Rushanara Ali's eviction is Labour's latest self-inflicted shambles
Ali was caught bang to rights for conduct as a private landlord that flew in the face of her ministerial brief for addressing homelessness, and of specific reforms she was introducing as part of the Renters' Rights Bill that is currently completing its passage through parliament. She was found to have given tenants of a four-bedroom townhouse she owned in London's east end notice to quit, only to relist the £850,000 property a little later at a rent £700 a month higher.
Under the legislation as it stands, there is no illegality here. She gave her tenants due notice, the house was put up for sale, and relisted for letting – at an increased monthly cost of £4,000 – only when it did not immediately sell.
But this is precisely one of those practices that currently places renters at such a disadvantage vis-a-vis landlords. Labour's new legislation will require a gap of at least six months between removing tenants and re-advertising the tenancy at a higher price. The point is that even if there was no actual breach of the law on Ali's part, there was a glaring clash of standards and more than a whiff of hypocrisy.
Here was the homelessness minister, renting out an expensive London house, seeing off her tenants, and seeking a £700-a-month rise in rent. It is not good enough to say, well, that's just the London rental market for you, that is how it works. By virtue of her ministerial position, Ali was not just another London landlord. And the mismatch between her fortunate position in the housing market and her ministerial duty to improve the lot of those without any home to go to was stark.
Homelessness and the acute shortage of affordable housing, especially but not exclusively in and around London, is one of today's most pressing social issues, and one that this government has set as a priority. Figures from March this year showed more than 130,000 people in England living in temporary accommodation – a record – and rough sleeping also showing a sharp rise. Few would suggest that Ali should be donating her house to homeless people rather than letting it at a commercial rate, but her lack of awareness is striking. With no apparent sensitivity about the intersection of her private and public lives, it could be argued that she was at the very least in the wrong job.
Whether she jumped or was pushed after the revelations hardly matters. This is a situation that should never have arisen and it can only add to the entirely avoidable harm that this Labour government has inflicted on itself.
Sleaze and a widespread perception of double standards was a big – and possibly fatal – liability for the Conservatives in the last election. And when Labour cruised to its landslide, there was an enthusiastic welcome for a government that, it was hoped, would exercise power with the cleanest of hands. Such expectations, however, were soon dashed.
Along came the procession of claims about lavish freebies from donors enjoyed by leading members of the new front bench, from designer clothes to weekends in New York and tickets to shows. Reports about Angela Rayner buying her council house under the Right to Buy scheme hardly helped. Again, this was not because there was anything illegal, but because of the dissonance it exposed between her own actions in the past and the policy she espouses in government, which is to impose sharp limits on sales of social housing.
The disillusionment that rapidly set in only reinforced an already widespread distrust in politicians and fuelled a view that 'this lot' were no better than the last. And while it would be quite wrong to tar all, or even most, politicians with the brush of being self-seeking money-grubbers intent on feathering their own nests, instances where MPs can claim large amounts for their housing, heating and other costs from the taxpayer, even as they may be letting out homes they own and snagging freebies, do the reputation of government and parliament no favours.
In the case of Rushanara Ali, there is another, party political aspect. She won her east London seat of Bethnal Green and Stepney last year with a majority of only a little over 1,000. Given current trends in UK politics, her seat is highly vulnerable to challenges, most likely from an independent – probably Jeremy Corbyn's new Your Party. In this respect, what has happened has the potential to inflict a triple whammy of damage on the Labour government.
It weakens its claim to be the champion of the homeless and those generally in housing need. It reinforces the idea that Labour is no better than the Tories when it comes to sleaze and self-interest – and it could make it even harder for Ali to retain her seat at the next general election, so increasing the risk for Labour of seeing its 2024 landslide turned to defeat in 2029.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Could an outright ban on zero-hours contracts harm working mums?
