The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Magdalia]

I have had two experiences of leasehold.

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.

The first started more than 40 years ago and was basically this. The developer held the freehold through a management company that was then acquired by the residents, each flat owner having one share. It worked quite well at first but got much harder when the leaseholds were acquired by buy to let landlords. We just regarded the ground rent as part of the management charges.

ut 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

I'm now back on leasehold, but I wouldn't touch any of these with a bargepole. I'm now a shared owner with a housing association, who are the freeholder, and also have rental properties in the block. I've yet to see a convincing proposal for how to reform this.

The core issue was not the ground rent, but the service charge which was just over £3500.

My 2026/27 service charge notification is on my desk. The annual amount is about the same as this and I regard it as a bargain. I know someone recently retired from working in housing association finance and they were shocked how low it was.

It amazes me how people seem to want something for nothing. The breakdown of costs is not opaque, though it could be better presented. The biggest contributions (in round percentages) are:

15% major repairs sinking fund
10% staff costs (we have a part time scheme manager and share a compliance officer who does one day a week here)
10% buildings insurance
10% management costs
10% other sinking funds
10% communal utilities
5% day to day repairs
5% grounds maintenance and interior cleaning

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

Our apartment block is on a larger development where the roads are still not adopted. A lot of this is about costs now v costs later. In the short term the council not adopting the roads suits both sides, because the development is new and doesn't need much maintenance. The big issues will come when things start to need big repairs and, for different reasons, neither the council or the developer will have the funds to pay for them. On the other hand, if and when our building needs major repairs, the housing association will have a sinking fund to pay for them.

 

[jon0844]

....the sales figures of newspapers such as The Sun or The Daily Mail.

Newspaper sales are falling off a cliff year-on-year. All are now well under a million copies per day, and most have stopped publishing sales data because I guess they don't want readers or advertisers to be so clearly aware of the demise of physical paper sales.

As for online, it really is meaningless as most clicks will be on clickbait/ragebait articles about absolutely anything and not actual news. People are hired to work for papers like the Daily Mail to produce multiple posts per day that are measured on traffic and engagement, including syndicating content from other countries.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2026 ==

Of course it is, it's free!

I pick up a copy in winter to light the log burner with.

Metro is now so thin I bet it doesn't even do that well anymore.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2026 ==

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

I wish I could find the link, but there's a YouTube video out there that does a great job of equating towns and cities as ponzi schemes. You build new estates to get some more income, but you'll never receive enough money to fund all the extra roads and infrastructure - so you build more developments and get a bit more S.106 funding, but then that runs out and you.. get the idea.

No wonder roads aren't maintained to a high standard, and it gets worse year after year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2026 ==

A video came into my YouTube feed from just yesterday, which covers my point! [Link jumps to section where the cost of roads is covered]

 

[The Ham]

I wish I could find the link, but there's a YouTube video out there that does a great job of equating towns and cities as ponzi schemes. You build new estates to get some more income, but you'll never receive enough money to fund all the extra roads and infrastructure - so you build more developments and get a bit more S.106 funding, but then that runs out and you.. get the idea.

No wonder roads aren't maintained to a high standard, and it gets worse year after year.

It's certainly a bigger issue in the US where houses are bigger and you need more roads and sewers and other infrastructure to serve the same number of homes as in the UK.

Especially given that cities in the US can of their not careful can end up with their centers being not much more than lots of car parks with a few shops around the edges of them.

It's one of the reasons why it's good that we are looking to try and increase housing density by looking at brownfield sites and why trying to reduce car use is so much a very good thing.

Even on sites which would have historically been mostly housing developers are looking at putting in flats (especially if they also have to provide shops and community facilities as they'll put them over the top in 3 maybe 4 storey blocks, so of a scale that you may have 4 to 20 flats per block depending on the size of the ground floor use).

Likewise many developers are providing 2.5 storey homes (rooms in what otherwise would be loft space) as well as 3 storey homes at they can fit more people in the same land space.

There's two sides to this, the first is that a (say) 3 bedroom home might not cost much more to buy/build than the same footprint 2 bedroom home (at least compared to one where the house spreads out to fit in the extra room), giving people a bit more of an affordable way to gain a bedroom of they need it.

To give an example, our current 4 bedroom 3 storey home with a garage (where our bedroom had doubled in size compared to our old house and all the other bedrooms are all larger than our old bedroom, including a second one which is double the size) it's sat on broadly the same amount of land (maybe slightly less due to having less front garden, bit that was that useful) as our old 3 bedroom 2 storey home (where the 3rd bedroom only really allowed a single bed and not much more).

