Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[meridian2]

The solution for me is to return to building large numbers of good quality social housing estates which can then be occupied under right to buy terms with the obvious statement that any RTB funds be reinvested in more housing stock.

The truth is social housing has taken a nose dive in terms of numbers and quality over the decades. My parents retired to a modest estate of large 1930s council semis with big gardens, many of which had been turned over to allotments. My friend's mother lived in a mid-1970s council house built on a block plan of appallingly low quality which has since become a byword for criminality. The taps were made of white guttering plastic roughly sawn off at the ends. I imagine few people who could afford to buy would want to remain in the latter, while the former were eagerly bought up for £6000 under right to buy! Not close enough to replace the housing stock even in the 1980s.

In East London there are vast new private housing developments, many of which have a nominal social housing component to get through planning. Those fortunate enough to have such a council house are living quite literally like millionaires, whereas in another part of the country the standard of living for council tenants might be barely above survival levels. Until there's an agreed notion of quality, social housing is a complete lottery.

 

[ainsworth74]

No thanks, unless you're going to give me a sweetener in return, like legislating to provide landlords extra security and a quicker eviction of tenants who break the contract (by not paying for example). After all, I, a good and responsible landlord, am being penalised via the licence for the mendacious actions of a few, so why not turn that on its head?

Section 21 possession process (assuming your tenants are Assured Shorthold) already gives you a pretty quick way of getting them out for which the tenant has limited defences (pretty much the only defence would be if you made a mistake in the paperwork at some stage) and under which you don't have to supply a ground beyond 'I want my property back'.

I've been agreeing with you broadly in this argument but I don't think I could agree that landlords needs a quicker eviction process than they already get under S21 particularly as there is basically no defence to S21.

 

[AlterEgo]

Section 21 possession process (assuming your tenants are Assured Shorthold) already gives you a pretty quick way of getting them out for which the tenant has limited defences (pretty much the only defence would be if you made a mistake in the paperwork at some stage) and under which you don't have to supply a ground beyond 'I want my property back'.

I've been agreeing with you broadly in this argument but I don't think I could agree that landlords needs a quicker eviction process than they already get under S21.

A landlord can lose thousands of pounds under S21 because of how it works in practice. You only have to watch Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away to get an idea of how devastating a single problem tenant can be.

Note that I don't propose improving S21 per se, my argument is only that if you want to catch all landlords under legislation which will hit them because of the misdeeds of a few, then why not do the same with tenants? (Answers on a postcard)

 

[DarloRich]

Section 21 possession process (assuming your tenants are Assured Shorthold) already gives you a pretty quick way of getting them out for which the tenant has limited defences (pretty much the only defence would be if you made a mistake in the paperwork at some stage) and under which you don't have to supply a ground beyond 'I want my property back'.

I've been agreeing with you broadly in this argument but I don't think I could agree that landlords needs a quicker eviction process than they already get under S21.

you can do a lot of damage in 6 weeks before doing a flit at the last minute!

If the tenant turns up at court and looks half decent the judge will often extend that, especially if they plead poverty and offer some payment plan. Following the changes by the government ( resisted by both Landlords AND tenants) to pay all of the rent money directly to the tenant to then pay the landlord the courts see many more such claims.

Once again the governments laudable aim of helping people make their own decisions and manage their own finances falls flat in the face of reality. If you are up against it and need money to keep the lights on this week or food in your belly you will take from next weeks rent money. Often you are already behind in paying for services and end up using rent money to keep your head above water.

Unlike most Tory ministers and many posters here I have been in that situation. Without housing benefit I would have been homeless when i lost my job several years ago. Luckily the rent money went straight to the landlord but everything else went into the melting pot and he who shouted loudest got paid first.

BTW - please lets not have the usual but people shouldn't do that and should take responsibility crap. In the real world that doesn't always happen and in taking responsibility for the gas bill you have to dump responsibility for the rent and vice versa. Until you have been there and taken the choice between light or food or heat it is hard to understand. Don't lecture those who do that on a daily basis.

Until there's an agreed notion of quality, social housing is a complete lottery.

agreed - much more structure is needed around the provision of such housing. Decent quality for a decent price is what we need x about 3m!

