RocketCommunications

There is a very serious point about Rachel Reeves being an unlicensed landlord. It is a Landlord's own responsibility to abide by the rules. The liability rests with a landlord for breaches of landlord law. Agents have other liabilities they are responsible for, but this isn't one. "Inadvertently" is meaningless. The law was broken. That she thinks, even for one moment, that the law doesn't apply to her, and that an apology is enough for her to be absolved, when ALL other landlords would be fined, is deeply egregious. And that's before we remember how she (rightly) lectured other politicians on rule avoidance. It's tone deaf. It's patronising, it's insulting and above all, it's a gross dereliction of her position as a leader of the government that imposes the laws on us. There are absolutely no circumstances under which it's acceptable for her to stay in post. Keir Starmer may end up also having to resign for having tried to pardon and absolve her, a power he does not have. Any minister, of any party, no matter how successful in their job, has only one option when they break the law that others are punished for. Resign immediately. Anything else says "it's ok for some people to break the rules and get away with it." This is arguably more serious than the situation Angela Rayner resigned for. Not paying tax due to an inadvertent error is something many people do all the time, and it's remedied by simply paying the tax. But entering into a tenancy agreement without a license, when one is required, on penalty of unlimited fines and rent repayment, is a breach of the law. It's more serious. If she doesn't resign immediately, and Starmer persists in defending her, this may hasten the fall of this entire government. The principles at stake here couldn't be more serious. If she doesn't go, we are no longer living as equals under the law. We're living in tyranny.