The other is that with goals sizes being smaller, people can gain more useable inside space but not have to significantly increase their gardens.

Whilst one set of my grandparents had a lot more downstairs space than we do currently, there's not a lot more that they did in their house which we can't do in ours, although it is a bit tighter during around a table in the kitchen rather than in a dedicated dining room. However such rooms are often rarely used (almost only when there were more than 3 guests).

Conversely, our bedrooms are more spacious and so we can, by having the kids share, have another family stay over and provide them all with at least a trundle bed with a proper mattress (whilst my grandparents could only just accommodate my family as well as them in their 4 bed house due to the smaller room sizes; we would have also had comparably fewer wash facilities per person).

Given my grandparents house was set in 1/3 acre of land that's a lot of land take for not a lot of day to day useable space, but a significant amount of extra gardening and a load more in hearing costs.

Yes, their house was much bigger, but it was also quite a bit more expensive (my guess probably double), and so wouldn't have been something which we could have afforded, yet our house is capable of similar functions, at a lower cost (up front and ongoing) but sometimes (and maybe 15 times a year) meal times are a bit cozier and that's pretty much the main downside (there are others, but they are limited and don't really cause us an issue).

Having said that there are also advantages (it's easier to serve up foof as the table is much closer to the oven and hob), so overall (other than being able to sell a house like that and buy a house like ours and I'm doing so be able to clear the mortgage) I wouldn't be tempted to swap.

 

[Richard Scott]

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.

There's always an exception but sure most people in same position don't have privilege of being able to put up a gate. Some are on housing estates where you just couldn't do that.

 

[Harpo]

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.

Choose very carefully. A family member in property management says that the electric gates on their patch are unreliable, maintenance support hard to obtain/enforce (especially parts) and cause major frustration over faults and service charge costs. Caveat emptor!

 

[The Ham]

Choose very carefully. A family member in property management says that the electric gates on their patch are unreliable, maintenance support hard to obtain/enforce (especially parts) and cause major frustration over faults and service charge costs. Caveat emptor!

Indeed, I used to work somewhere with a private gate (office in one part and flats on the other, both behind a single gate) street a few years the gate needed substantial repairs and then after that was only set to close overnight due to being overworked if it was closed during the day.

Tes, out was the only gate so also had to open for people walking in and out too, however that wasn't a big development, maybe 24 flats and an office of 14 people.

 

[TravelDream]

Has anyone noticed a tone change in the media?

Before, it was Starmer couldn't survive May. Now, based on that tone, it seems more likely he will and perhaps take us all the way to 2029.

Choose very carefully. A family member in property management says that the electric gates on their patch are unreliable, maintenance support hard to obtain/enforce (especially parts) and cause major frustration over faults and service charge costs. Caveat emptor!

And then someone inevitably drives into it.

The local Novotel had a gate someone crashed into that was 'under repairs' for about 12 months. It was only operational about six weeks after it was replaced when someone else crashed into it.
They installed ANPR cameras not long after and think they've decided that's the best way to enforce their ludicrous parking fees.

But parking can be a huge issue wherever you go. My uncle bought a house outside a primary school a few years back. Everytime I see him, he complains non-stop about people parking outside his home all day (teachers) and the dreaded school run.
I have little sympathy though. Everyone knows schools are chaotic during drop-off and pick-up times, and that school has been there far longer than he and I have been alive. He knew it had no staff car park due to the constraints of being a Victorian school on an urban site, but still chose to buy.

 

[The Ham]

Closer ties with the EU are likely:

Keir Starmer: UK will seek closer ties with EU in light of Iran war

It comes as UK-US relations have been strained by the PM's refusal to be dragged further into the Iran war.

www.bbc.co.uk

The UK will pursue closer economic ties with the European Union in light of the war in Iran, Sir Keir Starmer has said.

The prime minister told a news conference he would use a summit with the EU later this year to seek more cooperation with the bloc on the economy and security.

It comes as relations between the US and the UK have been increasingly strained by the PM's refusal to be drawn further into the war with Iran.

In his speech, Sir Keir warned the conflict would impact the UK but sought to reassure the public the government was taking action to ease the cost of living.

It also goes on to say:

Meanwhile, the foreign secretary is hosting 35 nations - including European and Gulf counties - on Thursday.

The PM said the meeting would discuss possible measures to make the Strait of Hormuz "accessible and safe after the fighting has stopped".

He added that "this will not be easy" but said it was in the UK's national interest for the strait to reopen.

 

[DarloRich]

Sensible stuff - we cant rely on America and we cant stand on our own waving our sovereignty about!