 

[EM2]

Hahahaha. It's a business and my pension you dafty. I ensure I get it back, the same way I get an increase in my mortgage back - by increasing rent. Nobody wants to increase rent, so it's a good idea to make mortgages affordable, or to stop daft ideas like compulsory landlord licensing.

Mortgage rates have been ridiculously low for years. How much more affordable do you need them to be?!
So do you put *all* your costs onto the rent? Buildings insurance, for example?

If your landlord didn't put up your rent, they must be doing very well off you...

Maybe he was, but seeing as I was paying way below market rent (to the extent that when we started looking in early 2016, there was not an equivalent property at an equivalent rent inside the M25) and that below market rent did not go up by a single penny from moving in in September 2007 to moving out in August 2016, I didn't really care.

No, the council doesn't need to inspect any. My property doesn't get inspected by the council.

So how do we know that you're a good landlord?

If there are two equivalent properties, and one landlord is licenced and one is not, then I know which one I'd be taking.

 

[EM2]

EM2, as he has admitted elsewhere, does not want the responsibility or risk involved with home ownership.

That's part of it, but the bigger issue is that I cannot get a mortgage on a suitable property on what I earn, i can't save for a deposit without it taking ten years, and I'm too old for most providers to offer more anything like a decent term.
If I were to come into enough money to be a cash buyer, that would be different.

Currently my area doesn't inspect properties and doesn't have a licensing scheme.

So how does a prospective tenant know that you are a good landlord? What evidence can they rely on?

 

[DarloRich]

Mortgage rates have been ridiculously low for years. How much more affordable do you need them to be?!
So do you put *all* your costs onto the rent? Buildings insurance, for example?

if you don't you are stupid frankly. Unless it would make you non competitive surely you just jam spread the cost on the weekly/monthly rate and cover your costs.

Maybe he was, but seeing as I was paying way below market rent (to the extent that when we started looking in early 2016, there was not an equivalent property at an equivalent rent inside the M25) and that below market rent did not go up by a single penny from moving in in September 2007 to moving out in August 2016, I didn't really care.

I have only had good landlords but I make a point of getting to know them directly and cutting out any agents because the agents just make things worse and who screw us both equally.

BTW - sounds like you hit landlord gold there! That doesn't happen often!

So how do we know that you're a good landlord?

If there are two equivalent properties, and one landlord is licenced and one is not, then I know which one I'd be taking.

Good question. However I think for many that, in the situation you suggest, price will be the driving factor.

I see the intention in a licensing scheme and think it is a good one for the tenant in helping chose a rented home but costs will be passed on by most landlords impacting on choice - Personally I would focus on pointless agents fees and crack down on those and introduce legal standards of compliance, a regulator with teeth and harsh penalties for landlords and agents who extract the urine and who don't meet those standards rather than registering all landlords

 

[Barn]

This is a good example of how regulation and intervention can increase cost. Quite often it's worth doing anyway, but the cost is very much there.

Right-wingers can be guilty of failing to appreciate that sometimes regulation is proportionate and necessary to fix a problem. Left-wingers can be guilty of disregarding the cost or wrongly believing it will be paid by the regulated person rather than his/her customers.

 

[DarloRich]

BBC:

Party leaders to take part in BBC election programmes

Televised debates to take place with "leading party spokesmen"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39845685

 

[Domh245]

BBC:

Televised debates to take place with "leading party spokesmen"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39845685

Who'll be the "leading party spokesmen" from Labour and the Conservatives I wonder? Davis? Hammond? Abbott?

 

[AlterEgo]

Who'll be the "leading party spokesmen" from Labour and the Conservatives I wonder? Davis? Hammond? Abbott?

Please God let it be Boris and Diane Abbott. They'd eat each other.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have to agree with AlterEgo - a landlord of the small variety will simply pass any increased costs he incurs onto his tenant. Surely that is obvious.............

Is it obvious? The rent I charge my tenants is based entirely on what my agent recommends, based presumably on what he thinks the market will bear. I certainly don't think, hey I had to pay £X for an annual boiler safety check, therefore I'll put the rent up by £X/12 a month to pay for it. That's simply not how markets, or how successful businesses, work. It is however very plausible that some of any increased costs may be reflected in higher rents.

