• CircaV
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Cause he’s a POS grifter.

  • RandAlThorOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    In other words: Fired Politician Continues to Live in Mansion at Taxpayers’ Expense.

  • Cyborganism
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    Meh, this is such a non issue. Unless he doesn’t get elected in his new riding and loses his position as party leader, there’s no point in him moving out just yet. It would be the same for any other opposition party leader in the same situation.

    • CircaV
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Actually no. If it was reversed PeePee would turf the person out. He’s such a grifter hypocrite.

    • Arkouda
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 days ago

      Fact of the matter is that he is currently receiving benefits paid for by tax dollars that he is not qualified for, which is an issue.

      • LostWon
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        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).

        • Arkouda
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.