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.
Isn't that against the Tory principle that the proles should be taxed so they vote proper? Poll tax and all that.
And if the council tax system were then to be changed to a property tax, that would eliminate the poll tax element crudely still present, and the Rifkindian poll tax would have gone the way of the window and hair powder taxes.
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.
Thanks, was wondering if I was missing something (you've never seemed to be one of those posters who are rabidly against DB pensions).
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.
To increase the basic rate of income tax for the first time since 1975 would certainly fit that description. Politically risky? Ordinarily yes, but not so much now for this government. Almost any narrative is better than the one that's starting to form around them.
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
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.
I feel (sorry if this is duplication) that if someone employs a full service lettings agency, who presumably charge a more than a peppercorn fee, that said agency should ensure that all the paperwork is in order. Even if the final responsibility is the landlords.
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
I think they mean that different folk's questions tickle robobrains in different places and this can be used to find out what the questioners were asking.
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
You can figure out what someone asked from what the LLM spat out.
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. 😎
I'm afraid not. Both look like delightful places though.
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.
That's exactly what happens (after you've paid the invoice). It's great. Good work from Edinburgh Council and Scottish Government.
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
Not from this semi illiterate. But further down, it does elucidate. ..Language models are structurally lossless:
- Hidden states do not compress or abstract the prompt; - Any system storing them effectively stores the input text itself; - This impacts privacy, deletion, and compliance: once data enters a Transformer, it remains recoverable...
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
From memory:
A mapping is, for example A -> 1, B -> 2, C -> 4 or whatever i.e it maps inputs to outputs.
A mapping is injective if no two inputs map to the same output.
A mapping is invertible if, given an output, you can find an input which maps to it. So invertible implies injective.
(Surjective - not claimed in that tweet - means no two outputs map back to the same input. If a mapping is injective and surjective, it's a bijection. That would be even more of a problem.)
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.
Isn't that against the Tory principle that the proles should be taxed so they vote proper? Poll tax and all that.
And if the council tax system were then to be changed to a property tax, that would eliminate the poll tax element crudely still present, and the Rifkindian poll tax would have gone the way of the window and hair powder taxes.
I would simplify the whole system. Combine Income Tax and NI and charge CGT at the same (combined) rate, as a prelude to merging CGT and Income Tax.
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.
Thanks, was wondering if I was missing something (you've never seemed to be one of those posters who are rabidly against DB pensions).
No dispute with that.
I am entirely neutral in this matter. I have a SIPP and Mrs. F has a DB pension.
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.
I feel (sorry if this is duplication) that if someone employs a full service lettings agency, who presumably charge a more than a peppercorn fee, that said agency should ensure that all the paperwork is in order. Even if the final responsibility is the landlords.
I think that would/might fall under the "reasonable excuse" defence in the legislation, providing the matter gets remedied.
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.
I feel (sorry if this is duplication) that if someone employs a full service lettings agency, who presumably charge a more than a peppercorn fee, that said agency should ensure that all the paperwork is in order. Even if the final responsibility is the landlords.
Yes absolutely.
And when I take my car to the mechanic, the mechanic should diligently and fairly service my car adding some margin on top. I know they don't typically do so, so spend time and effort to create some accountability, even if it is minimal. That is for transactions in the hundreds.
When a landlord relies on estate agents, and they know that typically many of them are unreliable, the landlords still need to spend time and effort creating accountability. The reason they don't bother, despite the transactions being tens of thousands and secured on a building worth hundreds of thousands, is the person who suffers most tends to be the tenants, not the landlords.
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. 😎
I'm afraid not. Both look like delightful places though.
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.
That's exactly what happens (after you've paid the invoice). It's great. Good work from Edinburgh Council and Scottish Government.
Just think of the efficiency improvements if the UK Treasury was managed by the Scottish Government!
I am increasingly thinking that this 'increase IT by 2% reduce NI by 2%' thing will happen although I think it will only be the standard NI charged from £12.5k to £50k which will be reduced with the 2% on excess of £50k staying in place so those with 'broader shoulders' pay more (the IT increase applies to all levels)
Or it could be 1% on IT 1% off NI using the same principles, would raise less but maybe politically easier
In answer to the question: No, you are not an idiot, judging by the headers you have written. As for the first part, it's none of my business -- and I treat claims on that subject with some skepticism.
