Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

So I sort of sympathise. Some of it sounds illegal - so those charges for cleaning and painting were banned under the last government.

But also a lot of the left have taken a fairly robust view on this. So there's a big campaign against banning "no fault eviction" which I'd be inclined to support. But looking into it - I don't actually have an issue with it. Basically "no fault eviction" is only possible after the tenancy ends and requires at least two months notice. When I heard "no fault" I thought it was during the tenancy which would be bad but already isn't allowed - at the end of the tenancy I don't really see why there needs to be a reason.

In this case, I think your points are fair. But the government is currently passing legislation to ban landlords who end a tenancy to sell the property from then re-listing that property for rent for at least six months. She's serving in the government as Homelessness Minister and did exactly that. So I slightly feel what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (Not a minister but I'd also note there's another Labour MP, Jas Athwal, who has 16 flats he leases and a number of them would apparently not meet the legal standards the Labour government are currently passing).

She has resigned from her ministerial role now which is the right decision.

Edit: I also think Homelessness Minister evicting tenants is about as bad a look as the minister responsible for anti-corruption now being subject to an arrest warrant for corruption from the post-Hasina Bangladeshi government.

[Tonitrus]

In this case, I think your points are fair. But the government is currently passing legislation to ban landlords who end a tenancy to sell the property from then re-listing that property for rent for at least six months.

She has resigned from her ministerial role now which is the right decision.

Edit: I also think Homelessness Minister evicting tenants is about as bad a look as the minister responsible for anti-corruption now being subject to an arrest warrant for corruption from the post-Hasina Bangladeshi government.

Completely agree on the political optics...mostly think the hyperbolic language in the article shows news website's "impartial" is as credible as Fox New's old "fair and balanced".

And noticed the article mentioned the previous tenants were offered a month-to-month pending a sale, but apparently refused (article doesn't clarify) it.

[Josquius]

Really surprising she resigned as the logical explanation for it seemed totally fine. She did better than the current law and was trying to move out of landlording.
Unless there's something I don't know going on its really odd.

But then that's the current Labour Govenrment....

[garbon]

Really surprising she resigned as the logical explanation for it seemed totally fine. She did better than the current law and was trying to move out of landlording.
Unless there's something I don't know going on its really odd.

But then that's the current Labour Govenrment....

It feels she is more a sacrificial victim for the currently failing party.

Odd because it really only serves to draw attention to how badly they are mismananging things that someone like this has to resign over a totally reasonable course of events.

[Richard Hakluyt]

OMG...I agree with Simon Jenkins again :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/08/mansion-fair-council-tax-local-authorities-angela-rayner

Bring back the rates!

[Tamas]

It mentions Slough. My impression of it is that the council tries to make it less of a dump but the residents have no desire to cooperate in that.

[Sheilbh]

Really surprising she resigned as the logical explanation for it seemed totally fine. She did better than the current law and was trying to move out of landlording.
Unless there's something I don't know going on its really odd.

But then that's the current Labour Govenrment....

Yeah I don't know. I think I really disagree. I don't think it's a massive scandal.

But I think you can reasonably argue (taking her statement at face value - which I don't entirely) that giving notice to sell the house and then re-letting at market rate when it didn't sell is fine. I think you can also reasonably argue that kicking out tenants in order to sell the property only to then take advantage of vacant possession to jack up the rent and re-letit is wrong and should be made illegal.

But I don't think you can hold both positions and I certainly don't think you can do the former if you're a minister in the department shepherding through legislation to do the latter. It's not the biggest scandal but I think it's a clear resigning matter and not solely an optics issue.

And as I say this is taking her defence at face value - and I'm very dubious because the London property market is very soft for sellers right now, particularly for rental properties. So I'm not really convinced that having it on the market for a few weeks is good enough for me to believe her defence.

OMG...I agree with Simon Jenkins again :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/08/mansion-fair-council-tax-local-authorities-angela-rayner

Bring back the rates!

Yeah council tax definitely needs reform - it's one of the ones I mean when I suggest reforming our existing wealth taxes on property, capital gains and inheritance.

Although I think the subs headline is very ambitious. I don't think it would make a huge diference to local authorities finance (especially as the reform still relies on central government re-balancing).

[HVC]

Municipalities in Ontario have recently implemented vacant house taxes. Does the uk have anything similar? While it a step in the right direction I don't think the amounts are high enough.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah there's a premium on council tax (I think up to four or five times) for vacant properties and holiday homes. I think it's slightly complicated but there's something there.

Although worth noting that in comparison with the rest of the world we have very, very few vacant properties:


If you're looking at long-term vacant (which is what would get taxed) it's even lower. So a couple of years ago in England 0.9% of homes are long-term vacant, in London it's 0.7% (it's even lower in Manchester) - the equivalent figures in France are over 8% and over 6%. The Parisian authorities think that's actually too low and are trying to get up to the national average. And I agree I think some empty housing is good - I think it's not the only issue but Britain has a very unhealthy obsession with anything that is "wasted". So there's no give.

We have a chronic supply issue so helping those figures is that the French build 50% more homes per year than we do. Empty homes tends to be a very big thing on the NIMBY left - although I think the shortage has even cut through there. The things I hear from them now tend to be misallocated space/empty space - too many people have spare bedrooms or older people often having the nicest biggest houses which are actually only full at Christmas/holidays. I'm not sure what the proposed solution is there

I think like France we should broadly be targeting about 10% vacant properties. But again to the waste point British house building targets are from my understanding targeting how many homes are needed given population growth, rather than trying to overshoot. And even then councils are under-delivering - so it's been pointed out that Keir Starmer's own council (Camden) should build 3,137 new homes per year until 2041 under the new housing targets. They published their local plan after that calculation and propose to build 800 per year.

