Share this post:
Rachel Reeves is getting a free pass after breaking housing rules because she is Keir Starmer’s buddy.
Angela Rayner had to go after she broke housing rules – because she isn’t?
And this isn’t Reeves’s first rule breach – she took gifts in breach of Parliamentary rules. Oh, but that’s okay because Starmer did it too. Right?
Here‘s the BBC:
Sir Keir Starmer has dismissed calls for an investigation into Chancellor Rachel Reeves after she apologised for breaking housing rules when renting out her family home.
The chancellor [said she] became aware of the problem on Wednesday when the Daily Mail, who first reported the story, approached her for a comment.
In a letter to the prime minister, Reeves admitted she did not obtain a “selective” rental licence required to rent out her London home and “sincerely” apologised for her “inadvertent error”.
In reply, the prime minister said he was happy the “matter can be drawn to a close” after consulting his independent ethics adviser, who has decided not to launch an investigation.
Reeves wrote: “This was an inadvertent mistake. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we took immediate action and have applied for the licence.”
But wasn’t Rayner’s mistake inadvertent as well?
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving – in TWO days!
I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.
From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.
Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com
She bought a flat in Hove, East Sussex, valued at about £800,000 in May this year, paying the standard rate of stamp duty (roughly £30,000) as if it were her only residence.
But due to a prior arrangement—her home in Ashton-under-Lyne had been placed into a trust for her disabled son—she was treated under tax law as still owning another dwelling, meaning the Hove flat should have been treated as a “second home” and a higher stamp duty surcharge rate should have applied.
Rayner’s breach was also classed as “inadvertent” by the independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, whose investigation found that she acted in good faith, and did not intend to avoid tax or conceal anything,
But Sir Laurie concluded that she had breached the ministerial code by failing to seek specialist tax advice for her complex situation. He said she “acted with integrity” but did not meet the “highest possible standards of proper conduct”.
So she had to resign.
On the face of it, the two situations are strikingly similar – failure to follow housing rules, that was not intentional.
But while Rayner was found to have breached the ministerial code, it seems there has been no formal finding of the same against Reeves. Why not?
Here we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitting to breaking housing laws by renting out a property without the required selective licence — this is a breach that carries the risk of prosecution and an unlimited fine.
Yet, instead of facing investigation, Starmer waves it away with a “matter closed” letter after consulting his “independent” ethics adviser.
And this isn’t the first time Reeves has broken rules.
Earlier this year she was found to have failed to declare gifts, including luxury hospitality and tickets worth thousands of pounds — but again, that was quietly brushed aside.
Ah, but Starmer has also faced questions over similar undeclared gifts, and again, nothing happened – apart from a rule change to penalise anybody found taking such gifts in the future.
Contrast that with Rayner, who faced sustained pressure, public smearing, and ultimately resignation over her own property situation, which still hasn’t led to any formal finding of wrongdoing.
The difference seems obvious: Rayner wasn’t one of Starmer’s inner circle, while Reeves very much is.
It looks like one rule for Starmer’s favourites and another for everyone else. Reeves’ own words make the hypocrisy sharper still: she has previously praised selective licensing schemes that penalise landlords for exactly the kind of failure she committed.
She cannot say she did not know about such schemes.
It is also revealing that the breach was uncovered by the Daily Mail — not the government or regulators.
It was only after this happened that Reeves decided to “take immediate action”. That suggests her apology was damage control, not integrity.
This is a story of double standards, cronyism, and quiet impunity.
The same Labour leadership that hounded out Rayner for a supposed housing scandal has now closed ranks to protect one of its own for a proven one.
The cleaners at Downing Street must be struggling to cope with extra work of clearing up the mess and the stink of all the sleaze that Starmer and Reeves leave wherever they go.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Free pass for Rachel Reeves over housing corruption
Share this post:
Rachel Reeves is getting a free pass after breaking housing rules because she is Keir Starmer’s buddy.
Angela Rayner had to go after she broke housing rules – because she isn’t?
And this isn’t Reeves’s first rule breach – she took gifts in breach of Parliamentary rules. Oh, but that’s okay because Starmer did it too. Right?
Here‘s the BBC:
But wasn’t Rayner’s mistake inadvertent as well?
She bought a flat in Hove, East Sussex, valued at about £800,000 in May this year, paying the standard rate of stamp duty (roughly £30,000) as if it were her only residence.
But due to a prior arrangement—her home in Ashton-under-Lyne had been placed into a trust for her disabled son—she was treated under tax law as still owning another dwelling, meaning the Hove flat should have been treated as a “second home” and a higher stamp duty surcharge rate should have applied.
Rayner’s breach was also classed as “inadvertent” by the independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, whose investigation found that she acted in good faith, and did not intend to avoid tax or conceal anything,
But Sir Laurie concluded that she had breached the ministerial code by failing to seek specialist tax advice for her complex situation. He said she “acted with integrity” but did not meet the “highest possible standards of proper conduct”.
So she had to resign.
On the face of it, the two situations are strikingly similar – failure to follow housing rules, that was not intentional.
But while Rayner was found to have breached the ministerial code, it seems there has been no formal finding of the same against Reeves. Why not?
Here we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitting to breaking housing laws by renting out a property without the required selective licence — this is a breach that carries the risk of prosecution and an unlimited fine.
Yet, instead of facing investigation, Starmer waves it away with a “matter closed” letter after consulting his “independent” ethics adviser.
And this isn’t the first time Reeves has broken rules.
Earlier this year she was found to have failed to declare gifts, including luxury hospitality and tickets worth thousands of pounds — but again, that was quietly brushed aside.
Ah, but Starmer has also faced questions over similar undeclared gifts, and again, nothing happened – apart from a rule change to penalise anybody found taking such gifts in the future.
Contrast that with Rayner, who faced sustained pressure, public smearing, and ultimately resignation over her own property situation, which still hasn’t led to any formal finding of wrongdoing.
The difference seems obvious: Rayner wasn’t one of Starmer’s inner circle, while Reeves very much is.
It looks like one rule for Starmer’s favourites and another for everyone else. Reeves’ own words make the hypocrisy sharper still: she has previously praised selective licensing schemes that penalise landlords for exactly the kind of failure she committed.
She cannot say she did not know about such schemes.
It is also revealing that the breach was uncovered by the Daily Mail — not the government or regulators.
It was only after this happened that Reeves decided to “take immediate action”. That suggests her apology was damage control, not integrity.
This is a story of double standards, cronyism, and quiet impunity.
The same Labour leadership that hounded out Rayner for a supposed housing scandal has now closed ranks to protect one of its own for a proven one.
The cleaners at Downing Street must be struggling to cope with extra work of clearing up the mess and the stink of all the sleaze that Starmer and Reeves leave wherever they go.
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
Like this:
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
Like this:
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry
Like this:
Like this: