Labour's lies about landlords will cost them
Sometimes I feel I live in a parallel universe.
As a private landlord, I'm used to the goalposts being changed regularly. On the one hand, successive governments have made more and more changes to squeeze and stamp out the existence of landlords, and whip up a tirade of hate and blame. On the other, this week we hear how much Serco needs private landlords to house immigrants for the Home Office.
You couldn't make it up.
It's far from the only example of government behaviour being completely at odds with reality. Take the revelation that homelessness is the 'single biggest risk' to boroughs' finances and may cause bankruptcy – that's according to cross-party group London Councils, the collective of local government in London representing all 32 boroughs and the City of London.
We've been told many times how homelessness is pushing many councils to the brink. In 2024, Eastbourne borough council claimed it was spending 49p in every pound of the council tax it collected on housing people in temporary accommodation.
We know the housing crisis is real. One only has to look at the proliferation of tents that have sprung up, and the lack of advertised rentals on property portals to know this is not another lie.
But, get ready for the plot twist.
While London Councils estimates it has been forced to overspend on homelessness budgets by £330m in 2024-25, this Labour Government claims it is tackling the root causes of homelessness.
How are they doing that?
According to Labour, by building homes and abolishing Section 21.
It is at this point that I know things really don't add up. Section 21 isn't a root cause of homelessness; private landlords being forced to use it as a way to exit the market ahead of looming government regulations is.
Make no mistake about this. Labour, with their promised Renters' Rights Bill, have destroyed what were the last vestiges of an already dying market.
Ask any landlord why they're selling up and most will tell you it's because of the changing regulations.
Tax plays a role too, but the fear of what is coming next is the primary reason for why most landlords have chucked in the towel.
This is backed up by statistics. A survey from SpareRoom in February found two-thirds of landlords were looking to sell up, chiefly driven by Labour's Renters' Rights Bill. When asked what their top three concerns were, landlords replied: the Renters' Rights Bill (88pc), the end of Section 21 (75pc) and reduced profitability (70pc).
But the situation is even worse when you look at the wider market, because now a record number of landlords (88pc) have no confidence in the current private rental sector. This is a figure that increases to 90pc in London.
SpareRoom also found that more than a third (34pc) of landlords plan to leave the sector altogether this year, increasing to 42pc of landlords in London.
This is a diabolical state of affairs for all tenants who are looking for a private rental. Not only is there a severe shortage of properties, the prices being charged for those that are available are insane. And I say that as a landlord.
What is most frustrating is the lies Labour continue to peddle.
Section 21 is not a root cause of homelessness. It is purely a tool that allows landlords – through the correct legal process – to repossess a property. It is also the only tool available to landlords should they wish to sell.
It is about time the Government faces up to the consequences of its actions. The threat of further regulations and the proposed abolishment of Section 21 has frightened the market. Landlords have fled, and continue to flee.
The Government needs to understand that when you increase the risks to landlords while reducing their legal rights, they will choose to invest their hard-earned money outside of the exceptionally challenging private rental market.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
We should all hope Rachel Reeves delivers growth - or our taxes are going up: SIMON LAMBERT
Rachel Reeves faced a big challenge in her spending review. This is the event where she sets down a marker for what Labour plans to do under Sir Keir Starmer and herself as Chancellor. Funds are pledged to projects and government departments that fit with Labour's priorities – future Budgets should align with a plan to make this happen. Reeves faced a double challenge though, as she also needed to convince the country Labour can deliver growth and improve Britain, while balancing the books in a way that convinces markets the UK's finances are under control. The first element involves a commitment to spend, the second requires spending less or raising taxes. Clearly, this is a difficult balancing act to pull off at the best of times. But if you've promised not to raise taxes and many in your party are vehemently opposed to spending cuts to already threadbare public services, it's even harder. Add in the backdrop of a screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments, a rise in job losses blamed on the Autumn Budget 's employer national insurance rise, and a Spring Statement that regained a wafer-thin £9.9billion fiscal rule buffer only for this to be wiped out soon after by Donald Trump's tariff ructions, and you don't envy Reeves at all. As the old asking for directions joke punchline goes: 'Well, I wouldn't start from here'. There was more money for defence, schools and the NHS and less money for other public services deemed less important, or able to be brushed under the carpet for now. Ultimately though, the economic story remains the same as it was with Reeves' Tory