Betting question: Is your "companion" open to friendly wagers on US elections? I am sure there are those here who would be interested.
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Maybe get rid of the IT marriage allowance? It seems very anachronistic and is certainly complicated! Probably only £1bn a year but it all helps 👍
I don't know how much difference it will make. I mean how many people actually do work in IT and find love through their work? Can't be that many, nationally.
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.
In my experience in this kind of situation (we moved overseas and rented our flat in London for several years ... never again!) the letting agent will decide the rent and take a big cut with VAT on that. The landlord would probably get more if they sold the property and put the money in a savings account, TBH.
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.
A) hiring an agency doesn’t allow you to escape responsibility although you might have reasonably grounds to complain
if it’s not very onerous then why are they charging £900? Government services should be just that, not sneaky revenue raising activities
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.
A) hiring an agency doesn’t allow you to escape responsibility although you might have reasonably grounds to complain
if it’s not very onerous then why are they charging £900? Government services should be just that, not sneaky revenue raising activities
My anti-corruption training is very keen to let me know that hiring an agent who might bribe people won't save me from prosecution. Why should this be any different?
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.
A) hiring an agency doesn’t allow you to escape responsibility although you might have reasonably grounds to complain
if it’s not very onerous then why are they charging £900? Government services should be just that, not sneaky revenue raising activities
In terms of B, you would have to ask Southwark Council that. Though the answer is probably "we're desperate for every penny we can get".
As I see it the remaining checks and balances are:
Lower level Judges who are not in the tank, including TBF some Trump appointees, remaining non-suborned officials currently keeping their heads down who have a one-shot-then-sacked objection, the previous item but military, possibly Congress/Senate if the numbers add up (as they may be for the Epstein resolution once MAGA Mike the Speaker does his job), street demonstrations which scare Trump, media, whether new media or old media, Supreme Court on certain questions, as they will want to maintain their own position, maybe other countries on some things - very constrained however and involves bribery /bootlicking /facing-down (see China & a couple of others), potentially the men in white coats if he loses his mind, some internals - eg Melania intervened on Ukrainian stolen children, the Grim Reaper.
Potentially people who have something on him? I'm not sure what will happen if gets action by say 200 Epstein victims, including some who he was involved in abusing if true.
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.
To be fair that’s because it clogs the sorting machines
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.
A) hiring an agency doesn’t allow you to escape responsibility although you might have reasonably grounds to complain
if it’s not very onerous then why are they charging £900? Government services should be just that, not sneaky revenue raising activities
I suspect they are using the fees to fund enforcement activity
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.
In my experience in this kind of situation (we moved overseas and rented our flat in London for several years ... never again!) the letting agent will decide the rent and take a big cut with VAT on that. The landlord would probably get more if they sold the property and put the money in a savings account, TBH.
Similar here, though not abroad (unless Yorkshire counts). You don't need the house for a while, but selling is a hassle and you would only have to buy again on your return.
We did fine with both agent and tenants, but I'm conscious that we were fortunate.
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
Every time you ask a LLM a question, it leaves an audit trail that's specific to your question.
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.
A) hiring an agency doesn’t allow you to escape responsibility although you might have reasonably grounds to complain
if it’s not very onerous then why are they charging £900? Government services should be just that, not sneaky revenue raising activities
£180/year isn't a huge amount of money. An annual gas safety check costs £150, so it's comparable to that. Presumably enforcement against bad landlords isn't cheap. Might there be other cross-subsidisation of other parts of the council's housing remit that used to be funded elsewhere? Probably. The council is broke because of rising social care costs, like every other one is. I don't blame them. I'm perhaps a bit more relaxed than other landlords because the property is mortgage free so cash flow is good and we aren't doing it to make money anyway. If I had massive leverage and this was my primary income maybe I'd be a bit more het up about it. But people like that probably shouldn't be in the business anyway - if you haven't got the margin to pay these fees you probably don't have the margin to be a responsible landlord either.
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
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.
To be fair that’s because it clogs the sorting machines
Or because if you shred your paper they can’t find the address, so can’t fine you for fly tipping.
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.
To be fair that’s because it clogs the sorting machines
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.
To be fair that’s because it clogs the sorting machines
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.
To be fair that’s because it clogs the sorting machines
Or because if you shred your paper they can’t find the address, so can’t fine you for fly tipping.
My elegant compromise is all paper goes in the recycling but anything with a name or address on is torn off and shredded separately.
Oh, and Bristol Temple Meads are twats. At the very moment the train was pulling in, they switched platforms and gave us just two minutes to run to another platform in the far side of the station.
There are at least 2 parts to that. On one side assaulting the public is the traditional behaviour of a fair chunk of USA enforcement services starting with the cops (including State or County cops). On the other side the uniformed services are being directed politically, some more some less.
I picked up an analysis yesterday suggesting that Border Force Patrol were more out of control than ICE. Border Force are also being drafted into cities, eg in Chicago. Federal Agents have been observed teargassing police officers.
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.
Another one missing the point. Funny that.
But you are a Tory who's blue scarf is not tied so tightly around his neck as to cut off the blood supply to the brain.
To a certain extent I think Reeves has made an error and should probably go. However , and with a huge dose of whataboutery I'll suggest why she is perfectly entitled to do otherwise.
During Boris Johnson's tenure in No 10 the corruption was so egregious and no one resigned as a result of conspiracy rather than cock up. Likewise Jenrick and Desmond. Kemi Badenoch by her own tongue hacking Hattie, or so she claimed. Braverman, where does one start? Patel running a parallel Foreign policy, and didn't Hunt have some local difficulty over property? Oh and of course Zahawi, who I believe fell on his sword only after he was dragged kicking and screaming. Oh, and Farage's girlfriend's house
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
There are at least 2 parts to that. On one side assaulting the public is the traditional behaviour of a fair chunk of USA enforcement services starting with the cops (including State or County cops). On the other side the uniformed services are being directed politically, some more some less.
I picked up an analysis yesterday suggesting that Border Force Patrol were more out of control than ICE. Border Force are also being drafted into cities, eg in Chicago. Federal Agents have been observed teargassing police officers.
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.
A) hiring an agency doesn’t allow you to escape responsibility although you might have reasonably grounds to complain
if it’s not very onerous then why are they charging £900? Government services should be just that, not sneaky revenue raising activities
£180/year isn't a huge amount of money. An annual gas safety check costs £150, so it's comparable to that. Presumably enforcement against bad landlords isn't cheap. Might there be other cross-subsidisation of other parts of the council's housing remit that used to be funded elsewhere? Probably. The council is broke because of rising social care costs, like every other one is. I don't blame them. I'm perhaps a bit more relaxed than other landlords because the property is mortgage free so cash flow is good and we aren't doing it to make money anyway. If I had massive leverage and this was my primary income maybe I'd be a bit more het up about it. But people like that probably shouldn't be in the business anyway - if you haven't got the margin to pay these fees you probably don't have the margin to be a responsible landlord either.
I think it's limited by law/regulations to meeting particular costs.
And since it is quite likely to be say a 28 page form with8 ot 9 attachments it takes considerable time to process, so perhaps treble the cost.
There are also various abuses built into the process, such as a full fee needing to be repaid on minor changes, or if ownership changes it is a full application - despite all the stuff about teh property still being valid.
It also needs a very sharp agent to fill it in, as it is absolutely routine for Councils to insert unlawful requirements whether by malice or incompetence.
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
In all seriousness (okay let's go there) the issue is that you have defined an acceptable level of taxation, say, which you are happy to pay extra because of your wealth status. And that is absolutely your right to do so. Just enough but not enough. Which again, is fine. But then those on the left (let's not let this get, ahem, personal) are vitriolic in imposing that wholly arbitrary line on the rest of the population as though it is a law given down from on high. Anything one side of that line you deem to be typical baby-eating Tory nonsense, while you similarly, or analagously dismiss out of hand when it is suggested that you might, say, give up your house in the name of equality.