[HVC]

Forced boarding sound super dystopian... but oddly sounds very a thing that they uk would implement forced roommates would also probably cut down on dirty acts like watching porn, so win win

*edit* and what's your reasoning for 10% vacancy? 0% seems dangerous as there's no elasticity for rapid growth or immigration, but 1 in 10 seems like too much to the other side.

[Josquius]

Doing housing on a council targets level seems wrong to me. Especially on such a low level as London boroughs.
This should really be something handled on a much higher strategic Govenrment level, at the least regional.
But then local governments have too much legal protection to ruin things. Not to do things. But to ruin things.

[Tamas]

Doing housing on a council targets level seems wrong to me. Especially on such a low level as London boroughs.
This should really be something handled on a much higher strategic Govenrment level, at the least regional.
But then local governments have too much legal protection to ruin things. Not to do things. But to ruin things.

Isn't the government planning to build a couple new towns?

[garbon]

Yeah I don't know. I think I really disagree. I don't think it's a massive scandal.

But I think you can reasonably argue (taking her statement at face value - which I don't entirely) that giving notice to sell the house and then re-letting at market rate when it didn't sell is fine. I think you can also reasonably argue that kicking out tenants in order to sell the property only to then take advantage of vacant possession to jack up the rent and re-letit is wrong and should be made illegal.

But I don't think you can hold both positions and I certainly don't think you can do the former if you're a minister in the department shepherding through legislation to do the latter. It's not the biggest scandal but I think it's a clear resigning matter and not solely an optics issue.

And as I say this is taking her defence at face value - and I'm very dubious because the London property market is very soft for sellers right now, particularly for rental properties. So I'm not really convinced that having it on the market for a few weeks is good enough for me to believe her defence.

Sure, but that's also your bias showing. After all, you did post the link to that sensationalised article where we were clearly supposed to come with the assumption that all landlords are evil. As we see with this quote from the interviewed former tenant:

As a Labour voter, Ms Jackson added: "I just think it's morally wrong that MPs can be landlords, especially in their own area. It's a conflict of interest."

The only 'evil' thing appears to be that she decided to increase the rent once the current tenants decided to move out rather than going on rolling contract while she looked for a buyer. Your source even noted that she is still looking to sell the property with it still listed for sale. 'The within weeks' change in rent was by all counts a to have been within 3 months given the new tenants said it had been 4-5 months since they moved in.

Oh and that she did something while it was still legal while the minister for homelessness.

[Gups]

Doing housing on a council targets level seems wrong to me. Especially on such a low level as London boroughs.
This should really be something handled on a much higher strategic Govenrment level, at the least regional.
But then local governments have too much legal protection to ruin things. Not to do things. But to ruin things.

What? London boroughs have got massive targets. For example, Ken and Chelsea has more than any local authority - B'ham, Bristol, leeds, Manchester.

Targets are pretty much the only thing that works if councils continue to be decision makers. I agree bringing back regional bodies would be the best solution but that's just not going to happen and if it did it would take a 7-8 years plus to even start to have an effect

[Sheilbh]

Sure, but that's also your bias showing. After all, you did post the link to that sensationalised article where we were clearly supposed to come with the assumption that all landlords are evil. As we see with this quote from the interviewed former tenant:

As a Labour voter, Ms Jackson added: "I just think it's morally wrong that MPs can be landlords, especially in their own area. It's a conflict of interest."

That's fair and I don't agree with the tenant - but that's how you do a story. In terms of the sensationalised article - it was a scoop. They broke the story and they want it to land.

And I agree it's not a massive story - and I certainly don't think it's evil.

But I do suspect landlords of often using sale as an excuse for evicting tenants only to then re-let the same property. The point is Labour clearly agree and think that's wrong because they're banning it. I'm not totally behind Labour's renting reform. But the actual tenancy story to me doesn't matter - I think it is wrong for a minister to be pushing through legislation banning certain conduct, while doing that in their own business.

The key word for me is that she did something that was "still" legal. But even that I think is inadequate. Not so much in this case but in a few issues - such as Lord Alli's suits and properties - the Labour defence has been that all rules were followed so there's no issues. Something might be legal or within the rules but wrong.

Separately I saw the Palestine Action protests which I think is the largest mass arrest in Met Police history.

Palestine Action have played this very, very well. The people they got in Parliament Square to get arrested include a Jewish veteran in his regimental tie, an award-winning poet, grannies, friends and advisors to the King.

And you've got even people on TV like Richard Madeley pointing out how ridiculous the proscription is. There was a Labour MP on GMB whose basic line was "this is a proscribed terrorist organistion. We don't support terrorists in the UK. Would you be asking me that if this was about the IRA or Hamas?" (Obviously this ignores the fact that the government and parliament chose to proscribe Palestine Action.) Richard Madeley(!) then pointed out that the IRA planted bombs, had snipers and were a lethal force, that Hamas committed "a pogrom" on October 7 and that Palestine Action did some "collateral damage to machinery by spraying paint - it isn't quite in the same league". The MP's response was that it was "violent criminal damage" and a national security measure - and they're a proscribed terrorist organisation and "we don't support terrorists in this country."

Just very inadequate - and it's in brackets but I do find it a really frustrating tic politicians recently to describe decisions and choices as if they are some sort of God-given, external, unchangeable fact.

I have no issue with Palestine Action people being charged - including for criminal damage. But I think it's insane that they're proscribed under counter-terrorist legislation (which is why the protest this week meant British police arrested more people under counter-terrorism laws on that one day than they had in the entire previous year) because I don't think they're terrorists but I also really don't think those laws are designed for groups like Palestine Action. I also still think the bigger story here is the state of security at a really important RAF base that allowed them to get in.