Statement from Steve Rotherham:
9 Likes
3 Likes
4 Likes
Are they still (illegally) hunting foxes there, because rodent problems and a lack of predators tend to be related.
1 Like
I though the Nevilleās lived in Manchester?
2 Likes
You couldnāt make it upā¦ another no shame Labour politician.
3 Likes
Even if she is cynical, it is simply bad political craftmanship to place oneself in this situation, as itās truly doubtful that she was in an economically challenging enough situation to make it necessary.
Sackable offense in my view (due to party damage). In my country, her party would have been forced to replace her as minister due to the media uproar. Legal or illegal doesnāt matter really. A lot of things that is unseemly, is very, very legal indeed. And some things are more unseemly when you are in certain positions and arguing for certain causes.
2 Likes
Usually, itās due to high urban concentration and/or bad hygiene regarding litter and food. Very few foxes have towns as their natural habitat.
I mean, this picture from the article tells a certain tale:
I find it ironic that āpest controlā is their focus, given that itās just a symptom and not the actual cause (of course, the symptom must be done something about, but itās obvious that the actual problem is more costly than just periodically killing rats; namely littering). This is clearly a social problem. Littering is a social problem. Wealthy people donāt live in areas with heaps of litter and the article seems to indicate that there are issues with collecting litter.
1 Like
We call it being thick as shit here
2 Likes
2 Likes
i get everyones up in armsā¦ but theres a bit of a danger where we are lurking nowā¦at some point, a politician is allowed to seperate herself from her work, she can be a successful investor in its own right before she works for the good of the publicā¦the talent drain (i know how ironic that sounds) would be immenseā¦
its not up to individual landlords to solve the housing crisis, its up to government policy, ā¦quite how we do that im not sureā¦
another way to look at it, is you dont have to be a teacher to be the minister for education, (infact that could be detrimental), you dont have to be a general to be the minister for defence, etc etc etc
3 Likes
Yeah but you do tend to have to not be part of the problem that you are in charge of solving. I get that there was some nuance to this situation. They wanted to sell, gave previous occupants option to stay until they did, didnāt sell and decided to rent out again. Itās all about the optics and how then putting up the rent is perceived though.
2 Likes
It isnāt reasonable to expect a teacher to be minister for education, but it is reasonable to expect they arenāt a director of a private school.
It isnāt reasonable to expect a minister for defence to have a military background, but it is reasonable to expect they arenāt the major shareholder of an arms company.
5 Likes
Itās also reasonable to expect that they wonāt become a director of a school / arms company / service company etc after their ministerial role, but that has never stopped it happening.
4 Likes
She could have kept the rents the same or just put a marginal increase on it. Rents have gone crazy.
We own a small rental property which is managed by an agent on our behalf. They wanted to put a huge increase on the monthly rental charge. Ā£600 pcm from Ā£425pcm stating the market price. We really wanted to keep the existing tennant so told the management company the rent would be Ā£500pcm having agreed that with the tennant first.
7 Likes
she owns an investment property and put the rent upā¦
lets keep some perspective here
3 Likes
I donāt understand you.
This is clearly a sackable offense given the party damage to credibility. She is in a certain position, where credibility in the agenda she is supposed to govern over is absolute key for a minister. She tanks it by her deeds, which was incredibly easily avoided. It is horrifically bad politics, beyond awful optics.
It is really, really not a normal raise and in her position as housing minister, she cannot do this ! I am stunned you accept such hypocricy. In my country, she would be politically dead. Norwegians would never ever accept it, our media would tear her to little bloody pieces. Why would you accept it ? Just because it is legal ?
1 Like
to be honest magnus, i cant be bothered going down the rabbithole with you on this, it will just end up with you telling me i dont understand and are beneath your understanding on such topicsā¦
maybe australia is different, but i dont see how owning an investment property is political suicide, id actually be more inclined to see lived experience as a bonusā¦
3 Likes
Fair enough. I donāt think itās politically wise and had not intended to go down any hole with you at all.
Have a nice evening.
1 Like