Understand that we all have red lines beyond which policies seem to us unreasonable, and perhaps dial down on the criticism of those who have different ones to yourself. Because it really does verge on hypocritical.
I am so happy for you to be in the situation you are in. You should equally be happy that the Duke of Grafton is in the position he is in or at least not so vocal that he should be humbled, financially.
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
Every time you ask a LLM a question, it leaves an audit trail that's specific to your question.
You do know you can run your own LLMs at home now, right?
That will go down well on PB. It's the most suggested change and from a wide variety of posters across the spectrum.
Bet you she only cuts the basic NI rate, not the 2% people pay on all their income above the threshold…
I hope you’re right. Taxes on incomes, including higher taxes on higher incomes, are good taxes. Taxes on payroll, consumption, property, imports much less so.
In an ideal world I’d love to see everyone pay the same flat rate of tax on all their annual income. It’s utopian and would never happen but would be far better than the current Kafkaesque shambles dreamed up by those drunks in the Treasury.
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.
Another one missing the point. Funny that.
But you are a Tory who's blue scarf is not tied so tightly around his neck as to cut off the blood supply to the brain.
To a certain extent I think Reeves has made an error and should probably go. However , and with a huge dose of whataboutery I'll suggest why she is perfectly entitled to do otherwise.
During Boris Johnson's tenure in No 10 the corruption was so egregious and no one resigned as a result of conspiracy rather than cock up. Likewise Jenrick and Desmond. Kemi Badenoch by her own tongue hacking Hattie, or so she claimed. Braverman, where does one start? Patel running a parallel Foreign policy, and didn't Hunt have some local difficulty over property? Oh and of course Zahawi, who I believe fell on his sword only after he was dragged kicking and screaming.
Whataboutery is your modus operandi but it barely matters what we argue on here
The question is how it will be seen in the court of public opinion and it just adds to the negative narrative on our politicians
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.
To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
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.
Another one missing the point. Funny that.
But you are a Tory who's blue scarf is not tied so tightly around his neck as to cut off the blood supply to the brain.
To a certain extent I think Reeves has made an error and should probably go. However , and with a huge dose of whataboutery I'll suggest why she is perfectly entitled to do otherwise.
During Boris Johnson's tenure in No 10 the corruption was so egregious and no one resigned as a result of conspiracy rather than cock up. Likewise Jenrick and Desmond. Kemi Badenoch by her own tongue hacking Hattie, or so she claimed. Braverman, where does one start? Patel running a parallel Foreign policy, and didn't Hunt have some local difficulty over property? Oh and of course Zahawi, who I believe fell on his sword only after he was dragged kicking and screaming.
Whataboutery is your modus operandi but it barely matters what we argue on here
The question is how it will be seen in the court of public opinion and it just adds to the negative narrative on our politicians
'
Especially as a Labour politician is involved and the vast majority of our Press find such behaviour by them intolerable, while frequently being happy to play down criticism of equivalent activity by Tory or Reform politicians.
It occurs to me incidentally on the Reeves saga that one unintended consequence of this unitarisation BS is that we may well have councils merging who have very different by-laws.
Which may lead to come interesting questions on legacies, processes and enforcement.
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.
Another one missing the point. Funny that.
But you are a Tory who's blue scarf is not tied so tightly around his neck as to cut off the blood supply to the brain.
To a certain extent I think Reeves has made an error and should probably go. However , and with a huge dose of whataboutery I'll suggest why she is perfectly entitled to do otherwise.
During Boris Johnson's tenure in No 10 the corruption was so egregious and no one resigned as a result of conspiracy rather than cock up. Likewise Jenrick and Desmond. Kemi Badenoch by her own tongue hacking Hattie, or so she claimed. Braverman, where does one start? Patel running a parallel Foreign policy, and didn't Hunt have some local difficulty over property? Oh and of course Zahawi, who I believe fell on his sword only after he was dragged kicking and screaming.
Whataboutery is your modus operandi but it barely matters what we argue on here
The question is how it will be seen in the court of public opinion and it just adds to the negative narrative on our politicians
'
Especially as a Labour politician is involved and the vast majority of our Press find such behaviour by them intolerable, while frequently being happy to play down criticism of equivalent activity by Tory or Reform politicians.