predecessors: meet your targets by outlining plans that involve growth picking up, productivity improving and cutting spending in the future. Since Rishi Sunak there's also been some fiscal drag from frozen tax thresholds chucked in for good measure. Based on the OBR's five-year outlooks, this allows Chancellors to meet their fiscal rules. The fact that these forecasts inevitably turn out to be wrong, productivity doesn't improve, and things don't end up balancing is conveniently ignored. Yet, still we continue with the farce of policy by spreadsheet. As I've written before this fairytale economics is a terrible way to make decisions. Fortunately, the Chancellor had one card up her sleeve, the change to borrowing rules that allowed extra infrastructure investment. It freed her up to announce £113billion of plans to knock Britain into shape. These ranged from £39billion for affordable homes over a decade, to £30billion on nuclear power, £15billion on transport schemes. Among the beneficiaries will be rail and bus links in the North, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, and the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Will these things deliver growth? Over time, they should do, but we will have to wait for that to arrive. In the meantime, we face a summer of speculation over tax rises in an Autumn Budget – and with the three big earners of income tax, national insurance and VAT off the table due to Labour's pre-election promise, that would mean more tinkering around the edges. The target of tax rises is likely to be wealth, and hitting the wealthy means potentially going after pensions, savings and investments – the OECD even called for a council tax hike on big homes last week. What if things can only get better? But there is an alternative scenario. Through a combination of bad luck and her own mistakes, such as the mystifying '£22billion black hole' gloomfest, Reeves has been caught out in her time as Chancellor. Government borrowing costs have risen, borrowing itself has come in higher than forecast, and growth has disappointed. Meanwhile, the second iteration of President Trump has proved even more erratic than the first. If things move in the opposite direction though, the UK's finances could improve, and Reeves would catch a lucky break and not have to raise taxes in autumn. This is not an entirely far-fetched scenario, GDP growth in early 2025 was better than expected, a calmer period could see government borrowing costs fall, and a pick-up in the economy would deliver extra tax revenue. Its doubtful that much benefit will be seen from the infrastructure splurge for a while, but the government's pledge to build homes and its threats against reluctant councils are already seeing more approved. I'm reading increasing reports of councils waving through schemes they would previously have said no to. Most likely as they are worried about appeals if they turn developers down and get over-ruled. This may come at a cost to the environment and local communities, while developers cash in, but if enough spades go in the ground, it will boost growth. Meanwhile, companies seem to have front-loaded job cuts, the UK stock market is on the up, and I feel that we may be past the moment of peak consumer gloom. All this could bring that much hoped for improvement in growth. I know this would mess with many of our readers' desire for schadenfreude over Labour, but to my mind, greater prosperity is definitely a better outcome. Otherwise, taxes will surely be going up again soon. How far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? Tax is an increasingly taxing subject for many people who feel hard done by as Britain's complicated system catches them out. And, it's getting worse. So how far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? And is it changing people's behaviour? On this podcast, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into how the British tax tail is wagging the dog - and what you can do to avoid infuriating tax traps.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Winter fuel payment u-turn exposes flaws in SNP's universalism
Reeves maintained that circumstances have changed so much that the u-turn now represents a model of safe fiscal navigation. She was bound to claim that and I don't really care, so long as it allows a costly political mistake to be neutralised. In fact, Reeves' statement indicated quite a few 'u-turns' which have headed the government in more recognisable Labour directions. Thank goodness for that too, I say. People voted for change and it needs to be more visible. In the run-up to last week's by-election, lots of voters were still angry about Reeves' initial action on Winter Fuel Payments but not enough, as it proved, to change the outcome. Labour has had the sense to listen and respond with more positive messages. The Chancellor was not just redistributionist in her commitments to health, education, housing and so on, which apply directly to England. She also spread serious investment around the nations and regions, on top of the record £52 billion to the Scottish Government. Read more from Brian Wilson: Her England-only funding will lead to lots of 'Barnett consequentials' for Scotland. Normally, these are taken with one ungrateful hand and recycled with the other as Scottish Government largesse, without a backward reference to where the money came from. Anas Sarwar will need to keep reminding them and this time more attention must be paid to whether the extra billions are used for priorities which generated them. For example, every penny of 