The London mayor has told Byline Times he has “not been able to persuade” Labour leader Keir Starmer of the need for private sector rent controls, despite growing pressure from Londoners to take firmer action on the housing crisis.

Since 2019, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has been calling on ministers to grant him powers to freeze private rents in the capital. He may have hoped for a warmer reception from Sir Keir Starmer should the politicians win the mayoral and General elections respectively this year. But Labour HQ appears to have poured cold water on the idea. 

In his successful 2021 manifesto, Mayor Khan pledged he would “stand up for London's renters by leading the campaign for rent controls for our city, to make renting more affordable and secure for the millions of Londoners who rent their home from a private landlord.” 

He later renewed those calls but in his recent announcement on a ‘new deal for renters’, there was no mention of rent controls – perhaps anticipating that Sir Keir Starmer would not allow it were they both elected this year. 

Sadiq Khan’s calls for private sector rent controls appears to have been replaced with a pledge to set up a London Rent Commission, which would explore the issue and involve landlords and renters, and a commitment to build his own rent-controlled homes.  

But previously unreleased polling for Byline Times, conducted by WeThink at the end of March, found that 70% of UK voters backed “a maximum rent on properties” – including 71% of Conservative voters and 75% of Labour voters. Similar polling for the Green Party found that nearly 70% of Londoners back private rent controls. 

A spokesperson for the London Renters Union criticised Mayor Khan’s apparent shift earlier this month, saying: “Sadiq Khan’s New Deal will fall flat if he does not continue to push for the power to cap rents in London. London renters are trapped in a cycle of instability and many will feel let down if Khan stops campaigning for city-wide rent controls under a Labour government.

“6,000 new rent controlled properties will not bring security to the capital’s 3 million private renters who are living in fear that they will be forced out of their homes by an unaffordable rent increase.”

In an interview with the Evening Standard last month, Sir Keir said rent controls were “not our national policy.” 

“I can assure you that Sadiq and I work very closely together. Sadiq feels strongly about this. But look, we will work together as we go forward,” he added. Last June, shadow housing minister Lisa Nandy also claimed rent controls would contribute to homelessness by causing landlords to withdraw their properties from the rental market.

These statements have perhaps contributed to Mayor Khan saying he would not "make promises that won’t materialise after the election" on rent controls. "It's really important we're realistic about what we can do,” the London leader told Byline Times. 

He has instead pledged to build “at least 6,000 rent control homes” in London if he’s re-elected for a record third term on May 2, noting: “I can do that with the powers I have.” London is home to approximately 2.7 million private renters, according to GLA figures, a number which has risen considerably since the 1990s, and which would be out of the limited rent capped homes Mayor Khan hopes to build.  

“When it comes to building 40,000 council homes, I can do it with the budget I have. With a Labour government, I can [build] far more council homes, far more rent control homes.”

Mayor Khan added that his call for a London-wide licensing scheme to rein in rogue landlords would “probably need a change of Government” to enable it through legislation. 

Speaking at an event launching his pledge to abolish rough sleeping by 2030 – if Labour are elected UK-wide too – he added: “So far I've not been able to persuade either of the main parties to devolve [rent control powers] to London. But it's still a long way between now and the general election. 

“Should I have the privilege of being reelected, I'm gonna carry on lobbying both the Tory party and the Labour Party to at the very least, devolve to cities and regions the choice about doing so. [And] at the very least allow us to set up this rent commission.”

The Labour Mayor also softened his tone on the policy, saying he “understand[s] the arguments on both sides – those landlords and developers who say if you did this, we'll just simply withdraw from the property market. And that's why we're going to have a commission that includes landlords, that includes developers as well as your tenants and renters as well.”

City Hall and the Labour leader’s office appear to have mended their public feuds after Keir Starmer refused to publicly back Mayor Khan’s expansion of the Ultra Low Emissions Zone in London last year. And the issue of securing more powers for London is likely to be high up Khan’s agenda with a Labour Government in Westminster. 