Since the Labour government came into power in the summer of 2024, ministers have pledged to crackdown on 'exploitative' zero-hours contracts as part of changes to the employment bill. Under the new rules proposed, employers will have to offer workers a contract that guarantees a minimum number of hours every week – a change many see as a significant step forward for job security. More than one million people in the UK are working on a zero-hours contract basis, in areas ranging from hospitality and warehouses to the NHS. Women are disproportionately affected by the precarious nature of zero-hours work, which contributes to the gender pay gap. Read more: Why did shared parental leave fail in the UK? According to the Trades Union Congress, women are 34% more likely than men to be on such contracts, and they earn nearly £10 less an hour than men who aren't on them. However, some argue that an outright ban, without tackling the growing shortage of flexible jobs, won't truly level the playing field for women and working mothers. Chronic lack of flexible work In a push to pre-pandemic flexible working arrangements, almost half of all businesses across the UK now want staff back in the office on a full-time basis, a British Chambers of Commerce survey of more than 500 businesses found. At the same time, more than a million UK workers have quit their jobs in the past year because of a lack of flexibility. This U-turn is hitting mothers hard, with one in four forced to leave the workforce because it's impossible to work and care for children without adequate flexibility. 'An outright ban on zero‑hours contracts could indeed harm working mothers, but not for the reasons you'd expect,' says Elizabeth Willets, founder of the recruitment firm Investing in Women. 'The issue isn't that women choose precarious work. It's that our labour market offers so few truly flexible, professional-level roles – and zero‑hours contracts often become the only way to combine work and caregiving.' Women aren't taking on zero-hours roles by choice. For many, there is no quality flexible or part-time equivalent. According to the 2023 Flexible Jobs Index by Timewise, the number of jobs advertised as flexible has plateaued. Only 31% overtly offer it – which is a negligible change from 30% in 2022. 'It leaves women balancing insecurity against inflexibility as their only options,' says Willets. Women need enough to live and plan on That being said, there's a need to balance flexibility with financial stability. For those without guaranteed hours, it's hard to anticipate income and schedule childcare in advance, says Rachel Carell, founder and CEO of childcare organisation Koru Kids. 'We've worked with many working mums as freelancers doing things like marketing and design – but rarely on zero hours,' she says. 'I've heard again and again that flexibility is vital, but so is the ability to plan and earn enough to live on. Zero-hours contracts rarely offer that.' Read more: What to expect from a maternity discrimination employment tribunal About 80% of zero-hours contract workers want regular hours, with 75% reporting financial hardship due to insufficient hours. And, these contracts can sometimes limit flexibility too. According to TUC research, two-thirds (67%) of mothers on zero-hours contracts have difficulty managing work with childcare – and two-thirds have missed out on a planned family event because of needing to work. When Carell launched the business, most of the nannies were on zero-hours contracts. 'But we moved away from these contracts voluntarily, because we heard from Koru Kids nannies that they didn't provide the security the nannies needed. We worked with parents to design new contracts that still gave flexibility, but also offered predictable hours and income,' she explains. Finding a flexible middle ground Clearly, change is needed – but simply banning zero-hours contracts may not be the solution. What could be done to keep those who rely on flexibility in the workforce, without forcing them to sacrifice their income? 'Countries like New Zealand, Germany and Ireland have shown ways to regulate zero-hours use while preserving flexibility,' says Willets. In 2016, New Zealand banned the insecurity of zero-hours contracts, not the adaptability. Employers still get to increase hours when needed, but workers start from a guaranteed base, are compensated for standby time and can decline extra work without fear of losing future shifts. 'Short-term reforms could also include guaranteed minimum hours after six months, notice periods for shift changes and pension contributions from day one, regardless of earning thresholds,' adds Willets. 'In the long-term? The real fix lies in businesses offering genuine alternatives like quality job shares, part-time roles aligned with professional pay scales, term-time contracts that don't penalise women and flexible working from day one.' Offering quality part-time work in senior roles would no doubt help to narrow the gender pay gap, which widens at higher salary levels. Below salaries of £20,000, 22% of job adverts offer part-time work, but this almost halves to 12% at the £20k point. And, it reduces to just 6% amongst jobs paid more than £60,000 a year. Improving access to promotions for part-time workers is also key. Michelle Chikanda, who founded the leadership firm Legacy Never Dies to work around her 2-year old son, adds that a ban on zero-hours could lead to more permanent and consistent work being available, if the government aids businesses. 