bsky.app/profile/jim.londoncentric.media/post/3m4ehwuj2v22d
On the bright side, the new Renter's Rights law provides for a national register, which ought to make life easier.
Should we ignore what he says if we don't like the answer?
(Edit) at least according to Starmer.
...The prime minister said that he had consulted Sir Laurie Magnus, the Conservative-appointed independent ethics adviser, whose unflinching approach did for Rayner and several other ex-ministers besides and that they had agreed that no further investigation would be necessary...
The landlords jumping ship because of these provisions are, very clearly, wankers.
Rachel Reeves is considering a 2p rise in Income Tax but a 2p cut in National Insurance in the Budget
Around 30 million workers who pay both taxes would pay the same amount, but pensioners and landlords - who don’t pay NI - would be hit
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1983663677896298794
"The prime minister said that he had consulted Sir Laurie Magnus, the Conservative-appointed independent ethics adviser, whose unflinching approach did for Rayner and several other ex-ministers besides and that they had agreed that no further investigation would be necessary.
Sir Keir said that this was because the breach was inadvertent, Reeves had acted promptly to rectify it by applying for the licence, and had apologised.
"The ministerial code makes clear that in certain circumstances, an apology is a sufficient resolution," Sir Keir wrote."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgkvd3jg2no
Of course Starmer could be lying but somehow I suspect we'd quickly find out if he were.
https://www.geographyrealm.com/united-states-syllables/
(Yes, I know this in itself doesn't do that but it's a start.)
Noneoftheabove exclusive - she has also considered thousands of other obvious options.
Basically the message is do not let populist media tarts run your country, they will inevitably screw it up.
In a sane universe, you’d get a qualified gas plumber in to test. Then he’d upload a certification (with some photos of the meter, stove etc) on the spot, that Property X had passed inspection by Plumber Y.
Same with ‘leccy.
That would be a Service State, where the purpose of the State is to provide good services to the citizens.
In fact the sort of landlord who is probably not rich enough to cover the risks of being a landlord..
The people hit would be pensioners, landlords and self employed unless self employment NI is changed at the same time.
As I said yesterday I suspect 95% of the extra money would come from pensioners...
You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
Especially if her tenants get a year of rent back.
And quite a lot more than many private pensions.
If @NickPalmer thinks this is merely a "nice to have" then he's living in a world far removed from the rest of us.
Labour in opposition, could have done everyone a favour and made a big deal out of the outrageous Jenrick- Desmond affair, which looks dodgy to the point of possible law breaching, but they didn't.
Labour in Government aren't very good at politics or they might have cast more shade than they have on The Curious Case of the House at Frinton on Sea by Nigel Farage.
I wouldn't be sorry to see the back of Reeves but the people making the accusations seem to be mired in even deeper scandals.
And don't forget it is the Mail who have busted the story that brings down a Chancellor three weeks before the Budget, and the Mail are employing on a six figure salary for 5 minutes a week the man whose scandalous behaviour through COVID and beyond brought the Conservative Party to it's knees.
Yes, we have some rich pensioners in this country. But equally, we have some poor ones.
I’m not sure the rank and file Labour members will jump for joy at increasing tax on basic rate pensioners
So exempt them.
Kemi led 87 Conservative MPs to vote for Farrage's Bill with Sir John Whiitingdale acting as Teller with Danny Kruger. Jenrick, Braverman and Gavin Williamson all signed the Bill.
It's in neither party's interests to admit it but if this is what is being done publicly, the level of co operation that is going on behind the scenes probably exceeds it.
Responses will be:
A] betrayal of manifesto, outrage, Reeves must go
B] doesn't go far enough, confirms why I could never vote Labour, weak etc.
It would make sense to keep the IT personal allowance above the basic State Pension (just from an admin savings point of view) but separate rates? Nah.
Why should a pensioner on <£50k be taxed less than a worker on the same?
Interesting question as to whether it breaks manifesto promise.
In a way yes, it raises taxes they promised not to... but the spirit was protecting workers and by lowering NI they sort of have achieved that...
(bows to the gallery, accepts the applause)
It is embarrassing and PB Tories should enjoy themselves, but thus isn't a resigning matter.
Boil your frogs slooooowly.
The WFP cut was a negligible move on the dial and created pandemonium. This is a time to go big.
LLMs are injective and invertible.
In our new paper, we show that different prompts always map to different embeddings, and this property can be used to recover input tokens from individual embeddings in latent space.
https://x.com/GladiaLab/status/1982818213206315120
Seems a tad risky to me.,
Oh, and Good Afternoon everyone. Been busy this morning.
[apols, muddled the abbreviation]
Funny that.
95
Offences in relation to licensing of houses under this Part
(1)A person commits an offence if he is a person having control of or managing a house which is required to be licensed under this Part (see section 85(1)) but is not so licensed..
...
(3)In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) it is a defence that, at the material time—
(a)a notification had been duly given in respect of the house under section 62(1) or 86(1), or
(b)an application for a licence had been duly made in respect of the house under section 87,
and that notification or application was still effective (see subsection (7)).
(4)In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) it is a defence that he had a reasonable excuse—
(a)for having control of or managing the house in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), or
(b)for failing to comply with the condition,
as the case may be.
(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to [F50a fine] ...
In a lot of European countries running elections with proportional representation Trump would have set up his own party, got 7% in his first election, 16% in the second one and then crashed to 4% after flouncing out of a coalition where he was junior partner
https://x.com/APHClarkson/status/1983660145780670877
It seems the tenant can reclaim rent paid. I think that is a fair outcome, sufficient disincentive for landlords generally and punishment for Reeves specifically. ps Rach - Don't go for a revenge eviction here.