More powers are perhaps more likely than more cash from the Treasury given Sir Keir Starmer and shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’ commitment to strict ‘fiscal rules’ that could mirror Conservative spending plans. 

Asked by Byline Times if he was concerned that the austerity he has criticised under the Conservatives might continue under a Keir Starmer-led Labour government, Khan said: “I lived through only through the last Labour government, and Tony and Gordon stayed within the spending limits Ken Clark set out for two years back between 1997 and 1999.  

“Notwithstanding that, we saw a massive investment in public services but also massive growth in our economy at the same time. So I'm confident that Keir and Rachel are as good as Tony and Gordon, in understanding the importance of getting the economic policies right but also understanding the importance of addressing social injustice that demand investment.”

Like Keir Starmer he echoed the claim that higher economic growth will mean Labour could spend more without raising taxes. “Good growth will benefit the NHS, will benefit our schools, our public services. Without growth we don't get the money that we need,” Khan said.

“This is a moment of maximum opportunity. A Labour Mayor and a Labour Government can be transformative, notwithstanding the inheritance they're going to have, which will be the worst since the Second World War,” he added.

And the Labour Mayor added that it “wouldn't” concern him if Rachel Reeves signed up to Conservative party spending plans for several years after their likely election.

“No, it wouldn’t. Here's why: because that would be a temporary measure. Don't forget Keir has made it quite clear you need two terms, the Labour party needs two terms to fix the mess of the last 14 years. But also the country will know, those who want to invest in our country will know, chief executives will know – we need the stability and certainty we've not had…for the last 14 years,” the Labour candidate said. 

Khan has accused the Conservatives of being ‘in the pockets of the landlord lobby’. He has claimed the mayoral election on 2 May is a two-horse race between him and “the Conservative candidate for Mayor [Susan Hall AM] who has been virtually silent on renters’ issues and cheered Liz Truss’ mini-budget, which sent rents through the roof.”

Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has accused the Conservative Government of rigging Britain’s electoral system to benefit them, in an interview with Byline Times.

Mr Khan, who is running for a record third term on May 2, says he is pushing his own party to significantly alter or scrap the new mandatory voter ID rules, and believes Sir Keir Starmer would reverse Conservative changes to the mayoral voting system if elected.

The London Labour Mayor told this outlet: “The Conservative Party is the most successful political party in the democratic world. Why? Because they win elections and in between elections, they change the rules to make it more likely they win.” 

He pointed to two major changes the Conservatives have made recently, allegedly for “a simple reason: to maximise their chances of winning, and to minimise Labour's chances of winning.”

In 2022 under the Elections Act, ministers changed the voting system for the mayoral election to first past the post, whereas previously voters could put a second preference that would be counted if their first choice lacked majority support. 

The change is likely to suppress the vote of smaller parties like the Greens and Lib Dems, whose voters could previously “vote with your heart in relation to their first preference, and then give a second preference– an insurance policy– to one of the two bigger parties,” Mayor Khan said, speaking from a campaign event a London Waterloo church. 

The margin of victory for the former lawyer last time on first preferences was 5%, but he was boosted significantly by the second preferences of Green and Lib Dem voters.

Mr Khan also condemned mandatory photo ID rules, which will be used for the first time in this mayoral election round. 

City Hall has claimed that in London  around 15% of Londoners– roughly 900,000 people– haven't got an appropriate photo ID. The Government’s figures put the figure at closer to 5%, but either figure is dramatically more than the rate of impersonation fraud allegations, which photo ID is supposed to tackle. 

Voters will need to use a driver's licence, a passport, or other forms of ID such as an older person's travel card. However, young person’s Railcards are not accepted, leading to considerable condemnation from electoral watchdogs.  

For Labour, the changes have boosted the party's calls for Green and Lib Dem voters to opt for Khan in the mayoral election, now that they no longer have a chance to put a second preference. “I say in a respectful way, those parties cannot win on May 2,” the incumbent Mayor claimed. 