But that's not really the point. The point is more like this:

In the UK, places that prepare and sell food have to deal with all sorts of regulations designed to ensure food safety etc. Those regulations impose costs, which are ultimately going to be (partly) borne by the customers. When you go to a restaurant, you're almost certainly paying more than you would have paid if those regulations weren't in place. But I bet you don't object to that: Because you understand that that additional cost is well worth having a reasonable guarantee that the food you eat actually does contains the ingredients advertised, and isn't going to make you ill.

Why should it be any different with letting? Sure, various regulations impose costs on landlords. Your rent may well be slightly higher than it would've been if the landlords weren't obliged to - say - have gas appliances checked every year. But is that really a bad thing? And similarly with the (hypothetical, remember) idea we're discussion of some kind of landlord registration scheme. Maybe rents would be slightly higher (probably only by a pound a week or so), but if that means all tenants get much more peace of mind that their property won't be damp/mouldy, and if the central heating breaks and the landlord doesn't fix it promptly, then they have a reasonable comeback via some organisation (and indeed, they're not scared that if they complain about the broken central heating, the landlord will just evict them), that seems to me like a reasonable trade-off.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regarding this discussion around being a landlord. Is it the case that the current government are changing the rules as to mortgage interest being claimable against tax over the next few years?
This could have serious repercussions for landlords and therefore tenants in the long run.
This has been interesting reading.

You're correct, that is indeed the case. Private landlords will no longer be able to count mortgage interest as an expense, but will instead be able to claim basic rate tax credits. The practical impact will be that many private landlords will pay much more tax - and indeed the impact is far greater than the hypothetical registration scheme we are discussing.

In economic terms it seems a very strange move to me: Firstly, it runs against reality because mortgage interest very clearly is a real business expense faced by landlords. Secondly, it only affects individuals, not companies, which means small scale private landlords will pay more tax/take a hit on their income, but companies that let lots of properties won't. And individuals who are wealthy enough to be able to just buy a property from savings without taking out a mortgage will also not be affected. (To that extent, ironically, it rather looks like the Conservatives actually doing exactly what AlterEgo accused the Labour Party of proposing: Hitting individual people who are using a single 2nd home as rental/retirement income!).

The solution for me is to return to building large numbers of good quality social housing estates which can then be occupied under right to buy terms with the obvious statement that any RTB funds be reinvested In more housing stock.

Completely agree here. And not just social housing, but housing in general. One of the frustrations here is that the Conservatives keep tweaking around mortgage regulations, offering subsidies for certain people to buy houses, and so on, all the while ignoring the basic problem: That there are simply not enough houses for all the people who need them. Until that problem is fixed (by building enough suitable dwellings in the appropriate parts of the country), no amount of tweaking of mortages or regulations for letting or so on is going to change the fact that some people are not going to be able to obtain the housing they need, and the shortage of housing will also mean that prices and rents will remain unaffordable for many other people. That's where the real solution to our housing issues lies.

 

[DarloRich]

Is it obvious? The rent I charge my tenants is based entirely on what my agent recommends, based presumably on what he thinks the market will bear. I certainly don't think, hey I had to pay £X for an annual boiler safety check, therefore I'll put the rent up by £X/12 a month to pay for it. That's simply not how markets, or how successful businesses, work. It is however very plausible that some of any increased costs may be reflected in higher rents.

Of course it is - if you as supplier have to carry and increased cost you will pass that on to your customer. The issue comes when that increase makes you noncompetitive. Price is the key driver for many people when renting. You can always build the costs into spurious charges that renters always get hit with. That is a much better way to hide costs

BTW - agents :roll: do it yourself and stop getting ripped off. it is much easier to deal with your tenant directly than through an agent.

In the UK, places that prepare and sell food have to deal with all sorts of regulations designed to ensure food safety etc. Those regulations impose costs, which are ultimately going to be (partly) borne by the customers. When you go to a restaurant, you're almost certainly paying more than you would have paid if those regulations weren't in place. But I bet you don't object to that: Because you understand that that additional cost is well worth having a reasonable guarantee that the food you eat actually does contains the ingredients advertised, and isn't going to make you ill.

If I cant afford the Michelin 3* restaurant I will have to eat at the kebab shop down the way. Many who rent are in that position, especially with the changes in housing benefit.