 

[Harpo]

Sensible stuff - we cant rely on America and we cant stand on our own waving our sovereignty about!

Just as we wave our Sovereign off to the USA?

 

[TravelDream]

Closer ties with the EU are likely:

Hallelujah. Totally sensible stuff. It was madness, economically and security wise, to have distanced ourselves from our closest neighbors and economic partners. Especially to rely on the US which is going through a severe midlife crisis and countries on the other side of the planet.

 

[Solweytracker]

Hallelujah. Totally sensible stuff. It was madness, economically and security wise, to have distanced ourselves from our closest neighbors and economic partners. Especially to rely on the US which is going through a severe midlife crisis and countries on the other side of the planet.

Accepting Brexit was a mistake and was mismanaged, Labour and Starmer's track record on his 2025 EU reset has surely had a pathetic score-card so far:
Fishing Rights/ negotiation status :- Gave away to EU 12 years' access, instead of annual quota negotiations.
Access to the EU SAFE defence rearmament fund: Talks broke down through excessive contribution demands by EU and %-sourcing restrictions

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think there is really much getting closer to the EU will do for any of our major problems.

It won't make more houses appear, it won't reverse 35 years of strategically bankrupt energy policy (and will make reversing it harder or impossible!). It won't fix our serious problems in terms of transport systems, planning apparatus, infrastructure delivery or any of that.

If none of these problems are fixed, marginal improvements in trade with Europe won't matter.

Honestly it just sounds like Starmer running back to his "happy place" - the world as it was in the late 1990s or early 2000s, even though that world doesn't really exist any more.

 

[Meole]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

 

[AlterEgo]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA

Not many of them left now. Fast becoming a niche opinion, at 30% and falling.

 

[Gloster]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

Elected by who?

 

[jon0844]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

When did anyone say we would leave the EU to become aligned with the USA?

I know that's what Nigel Farage wants, but what happened to us getting our country back, sovereignty etc?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't on the voting form I filled in. Nor do I recall anyone arguing for leaving saying we'd do that.

 

[Darandio]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

You've just made that up.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm pretty sure it wasn't on the voting form I filled in.

Oh I dunno it turned out there were all sorts of things in that ballot that were apparently inviolable promises that weren't actually written in the text of the ballot.

 

[TravelDream]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

They didn't vote for that at all. They voted to leave the European Union. That's open to interpretation. You could leave the EU and stay in the single market and the customs union.

Anyway, support for 'leave' has plummeted over the years as people die off and other realize what a major mistake it was.

I don't think we are going back in the EU anytime soon. It's still too politically hot and the EU would be very hesitant over taking us back.

But a better much closer relationship is only a positive for us economically and security wise.

 

[Strathclyder]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

What sort of nonsense is this?

The only one causing 'immense problems' right now is the demented moron squatting in the Oval Office who's expecting the rest of us to go in and clean up the unforced clusterfudge he's made of the Middle East (the story of his life really; just replace NATO with Roy Cohen or his father), to say nothing of his band of ring-kissing sycophants (some of whom may or may not be personally profiteering off this madness on top of everything else).

Besides which, I'm pretty certain that aligning ourselves with the Bannana Republic-poorly cosplaying as a 1st-world country dumpster fire that is the US wasn't on the voting form I filled out back in 2016. Pretty sure that's what Farage and his ilk want though as that's where the money is. Selling both your soul - how bold of me to assume there was one to sell - and the country you consistently claim to love so much down the river is very profitable as we've seen with the Republicans state-side when kissing the orange ring.

He's a repulsive blend of Moseley and Quisling, is Farage, and it's long past time he be treated as such.

Oh I dunno it turned out there were all sorts of things in that ballot that were apparently inviolable promises that weren't actually written in the text of the ballot.

Oh they were written on the ballot alright. Just in invisible ink on the reverse side that only became visible after one's vote was cast. Or it only became visible to those who voted leave.

And that is only half as nonsensical as some of the excuses we've heard for this self-inflicted kneecapping over the years. Sorry, but there are limits to my imagination imposed by my inability to see and interpret reality through a funhouse mirror.

They didn't vote for that at all. They voted to leave the European Union. That's open to interpretation. You could leave the EU and stay in the single market and the customs union.

Anyway, support for 'leave' has plummeted over the years as people die off and other realize what a major mistake it was.

I don't think we are going back in the EU anytime soon. It's still too politically hot and the EU would be very hesitant over taking us back.

But a better much closer relationship is only a positive for us economically and security wise.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[43096]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

I'm not sure how we can "leave Europe completely" given our geographic location is in Europe and not something that much can be done about!

