Is Reeves the next one to go?

[olderandnonthewiser]

Her not getting whatever licence she needed doesn’t sound particularly corrupt but somewhat incompetent.

Apparently Starmer is reviewing ‘new information’. If there’s even a whiff of sleeze or being economical with the truth she’s got to go too.

For someone who banged on about sleeze and standards, Starmer isn’t doing well with his ministers.

Probably thought it was taken out of the rent ... pretty common... i expect RR had more on her mind?

There’s a lot of people on this thread that seem to not mind the shoddy behaviour of those in government. Is that just what’s become the norm and what’s expected? No wonder standards are slipping.

Agree, and what's more alarming is that these press owners can so easily whip up people to agitate about it. The Daily Heil seem to have learned lots from their cosying up to Hitler & Goebbels in the 1930's.

It has become like that or perhaps we see more of it. It was really to the fore with Boris but there were examples before him. Mistresses, young men, payoffs, appointments to the Board etc. A career in politics is seen as a chance to enrich oneself at the taxpayers expense whereas it may have been seen as a career to serve one's party and country. Just thinking about Wedgewood Benn or Thatcher.

Tories gave us the highest taxes since WW2 or is that all ok because they were Tory taxes?

When Reeves broke down in the 'commons, gilt yields shot through the roof, once it was clear Reeves wasn't going anywhere, yields dropped, they have continued to do so, the lowest for year now, thats saving the country billions.

Is scoring political points really worth putting them back up again shd you get your wish and Reeves resigns?

Like it or not, the markets have confidence in her & her so called fiscal rules, the esp like it she is willing to put up taxes ... because they know thats whats needed, that £11 billion per year NI cut by Hunt has to be paid for..... a new chancellor wont have that confidence.....

She has been cleared by the same guy, using the same process that, rightly, got rid of Rayner.

That should be the end of it... unless you really don't give a shit about the country? looking at you Kemi.

Rayner & Haigh went for poor behaviour - rightly so.

But Reeves has really done nothing wrong, in fact, she has done everything by the book, employed a respected agency to manage her property whilst she moved out.... they messed up.

This is not on her.

You don’t believe she lied to the PM?

Does anyone really believe that this property manager suddenly left their job literally days after letting the Reeves’s property? Surely it would have been handed over to their replacement? Or if it had gone into their admin system why wasn’t it followed up? Oh ok it would only come up when due for renewal & all the certificates would have only just been done & therefore was up to date. So it will have gone under the radar.

So let’s just blame this individual errant manager for basically bad practise - who not only misled the Reeves in saying they would apply for the licence for them, when this was not even company policy, they also bizarrely were really unreliable & all of a sudden departed from their job shortly after. Isn’t it all just a bit too coincidental?
It absolves RR & the agency can scapegoat the bad apple member of staff who was not working per their company rules. And no longer works there so their reputation can remain in tact??

It’s just always the same. These embellishments after the event that just reek of such BS. They are such habitual liars. I wonder how much the Reeves’s paid the agency for that convenient little cover up?

Yeh it’s unlikely

The turnover rate in lettings agencies (and property management - the people that deal with the admin / repairs for freehold blocks) seems (from my experience) to be pretty high, and they can be pretty useless at handing things over smoothly.

I honestly think this sums it up:

Woman gets a job with accommodation attached, family moves into accommodation and rents out the house they worked to buy. Woman asks husband to deal with letting agents, husband pays agent to sort out necessary licences. Agent screws up. Woman gets the blame and is hounded to resign. The end.

In case anyone is in any doubt,

RR wrote to KS say "the agent said they would let them know if a license was required, and we never heard back"

The email trail confirms to the contrary, she lied, they knew all along.

The incompetence of the agent isn't the issue, blatantly lying to the PM is.

According to what I've seen, she told Starmer one thing, then her husband found an email he'd missed saying the licence was needed and the agency would sort it once the tenants were in. So, two men screw up yet it's all the woman's fault (surprise!).