Why should it be any different with letting? Sure, various regulations impose costs on landlords. Your rent may well be slightly higher than it would've been if the landlords weren't obliged to - say - have gas appliances checked every year. But is that really a bad thing? And similarly with the (hypothetical, remember) idea we're discussion of some kind of landlord registration scheme. Maybe rents would be slightly higher (probably only by a pound a week or so), but if that means all tenants get much more peace of mind that their property won't be damp/mouldy, and if the central heating breaks and the landlord doesn't fix it promptly, then they have a reasonable comeback via some organisation (and indeed, they're not scared that if they complain about the broken central heating, the landlord will just evict them), that seems to me like a reasonable trade-off.

It is interesting that landlords will casually state rents will only go up by a couple of quid a week or about £100 a year. That is a lot of money when you have none. I have been there. It isnt easy and I wonder what extra comfort the tenant receives knowing his landlord has some sort of kite mark when the electric goes off because you don't have enough for the meter.

I honestly don't know how this scheme helps anyone, really. Turning it around how did my landlord know i was a good tenant and wouldn't smash the place up or run a brothel? Should i be licensed as a good tenant?

Completely agree here. And not just social housing, but housing in general. One of the frustrations here is that the Conservatives keep tweaking around mortgage regulations, offering subsidies for certain people to buy houses, and so on, all the while ignoring the basic problem: That there are simply not enough houses for all the people who need them. Until that problem is fixed (by building enough suitable dwellings in the appropriate parts of the country), no amount of tweaking of mortages or regulations for letting or so on is going to change the fact that some people are not going to be able to obtain the housing they need, and the shortage of housing will also mean that prices and rents will remain unaffordable for many other people. That's where the real solution to our housing issues lies.

I don't have a problem with "help to buy" AS LONG AS it is part of a wider range of options to help people into home ownership. As has been pointed out property is the pension scheme of choice for most people so we need to help as many as possible own their own homes. TO do that we nee dot build and help facilitate access to mortgages and finance on treasonable terms. There is nothing more frustrating than the bank deciding you cant afford your own mortgage precisely at the time you pay the mortgage of your landlord! Often the terms of your rent will be higher than a mortgage on a similar property.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it obvious? The rent I charge my tenants is based entirely on what my agent recommends, based presumably on what he thinks the market will bear. I certainly don't think, hey I had to pay £X for an annual boiler safety check, therefore I'll put the rent up by £X/12 a month to pay for it. That's simply not how markets, or how successful businesses, work. It is however very plausible that some of any increased costs may be reflected in higher rents.

But that's not really the point. The point is more like this:

In the UK, places that prepare and sell food have to deal with all sorts of regulations designed to ensure food safety etc. Those regulations impose costs, which are ultimately going to be (partly) borne by the customers. When you go to a restaurant, you're almost certainly paying more than you would have paid if those regulations weren't in place. But I bet you don't object to that: Because you understand that that additional cost is well worth having a reasonable guarantee that the food you eat actually does contains the ingredients advertised, and isn't going to make you ill.

Why should it be any different with letting? Sure, various regulations impose costs on landlords. Your rent may well be slightly higher than it would've been if the landlords weren't obliged to - say - have gas appliances checked every year. But is that really a bad thing? And similarly with the (hypothetical, remember) idea we're discussion of some kind of landlord registration scheme. Maybe rents would be slightly higher (probably only by a pound a week or so), but if that means all tenants get much more peace of mind that their property won't be damp/mouldy, and if the central heating breaks and the landlord doesn't fix it promptly, then they have a reasonable comeback via some organisation (and indeed, they're not scared that if they complain about the broken central heating, the landlord will just evict them), that seems to me like a reasonable trade-off.

I don't deal with an agency so I'm not in the practice of taking their recommendation (read: as high as possible, especially if the agency is on a percentage commission management deal - funnily enough I can charge a little less than the market rate because I'm not having to pay an agent).

Ultimately, the concept will definitely pass on at least some of the costs of that regulation to the consumer and I look forward to Just About Managing tenants hearing it'll cost them in higher rents.

How does the tenant know I'm a "good" landlord? They don't, and I don't know they're a "good" tenant either beyond their references confirming who they are. Some tenants prefer dealing with an agency. Some prefer to deal with a landlord directly. I know what I preferred when I was renting!