 

[gg1]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

As already mentioned, that wasn't on the ballot paper, and if leave voters were really thinking that, it only reinforces the stereotype of the average leave voter not being too bright, being happy to trade the partnership of equals that is the EU for becoming the compliant lapdog of the US.

 

[BAFRA77]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA, Starmer's failure to work with the west's elected leader is causing immense problems.

This claim isn’t just wrong - it’s a full‑blown fantasy.

Pretending Brexit voters backed some imaginary “pivot to the US” while insisting Starmer is “failing the West,” which is a bold take considering the only real source of chaos in UK–US relations is Trump’s own erratic, antagonistic behaviour.

But sure, blaming nonexistent UK shortcomings is certainly easier than acknowledging what’s happening right in front of everyone’s faces.

On the bright side, at least reality isn’t going anywhere - unlike my missing socks, which still haven’t returned from the laundry dimension.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Apr 2026 ==

As already mentioned, that wasn't on the ballot paper, and if leave voters were really thinking that, it only reinforces the stereotype of the average leave voter not being too bright, being happy to trade the partnership of equals that is the EU for becoming the compliant lapdog of the US.

Can you use crayons on a ballot paper?

 

[JamieL]

Brexit voters will see this as a betrayal having voted to leave Europe completely and align with the USA...

This statement is wrong on so many levels. Given the immense damage Brexit has done to the UK, the betrayal was supporting Brexit in the first place. Thankfully common sense is finally starting to gain traction again. It may take a decade to get us back in, but we need to purse that without delay now.

 

[Gloster]

This statement is wrong on so many levels. Given the immense damage Brexit has done to the UK, the betrayal was supporting Brexit in the first place. Thankfully common sense is finally starting to gain traction again. It may take a decade to get us back in, but we need to purse that without delay now.

I think that it will take a great deal longer than a decade: two, maybe nearer three. However sensible and in our interests rejoining, the EU is wary of going through a long series of negotiations only to find a new government of a different complection will immediately walk away or make ridiculous demands and play the victim.

Labour is quite right not to bother with actively rejoining for the moment and making do with small improvements to our trading and general relationship that will advantage us far more than the EU, which is generally being quite generous (by not saying, “P. off: you made your bed, now lie on it”). And I write as an ardent supporter of the whole principle, but I am also a realist.

 

[jon0844]

I think that it will take a great deal longer than a decade: two, maybe nearer three. However sensible and in our interests rejoining, the EU is wary of going through a long series of negotiations only to find a new government of a different complection will immediately walk away or make ridiculous demands and play the victim.

Labour is quite right not to bother with actively rejoining for the moment and making do with small improvements to our trading and general relationship that will advantage us far more than the EU, which is generally being quite generous (by not saying, “P. off: you made your bed, now lie on it”). And I write as an ardent supporter of the whole principle, but I am also a realist.

You know how most people feel sorry for a lot of Americans, who didn't vote for Trump or want to see their country becoming isolated from the rest of the world? Well, an awful lot of EU citizens think the same for us. They aren't gloating and would actually really like to see us re-join.

 

[Gloster]

You know how most people feel sorry for a lot of Americans, who didn't vote for Trump or want to see their country becoming isolated from the rest of the world? Well, an awful lot of EU citizens think the same for us. They aren't gloating and would actually really like to see us re-join.

Indeed they do and would, but the EU is rightly wary of getting a long way with negotiations only to see them thrown back in their face by a new government here. Despite the way that the results of Brexit for us has damaged the case for other countries and caused calls for Frexit, Grexit, Swexit, etc. to fall away, it would still damage the institution itself if that happened. Labour is, I think, being wise to concentrate on small rapprochements as a first stage to reaching the point where rejoining is acceptable to all but a tiny, insignificant minority. They have enough battles to fight as it is, so keep to ones that might bear fruit in the short term.

 

[JamieL]

I think you need to forget about Labour - they are dust at the next election. I think it will be the smaller parties that hold sway - Reform, Greens, Lib Dems, nationalists.

 

[Falcon1200]

It may take a decade to get us back in, but we need to purse that without delay now.

But what would it cost to get back in?!! This is the same question I would ask the SNP, as their stated aim, should Scotland achieve independence, is to rejoin the EU. Presumably whether rejoining as the UK or just Scotland, we would be, financially, a net contributor, and this time I doubt the EU would be offering especially favourable terms.

Personally, I voted Remain, but in a referendum to rejoin the EU (which there would absolutely have to be) I am not sure how I would vote; It would very much depend on the cost and the terms.