To be fair the critism during the Johnson and Truss years was as intense and they paid for it in 2024.
It is now happening to labour and that is politics
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.
To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
He frequently suggests redistributive policies that would be harmful to himself financially. The fact that he wants some redistribution but doesn't want to go the full Zimbabwe is evidence that he is alert to the issues you raise, not of his hypocrisy.
A video has surfaced of the sinking of the Russian floating crane PK-400 "Sevastopol," which had been under construction at the Sevastopol Marine Plant for eight years.
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
In all seriousness (okay let's go there) the issue is that you have defined an acceptable level of taxation, say, which you are happy to pay extra because of your wealth status. And that is absolutely your right to do so. Just enough but not enough. Which again, is fine. But then those on the left (let's not let this get, ahem, personal) are vitriolic in imposing that wholly arbitrary line on the rest of the population as though it is a law given down from on high. Anything one side of that line you deem to be typical baby-eating Tory nonsense, while you similarly, or analagously dismiss out of hand when it is suggested that you might, say, give up your house in the name of equality.
Understand that we all have red lines beyond which policies seem to us unreasonable, and perhaps dial down on the criticism of those who have different ones to yourself. Because it really does verge on hypocritical.
I am so happy for you to be in the situation you are in. You should equally be happy that the Duke of Grafton is in the position he is in or at least not so vocal that he should be humbled, financially.
Ok but that's a slight misread of me. I have a genuine belief that reducing inequality should be a top priority of government but not in any sort of extreme or vindictive way. I most certainly don't seek to beggar the Duke of Grafton.
Whisper it, but's beginning to look as though India's cricketing women will beat their Australian counterparts. 3rd and 4th in the table after the round-robin will then defeat 1st and 2nd!
A video has surfaced of the sinking of the Russian floating crane PK-400 "Sevastopol," which had been under construction at the Sevastopol Marine Plant for eight years.
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.
To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
He frequently suggests redistributive policies that would be harmful to himself financially. The fact that he wants some redistribution but doesn't want to go the full Zimbabwe is evidence that he is alert to the issues you raise, not of his hypocrisy.
Yes I really do object to and reject all of this. I'm not a hypocrite, neither am I interested only in redistribution and not at all in deeper reform. I don't know where the Captain has got that notion from. It's like he's made up an imaginary friend and named him after me.
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.
To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
He frequently suggests redistributive policies that would be harmful to himself financially. The fact that he wants some redistribution but doesn't want to go the full Zimbabwe is evidence that he is alert to the issues you raise, not of his hypocrisy.
Yes I really do object to and reject all of this. I'm not a hypocrite, neither am I interested only in redistribution and not at all in deeper reform. I don't know where the Captain has got that notion from. It's like he's made up an imaginary friend and named him after me.
Maybe he is the Duke of Grafton. (Is that a real person? I'm such a frightful noov I have no idea).
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.
Hush.
Plus you have that fabulous bar near you which none of us can seem to find. Some people, eh.
Lol yes. But look, in all seriousness, I know my combo of leftish politics and bloated finances is just wrong in your eyes but it simply can't be helped. Poverty doesn't appeal and neither do the Tories. It's an intractable situation. Nobody's fault.
Nothing offends a certain kind of rightwing well-bred Englishman more than a self-made lefty with cash. You've sinned twice - first by breaking into their club and second by not even having the decency to sign up to their rules.
Wrong on every count. I couldn't give a tuppeny cuss about the source of Kini's money or what club he is a member of. That's a lazy trope that gives more comfort to you because it means you don't have to engage with the substance of the point. The reason I go on at him about it is because he as I understand it is a bit of a redistributor. But his redistribution stops abruptly when it gets too close to his arbitrarily-defined red line around his own wealth. Which is fine. But I am just pointing out the illogicality of being such an enthusiastic redistributor when he guards fiercely against "too much" redistribution.
To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
Using lazy tropes to avoid engaging with the point, you say? Mirror urgently needed.
But hey this is new, your last bit here. So what are a couple of big structural reforms you'd do to bring about a more equal society? My curiosity is piqued.