I doubt the landlord licence is going to be a vote winner the way Labour have framed the issue thus far, particularly among swing voters.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If I cant afford the Michelin 3* restaurant I will have to eat at the kebab shop down the way. Many who rent are in that position, especially with the changes in housing benefit.

But even the kebab shop down the way will be licensed and inspected.

 

[SteveP29]

Held by Labour in the end - local media suggested it was getting tight. For it even to be a possibility is incredible.

That tees valley mayoral result is astounding conidering the politival make up of the area at both local and national government:

• Darlington: Labour
• The Mayor of Middlesbrough : Labour,
• Redcar and Cleveland: Labour
• Hartlepool: Labour
• Stockton - Labour majority

All MP's: Labour [except Tory boy James Wharton in Stockton South] (aka Yarm)

I wonder who is to blame for this then Jeremy? Wont be you obvs.

Not sure about the Corbyn effect, but certainly in Chester le Street there was HUGE dissatisfaction with the Labour council being Durham City centric, certainly after the move to a unitary authority in 2008 (I think it was) to the detriment of the outlying towns and villages.
There was a feeling that the council had forgotten CLS (and the other towns and villages) and were willing to let them become run down as long as Durham City remained the place it has become.
The bailing out of Durham County Cricket Club, to the tune of millions every year stuck in the craw, especially when they were told 30 years ago that it would be a white elephant (yes, OK, its had test matches, but it's location is pitiful, access in and out of the ground is horrendous with only one road in and out), general public made to pay to park there and the public using the sports facilities on one side of the ground have to pay to park at the other side of the ground with no surveillance on these car parks, which is even more unappealing because the hedges and tress planted to line the car park are now established.
Parking charges in the town itself, yes, you can park for free in Morrisons and Tesco car parks, but for 3 hours max. No incentive to take kids to Chester Park for anything more than a couple of hours when you get charged for parking.
Awarding the market 'franchise' to the Noble family (of amusement fame) and allowing them run it down with stupidly high pitch rates.
Building more and more housing in the town with no more schools, shops etc

 

[edwin_m]

Latest Labour promise is free parking at hospitals. Personally I think they've shot themselves in the foot again, as they are choosing to subsidise those that drive over those that use public transport and those that really need the car park will struggle to find spaces. Much better and cheaper just to require hospitals to offer concessions for those that genuinely have no alternative.

 

[Barn]

Latest Labour promise is free parking at hospitals. Personally I think they've shot themselves in the foot again, as they are choosing to subsidise those that drive over those that use public transport and those that really need the car park will struggle to find spaces. Much better and cheaper just to require hospitals to offer concessions for those that genuinely have no alternative.

Yeah. Also, heaven help hospitals which are near a railway station or shopping district.

 

[RichmondCommu]

if you don't you are stupid frankly. Unless it would make you non competitive surely you just jam spread the cost on the weekly/monthly rate and cover your costs.

I concur although my wife and I don't charge tenants for one offs i.e. central heating repairs etc. However I do feel that if a landlord can't carry a cost of £750 for whatever reason that is border line skint.

 

[Howardh]

Yeah. Also, heaven help hospitals which are near a railway station or shopping district.

Be no different than a "free" parking area at Sainsburys in the town centre. Limited time, or you obtain proof you are a patient or visiting, and put that proof on the windscreen. Difficult if you are the one driving yourself to A+E I accept, but I'm sure Jeremy can work that one out.

 

[EM2]

Difficult if you are the one driving yourself to A+E I accept, but I'm sure Jeremy can work that one out.

Supply your registration number at Reception when you book in.

 

[Butts]

Is it obvious? The rent I charge my tenants is based entirely on what my agent recommends, based presumably on what he thinks the market will bear. I certainly don't think, hey I had to pay £X for an annual boiler safety check, therefore I'll put the rent up by £X/12 a month to pay for it. That's simply not how markets, or how successful businesses, work. It is however very plausible that some of any increased costs may be reflected in higher rents.

