The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Harpo]

It is quite another to leave naval secrets on the train or at a bus shelter.

What navy? (HMS Austerity last heard of heading for Cyprus.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Indeed, however there are measures which could have been used to limit the risk (such as straps attached to the phone to make a snatching harder to do).

That just gives you a broken wrist.

The phones are secure, they can be (and are) remotely wiped and bricked if there is any issue.

rust me i am fairly cynical but i don't think this is a conspiracy - if it is you will need to give McSweeny a lot more credit for his 4d chess skills than you have before!

I'm not cynical about the phone being stolen. They're lost or stolen all the time.

I am much more cynical about the fact the phone wasn't backed up.

 

[DarloRich]

I am much more cynical about the fact the phone wasn't backed up.

Agreed - That should be one of your business continuity activities if nothing else! ( i can see why you wouldn't, if only because you might say something about someone you didn't want coming back at a later date but still...........)

 

[SargeNpton]

That just gives you a broken wrist.

The phones are secure, they can be (and are) remotely wiped and bricked if there is any issue.


I'm not cynical about the phone being stolen. They're lost or stolen all the time.

I am much more cynical about the fact the phone wasn't backed up.

And that some of the communication with Mandelson were via WhatsApp.

 

[whoosh]

Most unfortunately, Morgan McSweeney, the PM's former chief of staff, appears to have had his mobile phone, which may have contained messages pertinent to the Mandelson debacle, stolen.

Don't worry, Louise Haigh can get him a new one in short order.

 

[Falcon1200]

What is the point of having a mobile if you are not allowed to use it outside?

What is the point of having offices if senior Government officials have to conduct business while walking down the street?!!

it is clear you have an issue with Labour

I have an issue with foolish and incompetent politicians, of which all parties have their fair share. I will not change my opinion, which is that McSweeney was stupid in the extreme to be using his phone containing confidential information in a public place outside.

 

[Harpo]

What is the point of having offices if senior Government officials have to conduct business while walking down the street?!!

Even in railway work I’ve had the boss chasing me when I’m out and about and when I’m not the on-call. The ‘FO’ response would be, er, career limitting.

I can’t imagine those around Starmer ever being off duty

 

[AlterEgo]

What is the point of having offices if senior Government officials have to conduct business while walking down the street?!!

Surely that is not a serious question. People need offices to send text messages now?

 

[Class73Electro]

Surely that is not a serious question. People need offices to send text messages now?

Well... when that text message / phone is likely to contain classified / government data...

 

[Falcon1200]

Surely that is not a serious question.

Which is why I added exclamation marks at the end of the sentence.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Not sure how much noise its making in the real world, but Labours commitments around leasehold reform are getting a fair bit of flack online.

The housing minister, Matthew Pennycock, is on X trying to defend that fact the policies being brought in fall short of the abolishment that was promised.

He is claiming that his quote from before the election saying that they would "end the leasehold system in its entirety" doesnt actually mean the plan was to abolish it and instead has said that the they "obviously do not mean outright abolition" when talking about these changes.

Quite how ending something in its entirety doesnt mean outright a solution, I have no idea!

And in more recent replies to people he is now just pointing at the manifesto there they just committed to leasehold reform, rather than the words and promises that were actually made that were very much around getting rid of it entirely.

1 - him on twitter saying they didn't mean outright abolishion - https://x.com/i/status/2037083095573119303

We obviously do not mean outright abolition, which would be an incredibly disruptive, costly, and complex undertaking that would undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on enfranchised and RTM buildings.

2 - him saying in parliament they would end it in its entirety - https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...ribution-D62A1B05-BEF1-47A6-B2CB-0848D2D9F896

This package as a whole, as I have said, will end the leasehold system in its entirety and in a single Parliament.

 

[Cdd89]

I've been following this too! The problem with stopping it for properties going forward is that it risks making older properties purchased as leasehold far less valuable, unless the government also acts to give leaseholders almost the same rights as freeholders/commonhold.

I think the real reason the government can't fully fix things for existing leaseholders is that it risks being challenged, either by the Lords or in the courts, as confiscatory and in violation of property rights (potentially via the ECHR).

This is probably why the government is seeking to cap ground rent at £250 rather than eliminating it: freezing it against future increases (a future reduction in real terms) is less controversial than elimination. As leasehold extension costs are primarily a legal/tribunal decision as a function of the future value of ground rent, it should make those cheaper too.

Cheaper is not zero though, and I do find it a potential concern that we end up with a two tier property system! I do agree that it sounds like Labour overpromised in their manifesto and are now trying to backpedal.

 

[WelshBluebird]

My understanding is that the way to get sorted it would be to simply convert existing leaseholds into something like a share of a freehold or other similar systems. Arguably this is actually easier for older properties because those leases tend to be more symbolic / peppercorn anyway. Its the more modern extortionate leases that will be more difficult becuase that would substantially impact the private interests of the freeholder. But of course it is those more modern examples where we really do need action.

