It sucks, but it costs the same to pay the staff no matter who is or isn’t there. What costs us more is to move his family out and then move them back in again when he likely wins in a by-election. I just learned they have a non-verbal autistic daughter. An unnecessary double-move would be not only costly to us but extremely cruel to that child. We should just be demanding he reimburse the costs of his stay until he’s legitimately living there again. If he loses out in a leadership review or in the expected by-election, then we pay for the move as they’re forced to adjust to leaving for good (and he should still pay for the overstay, as far as I’m concerned).
Fact is he and his family, regardless of their daughter, do not qualify to live in that house with all of the tax payed amenities and shouldn’t be allowed to stay. It may cost the same, but it matters who receives the benefits of living there because the person living their is supposed to hold a very specific role in parliament.
It sucks, but it costs the same to pay the staff no matter who is or isn’t there. What costs us more is to move his family out and then move them back in again when he likely wins in a by-election. I just learned they have a non-verbal autistic daughter. An unnecessary double-move would be not only costly to us but extremely cruel to that child. We should just be demanding he reimburse the costs of his stay until he’s legitimately living there again. If he loses out in a leadership review or in the expected by-election, then we pay for the move as they’re forced to adjust to leaving for good (and he should still pay for the overstay, as far as I’m concerned).
Fact is he and his family, regardless of their daughter, do not qualify to live in that house with all of the tax payed amenities and shouldn’t be allowed to stay. It may cost the same, but it matters who receives the benefits of living there because the person living their is supposed to hold a very specific role in parliament.