'consequentials' which flow from extra NHS spending in England should be spent on the NHS in Scotland, which has not always happened in the past. There should be complete transparency around this and how other Barnett money, on top of the £52 billion, is spent, and the value we get. However convoluted the route to get here, Winter Fuel Payments now offer a perfect example of why 'universalism' is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration which has the courage to take the argument on. Under Reeves' plans, pensioners with income under £35,000 a year will get the Winter Fuel Payment of two or three hundred pounds. Those above that amount will not. The vast majority of people will regard that compromise as somewhere between fair and generous. I haven't heard anyone plead the case for restoring universalism. Except, of course, in Scotland where the nationalists committed themselves to paying every pensioner £100, whether they need it or not. It was a political gimmick to demonstrate generosity, humanity etc in comparison to Whitehall, to be funded entirely from the Scottish budget (at the expense of something else). Now the money will come from the Treasury and it will be up to Edinburgh to divvy it up. If they persist in giving £100 to pensioners above the £35,000 threshold, it will either be at the expense of the less well-off or an entirely pointless use of scarce resources, other than to justify 'universalism'. Maybe that example could open the door to an overdue wider debate in Scotland around 'universalism' which opposition politicians tend to steer clear of because the assumption has developed that 'free things are popular' even if their effect is to widen wealth and attainment gaps, rather than narrow them. In a world of unlimited resources, universalism may be a desirable concept, to be recouped through correspondingly high taxation. In the world we inhabit, on the other hand, it is a lofty-sounding device for transferring scarce resources from those who have least to others who are much better off. That is a deception which the SNP have deployed to great advantage. Anyone who challenges it is accused of wanting to reintroduce 'means-testing' which carries the stigma of 1930s oppressors keeping money from the poor. In the 2020s, however, the case for 'means-testing' is to stop giving money to those who don't need it. Another obvious example of this con-trick involves 'free tuition' which now plays a large part in bringing Scotland's universities to the point of penury, forcing large-scale redundancies, excluding Scottish students from hundreds of desirable courses and making our great seats of learning more dependent on decisions taken in Beijing and Seoul than Edinburgh. 'Universalism is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration' (Image: Radmat) At some point, politicians must have the courage to call out this deception for what it is. The guiding principle that nobody should be prohibited by economic circumstances from going to university does not equate to 'universalism'. Quite the opposite is true. Universalism actually works against those who need far more support if the dial on educational attainment is ever going to move, which it hasn't done in Scotland under present policies and posturing. If public money is to be better spent in Scotland to attack poverty and disadvantage while creating a thriving economy, then shibboleths will have to be challenged. The Scottish Government has never been short of money and certainly won't be now. The question of how it is spent and wasted should be the battlefield of political debate. Another satisfactory 'u-turn' confirmed yesterday was recognition that nuclear power will be an essential component in the transition to a clean energy future. I wish the same obvious conclusion had been reached 20 years ago, when I was arguing for it within government, or could be recognised even now by the student politicians in Edinburgh. With renewables and nuclear, Scotland really could have been a world leader on net zero. Without nuclear, it will still need fossil fuels for baseload for the foreseeable future with imports, rather oddly, regarded by some as morally superior to those extracted from the North Sea. Bring on another u-turn! Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
We ask the Apprentice Boys of Derry what they stand for
For some, it is a celebration of culture history and identity for others, it is a display of bigotry and sectarianism better left in the past. The Apprentice Boys of Derry held their biggest Scottish parade of the year in Larkhall with more than 50 associated clubs, each with a band, taking to the streets, with many more following or watching from the side. READ NEXT:Rachel Reeves says Labour will end use of hotels for asylum seekers The Glasgow Times was invited by the organisation to come along and speak to its leaders to find out what it is all about. Larkhall's streets were decked out in red, white and blue for the day with Union flags hanging from lampposts, windows and in gardens along the route. Late morning in Birkenshaw Park, the parade was assembling, with groups from Glasgow, Lanarkshire and beyond. Men are meeting and greeting, shaking hands, dressed in suits and crimson collarettes, carrying white gloves and bowler hats. (Image: Colin Mearns) The flutes and drums were starting to be heard from the bands, the same bands that accompany Orange Order parades. (Image: Colin Mearns) READ NEXT:Rise in suspected drug deaths in Glasgow so far this year David Hoey, general secretary of the Associated Clubs of the Apprentice Boys of Derry, was in demand, being introduced to members from around Scotland. (Image: Colin Mearns) We asked him what the purpose of the organisation is, which has 52 branch clubs in Scotland and many in Glasgow, and what the parade is all about. He answered that it is 'principally, a historical, commemorative organisation.' He said: 'The organisation has as its main purpose to celebrate the siege of Derry and the brave 13, but particularly the two big events are: the shutting of the gates, which is usually December when the Gates of Londonderry were closed against the forces of King James and then the relief of Derry when the city was finally relieved after 105 day siege in August.' 'That,' he said, 'is the primary purpose'. Not everyone, however, can join and commemorate this historic event. Mr Hoey explains: 'The criteria for membership is male and Protestant.' 'In terms of local areas, people would have to know each other and be invited, or apply and they would have to be known. 'But other than that, there's no particular criteria.' The male-only element, he said, is a support network, a place for men to come together and help one another. Mr Hoey said: 'It's a good place to meet. I keep telling people when they ask about it being male, it's the biggest men's shed organisation available because men get together, they meet. 'We're getting a remarkable number of young members into the organisation now and I think they're in where they can get people they can learn from. He added: 'They can learn skills. You have to run an organisation, you get positions on committee. You organise some of the events, and you get some of the young people involved. 'So, it's very much people coming together to try and organise and to help each other.' (Image: Colin Mearns) As well as organising parades, he said branch clubs rea active in the community and fundraise for their benevolent fund. Asked what they do when not on parade, Mr Hoey joked they are "organising the next one". He added: "There's a lot of activity, but everything is really geared to the big days. "There's occasionally a church service, but it's predominantly for those two big days." The events from 1689 being celebrated, he said, are still relevant today. (Image: Colin Mearns) (Image: Colin Mearns) Mr Hoey said: 'I think it's largely identity and place, so it gives people a sense of belonging. 'There are a lot of the characteristics of those who were besieged, I think form the identity of the Protestant loyalist culture, if you like. 'And that's what people identify, the determination, the resilience, the preparedness to basically stick it out, but also to create dialogue, to try and change things as well. 'And we're very, very keen that we work outside.' The other exclusive criteria, the Protestant only rule, has led to claims of sectarianism and accusations of being anti-catholic. Mr Hoey said such claims are rooted in ignorance and said he and his organisation is willing to have dialogue to prevent any flashpoints at parades. (Image: Colin Mearns) The Larkhall parade passed with no incident but in Glasgow, there have been protests, particularly around passing a specific Roman Catholic church, and previously in Northern Ireland, there was well well-documented, high-profile, sustained and violent confrontation. Mr Hoey said: 'I think the biggest opposition comes from the people who are most ignorant of what it's all about and imagine some offence or imagine that it's against them. 'It's really not. It's for us.' On the anti-catholic accusation, he added: 'People who want to say that don't want the parades to happen and they're basically throwing or projecting sectarianism onto the parades, but they have no basis for saying that. 'This is a culture. It is on parade. It's not trying to offend anybody. It's simply walking down a very long street and being out and saying we are the association. 'We are remembering a very important part of British history and that is what the day is about. 'It's not about others or offending or anything else. It's about the identity of those people and saying this is us, we're out here having a good day with our brothers, with our friends, with our families watching.' He used the example of Northern Ireland to illustrate how communities can work together. Mr Hoey said: 'The association, 25 years ago, was the first to engage outside of itself, you know, to go to go into the Parades Commission, to work with the local community, to work with the business community because we had a really bad time with violent opposition in Londonderry and there was no violence back. 'Our approach was to engage, and I know here in Scotland the SAC (Scottish Amalgamated Committee) has been working closely with the Centre for Good Relations, again to try and open up avenues of dialogue. 'People say 'the other' but there are lots of communities in Scotland now.' They are, he said, willing to 'work in formal channels' and 'open up' as far as possible. He added, however, there are always people who just don't want you there, and it's very hard to talk to people who simply are impractically opposed and don't want to talk.' The approach in Northern Ireland, he said, took a long time but has worked but he said it is an ongoing process. He added: "We have kept working ever since because you can never stop on that process. Stopping is the worst thing you could do.' He said the willingness to engage must be a two-way process, adding: "You can do your best to reach out. But you know you hold out your hand, but if. Someone doesn't. Want to shake it's not our job to make them.'