He also renewed his attacks on competitor Conservative Susan Hall, naming her in a rare move.

“The choice on May 2nd is building a fairer, safer, greener city with me, or Susan Hall who will take us backwards….Susan Hall is somebody who supported Donald Trump in the past, she’s liked Enoch Powell, and she cheered on Liz Truss’ budget– that’s the sort of Mayor we could have.” 

Asked if he had asked Sir Keir to repeal voter ID and the election rule change to First Past the Post, the Mayor told Byline Times: “Yeah. I think the Labour party has already committed in the mayoral election to go back to the previous system…And I'm lobbying the Labour Party, making the point: what is the [issue] you're trying to address with photo ID? To me, there's no evidence in relation to the concerns the Tories are saying about the need for photo ID.”

He believes that in urban seats like London, there may be a higher proportion of people who lack photo ID. However, election expert Rob Ford has argued: "Even if turned away voters leaned heavily Labour, the share of voters turned away and not returning would have to be massively above that observed anywhere else in the country for the impact to be on the scale claimed [by London Labour]." Around 14,000 voters were turned away and did not return due to photo ID problems in last May's local elections, though it amounts to a small percentage of voters overall.

London Labour has repeatedly poured cold water on polling showing Mr Khan around 20 points ahead of his Conservative opponent, with Khan noting that in 2008, “everyone said there's no chance for [Boris] Johnson, and it's in the bag for Ken Livingstone. We know how that movie ended.” 

Despite his headline poll lead, recent polling by QMUL/YouGov shows that Londoners are generally dissatisfied with Mayor Sadiq Khan. Khan's approval rating sits at -16, particularly among older voters and those in outer London. However, the Government's approval rating is dramatically lower, at -55. 

A separate recent ITV London/Survation poll found that the cost of living is the most pressing issue influencing London voters, with 41% putting it top, far ahead of crime (12%), health (11%), the economy (9%), housing (9%), and the ULEZ charge (6%).

A Centre for London/Savanta poll found that over half of Londoners think Mayor Khan has done a good job of making London more diverse, multicultural and tolerant, managing the transport network and protecting green spaces, the LDN newsletter reported. But his handling of homelessness, housing, and knife crime and gang issues is viewed less positively.

One of the biggest challenges facing all candidates– but perhaps particularly Labour given its support base– is a lack of awareness about the mayoral election, with only 40% of those under 35 knowing it was taking place, according to the same Savanta poll. 

Sadiq Khan was speaking at an event to launch his new pledge to end street homelessness in London by 2030, if Labour is elected nationally in this year’s General Election, and he is re-elected at City Hall. 

Susan Hall AM’s campaign was contacted for comment. 

Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com

Governments trailing in the polls tend to wait until the last possible moment. Like Gordon Brown in 2010 and John Major in 1997 before him, Rishi Sunak appears to have decided to delay the inevitable in the hope that ‘something will turn up’. 

His Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is already talking up a further ‘fiscal event’ which seems all but certain to include more unfunded tax cuts, despite repeated evidence that what the public wants is investment in the NHS and other struggling public services. 

There may be some wisdom in Sunak going long.

In both 1997 and 2010, the governing party did slightly less badly at the five-year mark than they would have done 10 months earlier. But there is no guarantee that history will repeat itself. The public are more sick of Sunak and his party than they were of Major’s Conservatives or Brown’s New Labour. 

Rishi Sunak appears to have decided to delay calling an election. Photo: Imageplotter/Alamy

For Keir Starmer's party, the delayed election brings challenges as well as opportunity.

The additional time will help Labour prepare for power. Shadow ministers are meeting with civil servants in readiness for a handover. Labour still has candidates to select in many of its less winnable seats, the list of retiring MPs is yet to be finalised, and candidates selected or appointed. 