As I'm not affected by it thankfully, I'd be open to Labour being a bit more transparent and saying we wanted to do X but its more complex than that so we are going to do Y now and maybe see what we can do for X later. And infact that is partly what they are saying to be fair. What I don't like is the semi gaslighting of people, especially with Pennycock where he has a direct quote about ending it in its entirety but is now trying to claim that isnt what was said. At least own that is what you want to do and is what you said!

 

[Harpo]

Leasehold is only part of the problem. Service charges deserve far more effort as they are often opaque and in four figures.

 

[Cdd89]

My understanding is that the way to get sorted it would be to simply convert existing leaseholds into something like a share of a freehold or other similar systems. Arguably this is actually easier for older properties because those leases tend to be more symbolic / peppercorn anyway. It's the more modern extortionate leases that will be more difficult becuase that would substantially impact the private interests of the freeholder.

This would definitely work for some simpler cases, but a lot of leasehold properties aren't just residential blocks but rather mixed-use residential-commercial blocks with supermarkets, shopping centres, offices or in upscale examples blocks with cinemas / gyms / hotels. A "collective responsibility" model doesn't work as well in blocks like these; it's ok to require developers to find another way around this at the time of construction (I think we'll increasingly see flats being self-contained / with separate entrances), but really challenging with historical properties.

You also have the issue that with the current Right To Manage scheme, the process doesn't involve any changes to the (often hundreds of) leases – the legislation is written such that the RTM association is substituted for the freeholder whenever it appears in the lease. That's a clean way of dealing with it, but with a commonhold conversion it would likely require rewriting leases. There's a practical issue that leases are individual contracts but form an entire group, it's not practical to change only a few leases in a way that makes other leases contradict them. So changing leases is expensive and requires unanimity and participation from all leaseholders.

This isn't to say it wouldn't be possible – both these issues could be worked around by a government determined enough to make the change, and I suspect Labour didn't think it through when writing their manifesto. But in practical terms, it compares poorly to keeping leasehold with right-to-manage, and trying to eliminate all the ways freeholders profit off leaseholders: ground rent, transfer packs, subletting fees, leasehold extensions, and (biggest of all) insurance responsibility.

(Re insurance, I served on an RTM and we found strong evidence that the freeholder was inflating building insurance costs by as much as 100% by using their favoured broker; their quote for the year was almost £1m with historical charges creeping up to that, citing a lack of appetite for any insurer to cover our block. While impossible to prove definitively that they were taking a backhander, we found quotes as low as £450k with other insurers. Although we couldn't use them, as insurance rights are reserved to freeholders, the evidence and threat of a tribunal referral was enough to force the freeholder to themselves find more reasonable quotes).

 

[Richard Scott]

Leasehold is only part of the problem. Service charges deserve far more effort as they are often opaque and in four figures.

These also appear on properties that are not leasehold. Some recent housing developments have a yearly payment for site maintenance, irrespective of whether the property is freehold or leasehold.

 

[brad465]

Leasehold is only part of the problem. Service charges deserve far more effort as they are often opaque and in four figures.

These also appear on properties that are not leasehold. Some recent housing developments have a yearly payment for site maintenance, irrespective of whether the property is freehold or leasehold.

I've long thought that while British tolerance is said to be a positive thing, in a lot of cases it's actually a weakness. "Rip off Britain", whether through service charges (both housing and in hospitality), airport parking/drop-off charges, utility costs and much more are possible because those levying them know the worst they will have to face is some moaning from the population. What the population needs is to have an attitude halfway between the French and our current attitude: prepared to rise up and protest hard against being ripped off, but not to the extent of rioting and other regular civil unrest.

There's a reason that rail workers and farmers have usually got their way when a government doesn't treat them well - they have both risen up against it hard enough to force a cave-in (rail workers have gone on strike and persevered, while farmers have done proper protests that get attention and are sustained).

 

[Harpo]

These also appear on properties that are not leasehold. Some recent housing developments have a yearly payment for site maintenance, irrespective of whether the property is freehold or leasehold.

Absolutely. Local authorities are compounding the issue with non-adoption of roads on new developments.

 

[The Ham]

Absolutely. Local authorities are compounding the issue with non-adoption of roads on new developments.

Indeed, however that's because many people don't want to pay extra taxes, however are more willing (although will still complain about it) to accept an extra £15 a month to the maintenance company.

Personally I'd rather argue that it was paid as a tax to the local council who would likely use some of it for other services for the greater good (please no Hot Fuzz references), but also mean that the roads were adopted sooner (or more likely at all).

You wouldn't need many new houses in the grand scheme of things for a county council (about 5,500) for them to have an extra income of £1 million a year. Yes there would be some extra maintenance costs, but probably less than sending two different crews (one private and one council) going to broadly the same area to do the same type of work.