Hardly a little known law. The Daily Mail etc have been whining about it for some time. If it wasn't in they would be whining about it not being there.
This is fun: But Greg Smith, a Tory shadow minister, said it was “utterly absurd to fine someone for something their dog did not do”. He added: “This is an overbearing, big state intervention that Reform in West Northamptonshire should hang their heads in shame over.”
I think it's under PSPO legislation the Conservatives introduced, and it's West Northants, so it's highly likely that the Cons introduced the particular PSPO. RefUK have only been in since May, and there's no way they have the competence to get a PSPO through in time to do this.
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
Every time you ask a LLM a question, it leaves an audit trail that's specific to your question.
You do know you can run your own LLMs at home now, right?
I may need to consider putting my pet LLM to sleep, it doesn't even know who the Pope or President is anymore
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
Any chance of a translation for the technically semi illiterate please.
Every time you ask a LLM a question, it leaves an audit trail that's specific to your question.
You do know you can run your own LLMs at home now, right?
Posters may remember I was planning a trip to Glasgow. A full review to follow in due course. But in the meantime, the most Glaswegian image of the day from the adjacent table in the Willow Tea Rooms: Charles Rennie MacKintosh with Irn Bru.
Comments
And if the council tax system were then to be changed to a property tax, that would eliminate the poll tax element crudely still present, and the Rifkindian poll tax would have gone the way of the window and hair powder taxes.
No dispute with that.
Just trying, for fun!
It should be Refcanvasser as of last weekend.
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charity-sector-s-gift-aid-income-rises-to-1-7bn.html
But further down, it does elucidate.
..Language models are structurally lossless:
- Hidden states do not compress or abstract the prompt;
- Any system storing them effectively stores the input text itself;
- This impacts privacy, deletion, and compliance: once data enters a Transformer, it remains recoverable...
A mapping is, for example A -> 1, B -> 2, C -> 4 or whatever i.e it maps inputs to outputs.
A mapping is injective if no two inputs map to the same output.
A mapping is invertible if, given an output, you can find an input which maps to it. So invertible implies injective.
(Surjective - not claimed in that tweet - means no two outputs map back to the same input. If a mapping is injective and surjective, it's a bijection. That would be even more of a problem.)
And when I take my car to the mechanic, the mechanic should diligently and fairly service my car adding some margin on top. I know they don't typically do so, so spend time and effort to create some accountability, even if it is minimal. That is for transactions in the hundreds.
When a landlord relies on estate agents, and they know that typically many of them are unreliable, the landlords still need to spend time and effort creating accountability. The reason they don't bother, despite the transactions being tens of thousands and secured on a building worth hundreds of thousands, is the person who suffers most tends to be the tenants, not the landlords.
Or it could be 1% on IT 1% off NI using the same principles, would raise less but maybe politically easier
With an IT threshold freeze to 2030 of course
Betting question: Is your "companion" open to friendly wagers on US elections? I am sure there are those here who would be interested.
And now *she's* been arrested for 'hindering' ICE. She faces eight years in prison.
This is fascism.
https://x.com/SteveBrusatte/status/1983598450035060945
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-charity-tax-relief-statistics/uk-charity-tax-relief-statistics-commentary
As I see it the remaining checks and balances are:
Lower level Judges who are not in the tank, including TBF some Trump appointees,
remaining non-suborned officials currently keeping their heads down who have a one-shot-then-sacked objection,
the previous item but military,
possibly Congress/Senate if the numbers add up (as they may be for the Epstein resolution once MAGA Mike the Speaker does his job),
street demonstrations which scare Trump,
media, whether new media or old media,
Supreme Court on certain questions, as they will want to maintain their own position,
maybe other countries on some things - very constrained however and involves bribery /bootlicking /facing-down (see China & a couple of others),
potentially the men in white coats if he loses his mind,
some internals - eg Melania intervened on Ukrainian stolen children,
the Grim Reaper.
Potentially people who have something on him? I'm not sure what will happen if gets action by say 200 Epstein victims, including some who he was involved in abusing if true.