Beyond the practical, Labour’s most pressing need is to further solidify its relationship with the public – thinking not just about winning votes on polling day, but about building a bedrock of support that will sustain it through what is likely to be a difficult Parliament. 

Giving Labour pause will be the fact that politics has become more volatile since 1997. Labour lost the ‘Red Wall’ because, in 2015, 2017 and 2019, the Conservatives’ coalition had changed – doing less and less well among affluent, economically right-wing voters with college degrees but better among skilled manual workers and voters without degrees. 

The Conservatives’ new unpopularity is seeing the party lose its new voters without regaining its old ones: a perfect storm. 

The question is whether Labour’s resurgence in the Red Wall will mark a reversion to type – voters tried the Conservatives once, but won’t make that mistake again – or whether these seats will now swing with every election like a perennial marginal such as Crawley.

If it’s the latter, the UK will become a much more volatile democracy – one in which even very bad defeats like Labour’s 2019 rout can be recovered from in a single term as a matter of course. This presents Labour with a challenge: the extended terms in office won in 1979, 1997 and 2010 maybe a thing of the past, and big wins like 2019 may be more likely to be followed by a big loss unless the party in power meets public expectations. 

Compounding Labour’s challenge is the fact that while all but certain to win – both Labour and Starmer are far more popular than the Conservatives and Sunak – both party and leader are less popular and trusted than previous opposition leaders who successfully took power from the opposition. 

Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron all started their premierships well ahead of the predecessors they replaced and with their approval ratings in positive territory. In contrast, while Starmer easily beats Sunak, his ratings are in negative territory – -18 according to Ipsos’ latest count. 

But the public’s reticence is not confined to Starmer. While his party is seen as significantly more competent than the Conservatives, here too Labour is in negative territory – by -14 points to the Conservatives’ -47. 

A different time – then party leaders John Major, Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair in 1995. Photo: Neil Munns/PA/Alamy

In part, this negativity may reflect lasting voter anger over the Jeremy Corbyn years and Labour’s flight from electability. Even if it is, the party still has to win greater public confidence if not to win the election but to enable it to take the country through what will remain challenging times. 

Labour’s leadership is acutely aware that there are no simple solutions to the country’s plight. 

When Blair came to power with a swiftly growing economy, Labour had to avoid messing things up. This time, the challenge is far greater.

Labour will come to power after 16 years of economic stagnation. Had economic growth continued on its 1955 to 2008 path, GDP per head would now be 39% higher. The UK has not been the only high-income country to have fallen into stagnation, but its fall has been among the steepest. 

Similarly, while public services were in a parlous state in 1997, they are far worse now. The ongoing – and permanent (unless things change) – economic harm of Brexit plus labour shortages and lost inward investment add further challenges. 

Labour needs to both effect an economic transformation that will, in turn, enable it to renew public services, and to win public support both for its programme and the time it will take to implement given there are no quick fixes. 

That it understands this challenge is clear. Both Starmer and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves have used set-piece speeches to tell a narrative of Conservative failure as the cause of the nation’s ills and to limit expectations of what a Labour government could achieve. 

Reeves has argued that the Conservatives had made four big mistakes: misunderstanding the role of the state in helping to drive growth; austerity; the failure to borrow more during the era of ultra-low interest rates; and Liz Truss’ unfunded tax cuts. Put together, she said, these errors strangled the economy, starved public services, and led to the recent rise in interest rates – adding costs for both government and the public.  

To restore growth, she argued for a new model of economic management guided by three imperatives: stability; “stimulating investment through partnership with business”; and reforms to unlock productivity including reform of the planning system. 

Starmer used his local elections launch to attack the Conservatives for their failure to 'level up’ and to temper expectations by arguing that Labour cannot “turn the taps on” to fix councils’ £4 billion funding gap. 

This is all sensible politics, as is Labour’s refusal to make big spending commitments which it knows it would be unable to meet. And yet, the twin challenges remain.

