Should Reeves Go?

Kemi Badenoch

November 3, 2025

Whatever one might think about Rachel Reeves’ misdemeanours, the real scandal is that property owners have to pay off the council to rent out their own homes. Unlike Reeves, who had been tweeting in support of this legislation at the same time she wasn’t complying with it, I’d hardly heard of the landlords licence she should have acquired. It turns out neither had many landlords, who I suspect will be furious to learn that they owe even more money to the state.

For what it’s worth, while I do think that deliberately breaking the law is a sackable offence, I don’t think Reeves – or anyone for that matter – should go for a minor accidental infraction such as this. I know we all make mistakes. But I also won’t apologise for pointing out what Keir Starmer used to say. Indeed, I confess to a bit of schadenfreude watching this Prime Minister, who promised a “whiter than white” Government, dealing with sleaze ranging from undeclared freebies to stolen mobile phones and unpaid property taxes. Every week brings a new scandal and a new sanctimonious explanation for why this one doesn’t count.

The trouble with Labour’s moral posturing is that it only works in Opposition. Keir Starmer jumped at every opportunity to clutch his pearls and declare that “lawbreakers can’t be lawmakers”. Now he’s showing us he can’t meet the very standards he demanded from others. This isn’t just about hypocrisy; it’s also about the classic Labour belief that good intentions alone create good outcomes.

Too often, terrible legislation hides behind a nice label. The Climate Change Act is making us poorer and killing manufacturing. The Employment Rights Bill is granting a few new rights but will kill the very businesses that create jobs. Labour’s favourite pastime is to legislate for virtue, creating burdensome regulations. Nowhere is this clearer than with the housing market. It was a source of constant embarrassment for many Conservative MPs in the last parliament, that the government pushed through the deeply flawed Renters’ Rights Bill, simply because it was in the 2019 manifesto. The policies in this bill violated so many of our principles, and was one of many foolish attempts to try and win Left-wing votes at the expense of many of our natural supporters.

The pushback from MPs like me meant the bill never got over the line before the election. And I made opposing it the first policy of the Conservative Party when I became leader. Yet, even as the Chancellor openly admits she can’t keep up with current regulations on landlords, Labour have tripled down with a new Renters’ Rights Act that will only make the problem worse. Labour claim they’re “on the side of renters”. But these policies will drive thousands of landlords out of the market, slashing supply and pushing rents through the roof. When you punish landlords, you punish tenants. “Renters’ rights” might make for nice headlines, but renters can’t have any rights if there’s nowhere to rent. Fewer landlords means fewer homes. Fewer homes means higher rents. It’s basic economics, though apparently not the kind Rachel Reeves is familiar with.

If you genuinely care about fairness, don’t penalise those who provide homes; help them build more. If you want people to own their own home, don’t put an extra tax on people buying homes. This is why it is now Conservative Party policy to abolish stamp duty. Home ownership isn’t just an economic transaction. It gives people a stake in their community and security for their family. Abolishing stamp duty rewards aspiration, frees up the housing market and helps every generation put down roots and build a life of their own.

The truth is, governing well isn’t about perfection; it’s about priorities. It’s about deciding what actually matters (growth, jobs, security) and having the courage to do what works, not just what sounds nice in a headline. Conservatives have made mistakes. But we admit what went wrong, we fix it and we move on. We may disagree about cause and effect, but we don’t hide from reality about consequences. Labour still can’t do that.

The difference between Keir Starmer and me, is that I admit where we got things wrong. He, on the other hand, believes everything that has gone wrong happened because of someone else – the last government, Trump’s tariffs, the OBR, or “racists” jumping on a “far-Right bandwagon”. His refusal to accept responsibility is why he will never fix the problems he is creating. Labour’s last Budget was a complete disaster. Record borrowing, a £40bn tax raid and zero growth. And all done to pay off the trade unions, who just came back for more. They increased taxes on jobs, and unemployment has increased almost every single month under Labour. Starmer and Reeves have a chance with this month’s Budget to start repairing the damage.

At Conservative Party Conference last month, we identified £47bn of savings, largely from the welfare budget, which now sees a reported 5,000 new people claiming health and sickness benefits each day. Instead, the Chancellor is looking at more and more taxes. If Starmer’s Government spent half as much time growing the economy as it does creating bureaucracy, Britain might just be getting somewhere. They could scrap damaging regulations. They could abolish stamp duty and revitalise our housing market. But I fear they will take the lazy option and simply raise taxes again.

Breaking not just a manifesto commitment, but Reeves’ earnest promise after the last Budget not to come back for more. So no, I don’t think Rachel Reeves should be sacked for failing to get a landlords licence. She needs to focus on growing our economy. But if she cannot do that, or if she breaks her own promise not to come back for more taxes then, yes, Keir Starmer should find a backbone and sack her: for proving that moral grandstanding is no substitute for economic competence.

© Kemi Badenoch 2025

What’s your view?

Scroll down and leave a Comment using the comments form below

and have your say.

User names are fine.

Or

Use the Get in Touch form at the very bottom of the Home Page

and write a letter for our Reader’s Remarks Page.

You will need to include your name, address and contact details.

Only your name, city/town and county/country will be published

and we can withhold these if you ask.