'A ban must be matched with tax incentives for businesses that reduce the cost of hiring certain groups of people, like working mothers, creating a sustainable solution for all parties,' she says. Ultimately, the goal should be to replace zero-hours contracts with stable, flexible roles that don't force women into choosing between work, stability and their families. 'That's how we build real equity,' says Willets. 'Not with one-size-fits-all reform, but with thoughtful change grounded in lived reality.' Read more: How to speak to your boss about miscarriage How to stay motivated during a long job hunt Does mental health first aid work?Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump is promising new steps to tackle homelessness and crime in Washington
Trump is promising new steps to tackle homelessness and crime in Washington WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is promising new steps to tackle homelessness and crime in Washington, prompting the city's mayor to voice concerns about the potential use of the National Guard to patrol the streets in the nation's capital. Trump wrote in a social media post that he planned a White House news conference at 10 a.m. Monday to discuss his plans to make the District of Columbia 'safer and more beautiful than it ever was before.' 'The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY,' Trump wrote Sunday. 'We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don't have to move out. We're going to put you in jail where you belong.' Last week the Republican president directed federal law enforcement agencies to increase their presence in Washington for seven days, with the option 'to extend as needed.' On Friday night, federal agencies including the Secret Service, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service assigned more than 120 officers and agents to assist in Washington. Trump said last week that he was considering ways for the federal government to seize control of Washington, asserting that crime was 'ridiculous' and the city was 'unsafe,' after the recent assault of a high-profile member of the Department of Government Efficiency. The moves Trump said he was considering included bringing in the D.C. National Guard. Mayor Muriel Bowser questioned the effectiveness of using the Guard to enforce city laws and said the federal government could be far more helpful by funding more prosecutors or filling the 15 vacancies on the D.C. Superior Court, some of which have been open for years. Bowser cannot activate the National Guard herself, but she can submit a request to the Pentagon. 'I just think that's not the most efficient use of our Guard,' she said Sunday on MSNBC's 'The Weekend,' acknowledging it is "the president's call about how to deploy the Guard.' Bowser was making her first public comments since Trump started posting about crime in Washington last week. She noted that violent crime in Washington has decreased since a rise in 2023. Trump's weekend posts depicted the district as 'one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the World." For Bowser, 'Any comparison to a war-torn country is hyperbolic and false.' Police statistics show homicides, robberies and burglaries are all down this year when compared with this time in 2024. Overall violent crime is down 26% compared with this time a year ago. Trump offered no details in Truth Social posts over the weekend about possible new actions to address crime levels that he argues are dangerous for citizens, tourists and workers alike. The White House declined to offer additional details about Monday's announcement. The police department and the mayor's office did not respond to questions about what Trump might do next. The president criticized the district as full of 'tents, squalor, filth, and Crime,' and he seems to have been set off by the attack on Edward Coristine, among the most visible figures of the bureaucracy-cutting effort known as DOGE. Police arrested two 15-year-olds in the attempted carjacking and said they were looking for others. 'This has to be the best run place in the country, not the worst run place in the country,' Trump said Wednesday. The president called Bowser 'a good person who has tried, but she has been given many chances.' Trump has repeatedly suggested that the rule of Washington could be returned to federal authorities. Doing so would require a repeal of the Home Rule Act of 1973 in Congress, a step Trump said lawyers are examining. It could face steep pushback. Bowser acknowledged that the law allows the president to take more control over the city's police, but only if certain conditions are met. 'None of those conditions exist in our city right now," she said. 'We are not experiencing a spike in crime. In fact, we're watching our crime numbers go down.' ___ Associated Press writers Ashraf Khalil and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report. David Klepper, The Associated Press

Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Australia will recognize the State of Palestine,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says
Australia will recognize a Palestinian state, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Monday, joining the leaders of France, Britain and Canada in signaling they would do so.