While economists welcome Reeves’ prescriptions – particularly her commitment to reform the planning system – some query whether they will be enough to bring about the transformation required. Once in power, and faced with both real need and public desire for swift change, the pressure to raise spending and taxes will be hard to contain.

There is pressure on Labour not to go into too much detail. Specific pledges can win support and court opposition or raise questions over how they will be paid for – hence Labour’s step away from big commitments such as the £28 billion it had planned to spend on green infrastructure. 

But to win public enthusiasm, as well as benefit from public revulsion at the current Government – and to win public consent for real change to take a full term or more – Labour will need to be more explicit about its plans, priorities and the limits of what can be achieved in the short-term. 

The stakes are high. Reeves made clear in her speech her fear that, without widely shared economic growth, democracy itself could be in peril. Rebuilding trust in her party is necessary to rebuild public confidence in politics itself. 

The task is not an easy one, but given what is at stake for our country’s economy, public services and faith in democratic politics as the best way to solve collective problems, we should all wish Labour good luck – and seek to play our part in political renewal. 

The next Government will inherit a long list of 'big nasties' from the Conservatives which will cost hundreds of billions of pounds to clear up, a report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, warns today.

 After a year when her committee examined projects across Whitehall, the NHS and schools the chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Dame Meg Hillier, lists what she calls a catalogue of “big nasties – essential spending which cannot be put off”.

The list includes failed projects to tackle crumbling schools, hospitals, public health laboratories, outdated IT and renewing and refurbishing Parliament.

She warns: "All too often, we have seen money misdirected or squandered, not because of corruption, but because of group-think, intransigence, inertia, and cultures which discourage whistle-blowing. On occasion, the scale of failure has been seismic, such as HS2 or Horizon in the Post Office, or the procurement of PPE during Covid. Other times, there has been a systemic failure to be agile and adaptable as events unfolded.”

Unless this is tackled she warns: “my successors as chair of the PAC will be doomed to a cycle of broken promises and wasted cash in perpetuity.”

The report produces eye-watering shortfalls of money showing where short-termism by the present Government has worsened the state of public services.

In schools instead of spending £5.3 billion a year to refurbish or replace crumbling schools attended by 700,000 pupils, the Treasury cut this to £3.1 billion a year increasing the backlog.

In the NHS the backlog of crumbling hospitals has jumped from £4.7 billion to £10.2 billion after the NHS raided the capital programme to keep patient services going. Despite spending £178.3 billion a year patient services are worse, waiting lists longer, particularly for cancer patients who need urgent treatment.

A delayed £530 million programme to modernise public health laboratories which handle the most dangerous diseases such as Ebola and Lassa fever will now cost £3.2 million. Failure to implement it “would present a significant risk to public health,” says the report.

The report says a decision not to decommission 20 nuclear submarines which have been withdrawn from service since 1980 has left the ministry of defence with a £500m maintenance bill and it has run out of space of where to store them. The ministry now has a £7.5 billion future liability to dispose of them.

The Ministry of Justice now has a £900 million maintenance backlog on the prison estate and plans to create 10,000 new prison places have only seen 206 new places.

Some £100 billion of spending by local councils remains unaccountable because of a shortage of auditors and councils like Birmingham, Nottingham, Slough and Thurrock have gone effectively bankrupt.

The country’s main animal health laboratory in Weybridge, Surrey, has “deteriorated at an alarming extent". It has a £2.8 billion piecemeal redevelopment plan over 15 years but if it fails, “the UK will have no capacity to react to new and emerging animal disease threats”.

There are a large number of failures among IT systems across Whitehall -some of them impacting on the general public – notably the DWP underpaying pensioners.

The report says: “DWP has underpaid pensioners £2.5 billion,138 with errors dating back to 1985, and many more pensioners may still be under-claiming. 90% of these underpaid pensioners are women. The errors were due to outdated systems dating back to 1988.”