 

[oldman]

Indeed, however that's because many people don't want to pay extra taxes, however are more willing (although will still complain about it) to accept an extra £15 a month to the maintenance company.

As I understand it, when a road is adopted there is no extra tax and no extra income for the council.

There may be foot-dragging by the council - a development in my area is described as 'prospectively adopted' five years after construction - but it may also suit the developers.

 

[Richard Scott]

As I understand it, when a road is adopted there is no extra tax and no extra income for the council.

There may be foot-dragging by the council - a development in my area is described as 'prospectively adopted' five years after construction - but it may also suit the developers.

There is extra income, those households will be paying council tax, surely.

 

[JamesT]

There is extra income, those households will be paying council tax, surely.

The houses will be paying council tax regardless of whether the road they're on is adopted.

 

[zero]

The houses will be paying council tax regardless of whether the road they're on is adopted.

Yeah, if that was an actual loophole many people would want to try and get their roads unadopted.

 

[TravelDream]

Leasehold is only part of the problem. Service charges deserve far more effort as they are often opaque and in four figures.

This.

It's going to be the new leasehold thing.

I have been viewing properties lately to buy. I went this lovely two bedroom apartment. Two very decently sized bedrooms. Two bathrooms (one ensuite) and a decent kitchen/ living room.
This in a twenty year old apartment complex.
The core issue was not the ground rent, but the service charge which was just over £3500. The estate agent wasn't exactly shy about hiding future increases as I think she thought there was little point.
I am not sure what it was for. Lights, the lifts and the concierge who I am sure I would survive without.

I also saw a house on a new development. It was freehold, but still had a service charge as the council weren't going to adopt the roads.

With no limits on these service charge increases, I can easily see it becoming a big issue in years to come.

 

[Altnashin]

With petrol and diesel prices increasing, due to the rising cost of oil, Labour are coming under fire for not increasing drilling in the North Sea.

There is so much misinformation going round it is difficult to know where to start.

 

[The Ham]

With petrol and diesel prices increasing, due to the rising cost of oil, Labour are coming under fire for not increasing drilling in the North Sea.

There is so much misinformation going round it is difficult to know where to start.

How long would it take for a new licence to create any oil or gas?

I've heard talk of it being 10 years, even if it's half that, that's at least Boris Johnson who would have needed to approve the licenses - even to get oil next year would have needed Truss to have done something (and she was politically more likely to have done it than Johnson).

More likely it would have needed the coalition government to have done it.

 

[Altnashin]

How long would it take for a new licence to create any oil or gas?

I've heard talk of it being 10 years, even if it's half that, that's at least Boris Johnson who would have needed to approve the licenses - even to get oil next year would have needed Truss to have done something (and she was politically more likely to have done it than Johnson).

More likely it would have needed the coalition government to have done it.

No, no, no, you are not paying attention to the armchair "experts" on YouTube.

Drilling can start tomorrow, forget all those "woke" nanny state regulations, they only apply when renewables are attacked.

Forget that the oil may not be suitable, forget that it will be priced on the international markets and certainly forget what happened to The U.K. refining capability and storage capacity, and who was in government for the last 14 years.

On a more serious note, as I stated in a previous post, social media is definitely responsible for Labour's decline.
I am no fan of this Labour Government, but I have seen so much misinformation on the likes of YouTube, so called "News" channels and Facebook etc...

What does make me laugh is that a lot of these opinion channels are quite vocal in their dislike of "The MSM" but apply a little critical thinking and you will see that the majority of their content is lifted from "The MSM"
And their opinions are no different from GB "News", Talk TV, The Telegraph, Daily Mail etc... and their opinion pieces and editorials.
I left a comment on quite a few questioning this stance, in the the name of "free speech" you understand, it was surprising how many of my comments were deleted.

Anyone who wishes to look into this, just type in the above channels to YouTube and see where its algorithm takes you.

 

[The Ham]

No, no, no, you are not paying attention to the armchair "experts" on YouTube.

Drilling can start tomorrow, forget all those "woke" nanny state regulations, they only apply when renewables are attacked.

Forget that the oil may not be suitable, forget that it will be priced on the international markets and certainly forget what happened to The U.K. refining capability and storage capacity, and who was in government for the last 14 years.

Oh yes, my mistake...

 

[Richard Scott]

The houses will be paying council tax regardless of whether the road they're on is adopted.

Yes they will but they'll pay the same whether the road is adopted or not so it's a bit of a con. Council happy to take money but doesn't want to adopt the road and make the household pay someone else to do it. You happy to pay twice for something?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes they will but they'll pay the same whether the road is adopted or not so it's a bit of a con. Council happy to take money but doesn't want to adopt the road and make the household pay someone else to do it. You happy to pay twice for something?

Our road is unadopted and our street prefers it this way. It enables us to enforce parking restrictions due to our proximity to the station and we are discussing putting a gate up to keep the road quiet.