What amuses me is that the Mail and the Telegraph would normally be railing against landlords having to pay for licenses and would see them as a means of councils making money from hard-done-to property portfolio holders . When licenses were introduced in my city the local media regularly ran articles featuring poor hard pressed landlords who were claiming they would have to sell up as the fees were going to break them. Reeves should have got one but it is hardly the crime of the century and i am sure she is not renting out a property akin to some of the hell holes round my way.

Labour’s tax raid has hit my family already, never mind what’s coming in the budget, so I’m already not Rachel Reeves’ biggest fan.

But this is not a resignation issue. The license (aka bandit tariff by some councils) is badly advertised and normally managed by an agent such as the one RR rightly employed. They told her husband they’d take care of it and didn’t.

This entire row is a way to get another woman of power out of sight. When she goes, they’ll turn on Mahmoud, then Cooper.. If we want politics to reflect the gender makeup of the country, we can’t allow woman who make it to be hounded out for trivial reasons.

Boris took political donations to pay for £70/roll wallpaper and didn’t resign. How is that fair?

I really don't care.... the PM has dealt with this, as has the guy in charge of standards.
Far bigger issues facing the UK, which anyone who actually cares about the UK would realise.

Scoring political points though is more important for some.

Because she lied to the PM about it.

It’s the lying isn’t it? Seems to be a habit of hers…
And the fact that the little people cannot ‘make mistakes’ with HMRC. If she doesn’t pay a hefty fine for this, that’s a scandal. And an abuse of power.

But I do care. I can’t imagine where society will end up if those that govern us are a bunch of cheating, lying hypocrites and the public accept this.

I don't see any evidence that she cheated or lied over this - at most, the evidence is that she was mistaken about something that her husband was supposed to be handling. And it's not "one rule for them" - Southwark Council have said that they only fine people who fail to respond to warning letters, or rent out unsafe properties. And as soon as she realised she was supposed to get the licence, she did get it. This looks like yet another example of a high-profile female politician being hounded over something which wouldn't even register for their male counterparts.

She said she didn't realise she needed a licence yet she was the person who oversaw their introduction! It may have been a genuine mistake that one was not applied for but to lie that you didn't know is not good. We should hold those who make the rules we have to follow to a higher standard.

The labour manifesto said they wouldn't raise taxes. She's already raised taxes and looks set to raise income tax in the budget. That should trigger a general election - it won't but she'll probably be sacked after the budget. Raising taxes is not the way to get people to spend more. They actually need to cut taxes, remove all the 'exceptions' (loopholes) and then watch as people feel better off and spend more money. Personally I don't like RR - she talks like a robot and is economical with the truth.

Don’t hate the players hate the game. Isn’t smearing the opposition part & parcel of modern politics - rightly or wrongly? Isn’t discrediting & looking for skeletons & plotting & backstabbing part & parcel of the game? It’s actually a mockery for KS to have pledged he’d weed out sleaze & corruption in his party, when the methods all sides employ to remain in power & score points against each other are morally questionable. Just reinforces how disingenuous he is too. Dangerous game pledging he’d be the holier than thou lot. I don’t see Angela Rayner’s tax thing any different to Rachel Reeves’s recent issue. They’re both honest mistakes any person could make. But they’re not any people, they’re under a lens of scrutiny unlike any other. It’s the lying about their mistakes that make their assertion that they were simply honest mistakes, so much harder to believe.

I don't think Rayner made a mistake, even i know the rules on stamp duty on 2nd homes & she had access to the best advice out there... HMRC next door, i think she saw a possibility to save 40k....

Reeves on the other hand, employed an agency to take care of her letting, they messed up, also, i doubt any errors were done deliberately, to save a few £100.

Its just a witch hunt now.

It’s not true she introduced the licensing scheme - it was introduced in 2004 and is selectively used by some councils and not others.

Oven ready deal, there were no parties.

Reeves has been cleared and tbf i don't think this falls into your category of transgressions.

Rayner and Haigh, behaved badly and went, rightly so.

The public??? you mean the same public that kept voting the Tories in, despite numerous scandals? Blair after Iraq? or who now back Farage, a man done by the EU for expenses fraud and who lied about who bought a house in order to keep quiet that he saved 10s of 1000s in tax....

I wouldn't rely on the public for moral guidance.