Andy Burnham faces landlord hypocrisy row over London flat

I am sure there was something about one rule for them and a different rule for everyone else.
Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

If it was bought using expenses, then wasn’t that his own money that he used for Govt. business and then claimed back?
If it’s doubled in value then surely that’s just good fortune.
If it’s rented out for profit, it’s surely no different to a car rental company renting cars out for profit?
And was he supposed to evict his tenant when he became an MP and needed London accomodation? Surely that would have attracted even more criticism.
I’m not a fan of MP’s hugh salaries and expenses, but just trying to see the argument from both sides.

A pig’s snout will always find its way into the trough. MPs seem to grow them shortly after being elected. It may be the purchase was done within the rules but who is maaking the rules?

I can see no hypocrisy here unless of course the flat does not meet the standards he promotes. I’m all for politicians being landlords so they have an appreciation of what is involved and in particular of the financial considerations. I hope he has a mortgage and is unincorporated as this will certainly illustrate the challenges faced by many landlords in the south.

Reply to the comment left by Rhett Costin at 26/05/2026 – 12:24
I think you are missing the point.
He owned a property in London.
Yet he got us (taxpayers) to pay for him to rent ANOTHER property in London, for him to stay in.
By doing this, he was able to pocket the rent he was charging, instead of moving into his own property, and saving taxpayers from subsidising him.
What would Karl Marx have made of that?

Reply to the comment left by Paul Essex at 26/05/2026 – 11:29
Sounds like Animal Farm. They get to govern so they benefit at taxpayers expense. One rule for them and citizens don’t count. Citizens work hard to pay for the government officials. The government officials are supposed to be the servants of the citizens and not pay themselves huge salaries and high expenses.

Interesting story — it really highlights the wider debate around housing fairness, landlord politics, and access to affordable homes in London.

Many first-time buyers are still struggling to access genuinely affordable housing, especially in high-demand areas. That’s why Section 106 schemes matter so much — they help unlock discounted homes tied directly to new developments and give local buyers a realistic route onto the property ladder.

We recently covered this here: [https://firsthomesscheme.com/web-stories/s106-a-route-to-unlocking-new-homes-in-london/]

At the end of the day, the focus should be on increasing housing supply and creating transparent pathways to ownership for ordinary buyers, not just political point-scoring.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 26/05/2026 – 14:26
Renting a house out is just a business, just like any other business. What if he had owned a restaurant instead and was making money from it? Nobody would be questioning that. I don’t see many people having a pop at Farage who has several other jobs, or Rees Mogg when he was an MP and raking in shed loads from his investment company. Forgive me if I’m wrong here, but surely the taxpayer pays for all MP’s London accommodation, even those with other streams of income, whatever they may be.

Reply to the comment left by Rhett Costin at 27/05/2026 – 16:25
Sorry, but you are wrong. MP’s don’t get London accommodation paid for, if they have their home there. The only reason they get it paid, is so that they can come from their home (in the rest of the country) during parliament, and not have to stay in a hotel.
But Burnham HAD property in London that he owned.
Its not the same as owning a restaurant……..unless he could sleep in that.
Its not the same as having another job either for the same reason.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 14:26
”And was he supposed to evict his tenant when he became an MP and needed London accomodation? Surely that would have attracted even more criticism.”
I think that this hits the nail on the head here. If the tenant was evicted just so that Burnham could stay there occasionally, it would rightly have been a scandal worthy of the Daily Mail et al 🙄
I am not a fan of MPs surprisingly (!) but we need to be fair here. At that time, he was permitted to do what he did. It doesn’t matter if he’s Left, Right, Grren or the other ones. It matters that this is just another “Scandal when there’s nothing there’”. I have more of a problem with all the massive freeloading by Starmer and others after the election that has faded due to his utter incompetence. Anyway – Happy Saturday !