But that's not really the point. The point is more like this:

In the UK, places that prepare and sell food have to deal with all sorts of regulations designed to ensure food safety etc. Those regulations impose costs, which are ultimately going to be (partly) borne by the customers. When you go to a restaurant, you're almost certainly paying more than you would have paid if those regulations weren't in place. But I bet you don't object to that: Because you understand that that additional cost is well worth having a reasonable guarantee that the food you eat actually does contains the ingredients advertised, and isn't going to make you ill.

Why should it be any different with letting? Sure, various regulations impose costs on landlords. Your rent may well be slightly higher than it would've been if the landlords weren't obliged to - say - have gas appliances checked every year. But is that really a bad thing? And similarly with the (hypothetical, remember) idea we're discussion of some kind of landlord registration scheme. Maybe rents would be slightly higher (probably only by a pound a week or so), but if that means all tenants get much more peace of mind that their property won't be damp/mouldy, and if the central heating breaks and the landlord doesn't fix it promptly, then they have a reasonable comeback via some organisation (and indeed, they're not scared that if they complain about the broken central heating, the landlord will just evict them), that seems to me like a reasonable trade-off.

I believe Mandatory Landlord Licencing already exists in Wales so why not look there to see how it is working ?

Of more importance to most prospective Tenants are the "Agency Fees" in England and Wales that were abolished by Law some years ago in Scotland.
These can add hundreds of pounds in initial costs for something that is provided free of charge in Scotland.

 

[Howardh]

Supply your registration number at Reception when you book in.

That's clearly a solution, it would have to be the reception of the A+E department; and one feels they have enough to do!

These problems aren't unsurmountable; but it's adding a little bit more bureaucracy to an already over-loaded system. I've taken relatives to A+E and the last thing I want to be worried about is finding a space...finding an ATM...finding the change...going back and sticking the ticket on the screen, then getting dad out of the car...dad...dad....you've stopped breathing...

I like the idea of parking and simply telling reception; but they would have to log it and so on. But if car parks have ANPR they should be able to give the OK @ reception.

 

[northwichcat]

Simon Danczuk has resigned from Labour party attacking Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in his resignation letter.

 

[southern442]

Latest Labour promise is free parking at hospitals. Personally I think they've shot themselves in the foot again, as they are choosing to subsidise those that drive over those that use public transport and those that really need the car park will struggle to find spaces. Much better and cheaper just to require hospitals to offer concessions for those that genuinely have no alternative.

That's bad. Personally I would have done the opposite. If you have a hospital with very good public transport facilities then the parking charges should go up, transport fares should go down.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Simon Danczuk has resigned from Labour party attacking Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in his resignation letter.

He'd made it clear awhile a go that he planned to leave the party. There will be plenty more people attacking Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell when they lose their seats at the election.

 

[Dave1987]

Hospital car parks are a massive cash cow. You could easily have an ANPR system where if you are a patient you give your reg when you register at the desk, anyone else pays. If you have not paid or registered your reg because you have an appointment you get a nice bill through the post. The health authorities, councils and politicians won't do that because the hospital car parks bring in huge amounts of revenue.

 

[ExRes]

Hospital car parks are a massive cash cow. You could easily have an ANPR system where if you are a patient you give your reg when you register at the desk, anyone else pays. If you have not paid or registered your reg because you have an appointment you get a nice bill through the post. The health authorities, councils and politicians won't do that because the hospital car parks bring in huge amounts of revenue.

Corbyn isn't worried about the loss of cash though, he's quite happy to screw people paying private medical insurance, and not using the NHS, to subsidise his idiotic idea, lose £162m in income and replace it with £377m by taxing people who look after themselves. Corbyn may be too stupid to understand that not all those taking out private medical insurance are multi millionaires and corrupt capitalists

 

[Bromley boy]

Latest Labour promise is free parking at hospitals. Personally I think they've shot themselves in the foot again, as they are choosing to subsidise those that drive over those that use public transport and those that really need the car park will struggle to find spaces. Much better and cheaper just to require hospitals to offer concessions for those that genuinely have no alternative.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, most voters would like some clarity on "PM" Corbyn's strategy on Brexit, some costings that actually add up from "Chancellor" McDonnell, perhaps something sensible on policing from "Home Secretary" Diane Abbott.

I'm not saying NHS parking costs aren't an issue but, as with additional bank holidays, surely the Shadow Cabinet should have bigger fish to fry than peddling this dross!?