That nice Mr Starmer spoke to him and, on the basis of the conversation, has decided that we should move along please, nothing to see
We did fine with both agent and tenants, but I'm conscious that we were fortunate.
I'm perhaps a bit more relaxed than other landlords because the property is mortgage free so cash flow is good and we aren't doing it to make money anyway. If I had massive leverage and this was my primary income maybe I'd be a bit more het up about it. But people like that probably shouldn't be in the business anyway - if you haven't got the margin to pay these fees you probably don't have the margin to be a responsible landlord either.
Oh, and Bristol Temple Meads are twats. At the very moment the train was pulling in, they switched platforms and gave us just two minutes to run to another platform in the far side of the station.
I picked up an analysis yesterday suggesting that Border Force Patrol were more out of control than ICE. Border Force are also being drafted into cities, eg in Chicago. Federal Agents have been observed teargassing police officers.
To a certain extent I think Reeves has made an error and should probably go. However , and with a huge dose of whataboutery I'll suggest why she is perfectly entitled to do otherwise.
During Boris Johnson's tenure in No 10 the corruption was so egregious and no one resigned as a result of conspiracy rather than cock up. Likewise Jenrick and Desmond. Kemi Badenoch by her own tongue hacking Hattie, or so she claimed. Braverman, where does one start? Patel running a parallel Foreign policy, and didn't Hunt have some local difficulty over property? Oh and of course Zahawi, who I believe fell on his sword only after he was dragged kicking and screaming. Oh, and Farage's girlfriend's house
And since it is quite likely to be say a 28 page form with8 ot 9 attachments it takes considerable time to process, so perhaps treble the cost.
There are also various abuses built into the process, such as a full fee needing to be repaid on minor changes, or if ownership changes it is a full application - despite all the stuff about teh property still being valid.
It also needs a very sharp agent to fill it in, as it is absolutely routine for Councils to insert unlawful requirements whether by malice or incompetence.
Understand that we all have red lines beyond which policies seem to us unreasonable, and perhaps dial down on the criticism of those who have different ones to yourself. Because it really does verge on hypocritical.
I am so happy for you to be in the situation you are in. You should equally be happy that the Duke of Grafton is in the position he is in or at least not so vocal that he should be humbled, financially.
In an ideal world I’d love to see everyone pay the same flat rate of tax on all their annual income. It’s utopian and would never happen but would be far better than the current Kafkaesque shambles dreamed up by those drunks in the Treasury.
The question is how it will be seen in the court of public opinion and it just adds to the negative narrative on our politicians
'
Pet owner left bemused at being hit with penalty for ‘a poo my dog didn’t do’" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/29/woman-fined-100-for-walking-dog-without-waste-bag
To the sub-saharan African, you, me and Kini are all wealthy beyond compare. But I, as a right wing Tory baby-eater, understand that equality comes from structural reform not from blunt redistribution. You, as an economist, should understand that also.
Which may lead to come interesting questions on legacies, processes and enforcement.
It is now happening to labour and that is politics
Australia women 1.77
India women 2.28
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/icc-women-s-cricket-world-cup/australia-w-v-india-w-betting-34886842
"India Women need 119 runs to win from 15.3 overs with 8 wickets remaining"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/ckgj7229p79t#player
A video has surfaced of the sinking of the Russian floating crane PK-400 "Sevastopol," which had been under construction at the Sevastopol Marine Plant for eight years.
‼️Ultimately, the Russian shipbuilders capsized the crane and sank it, never completing its construction.
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1983531225760538840
https://andrewspreviews.substack.com/p/previewing-the-six-council-by-elections-fad
NEW THREAD
But hey this is new, your last bit here. So what are a couple of big structural reforms you'd do to bring about a more equal society? My curiosity is piqued.
This is fun:
But Greg Smith, a Tory shadow minister, said it was “utterly absurd to fine someone for something their dog did not do”. He added: “This is an overbearing, big state intervention that Reform in West Northamptonshire should hang their heads in shame over.”
I think it's under PSPO legislation the Conservatives introduced, and it's West Northants, so it's highly likely that the Cons introduced the particular PSPO. RefUK have only been in since May, and there's no way they have the competence to get a PSPO through in time to do this.