Share this post:

Rushanara Ali has resigned from her role as Homelessness Minister after evicting tenants — a move that, while in line with the law, contradicted her ministerial responsibilities and the spirit of the Labour government’s housing reform agenda.

The resignation comes amid a storm over her handling of a property she owns in east London.

After informing tenants their lease would not be renewed due to a planned sale, the house was later re-listed for rent at £700 more per month — a practice the very department she oversaw is seeking to outlaw under the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Ali insisted in her resignation letter that she had followed all legal requirements and took her duties seriously, but acknowledged that “perception matters,” and remaining in post would be a distraction.

Her decision to step down has been welcomed by housing charities and campaign groups, who labelled her actions “indefensible.”

But the incident raises a broader question: if she hadn’t resigned, would Downing Street have removed her?

Is this about more than legality?

It is true that Ali did not break any laws. She gave the required four months’ notice, and the new rental listing only occurred after a failed sale.

The problem lies in the contradiction between personal conduct and political mission.

The Renters’ Rights Bill, now in its final Parliamentary stages, would ban landlords from re-listing properties for rent within six months of evicting tenants to sell — precisely what happened here.

As Homelessness Minister, Ali was supposed to lead on protecting renters from exactly this kind of instability.

That’s why campaigners, including the London Renters Union and Renters’ Reform Coalition, said her position was “untenable.”

It wasn’t just a bad look — it was a direct conflict with the values and policies she was supposed to represent.

Would Starmer’s government have acted?

There’s no clear sign that Labour leadership was preparing to sack Ali.

The Prime Minister’s response was polite, even warm, thanking her for her “diligent” work and expressing hope she would continue to support the government from the backbenches.

The absence of any public criticism from Labour’s top team suggests that the leadership may have preferred to avoid a confrontation, allowing Ali to resign on her own terms.

This cautious approach is typical of Starmer’s leadership style — calculated and focused on party unity, sometimes at the expense of swift moral clarity.

In that light, Ali’s resignation appears more principled than his: she recognised the contradiction between her personal actions and her public role, and chose to step down before her position became untenable.

What does this say about Labour’s moral compass?

The episode highlights a tension between individual responsibility and party leadership.

By resigning, Ali showed awareness of the moral expectations attached to her role.

But the government’s reluctance to act swiftly raises the question of whether Labour is fully prepared to govern with the integrity it promised.

Starmer campaigned on restoring trust in politics, after years of scandal and erosion under the Conservatives.

Yet this is the sixth resignation from his government — not catastrophic, but certainly awkward for a party that had time in opposition to prepare itself for the responsibilities of power.

If “perception matters,” as Ali put it, then the Labour leadership will need to do more than manage optics.

It must demonstrate moral clarity when controversies emerge — not only when a minister chooses to step aside.

Share this post: