The cost of decorating a flat.

Venod

Eh up
Location
Yorkshire
Ok so Boris has said he payed for this himself, there is going to be an investigation, but will it be unbiased, who knows.

What I find astounding the Prime Minister (this applies to all parties, so no whatabouties please) gets £30,000 a year to cover renovations of his Downing Street flat, that's more than a lot of people earn a year.

But newspaper reports suggest the bill for the latest work could be as high as £200,000.

These people in charge (whatever party) need a reality check.

The lying, cheating and general disregard for rules needs to stop, they are just doing what they like and getting away with it, more respect for the people who employ them (us) is required.

I am more than proud to say I did not vote for this dodgy lot.
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
I suspect, given his tantrum, he didn't pay for it all, but realised he should have, and it stung him as his 'girlfriend' is as corrupt as he.
 

winjim

✊🏻✊🏾 🌈 ♀️ 😷
Di we know exactly what the £30k covers? Because if it's for redecorating a single flat it's quite a lot, but if it's for upkeep and maintenance of the entire building, or even buildings if it's Nos 10 and 11, then it might not actually be that much.

What's in the rest of Downing St? Is it civil service stuff?
 
Johnson's flat refurbishment will be investigated by the Electoral Commission, who have decided that there are grounds to suspect an offence may have been committed. Recent rule changes mean that the ultimate ruling on whether or not this is the case will be made by Boris Johnson.
 

PeteXXX

Cake or ice cream? The choice is endless ...
Location
Hamtun
Didn't Bercow get a slap for spending too much on wallpaper?
£20,000 to refurbish their pad in Westminster in 2009
 

bitsandbobs

Senior Member
Di we know exactly what the £30k covers? Because if it's for redecorating a single flat it's quite a lot, but if it's for upkeep and maintenance of the entire building, or even buildings if it's Nos 10 and 11, then it might not actually be that much.

What's in the rest of Downing St? Is it civil service stuff?
It's for the PM's private residence within Downing Street - a flat in no. 11 - not the entire building. And the 30k is an annual allowance.
 

BrumJim

Forum Stalwart (won't take the hint and leave...)
The standard "flat" refurbishment allowance appears to be a gross waste of money. However this is not just an ordinary flat - it is a 4 bedroom house, perched above government offices, so I guess a pretty substantial property rather than just somewhere to sleep if you are late home from work. And it is very much where the Prime Minister's family live. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to live in accomodation decorated to the style of the previous incumbent. Unlike normal family homes, the owner changes hands quite frequently (or has done recently), so whilst it is a terrible waste that furnishings and decorations that are only a few years old will be just binned, it is a bit of a special situation.

But yes, £200,000 is a ludicrously large amount of money for an interior redecoration. Fortunately there will be an independent review of the spending with absolutely no interference from the PM himself which will come up with an utterly unbiased and uncensored view as to if it was acceptable or not. This will be the sort of review for which the current government is renowned as having delivered regularly since the last election with honour and integrity, and for which we are world-leading.

Lastly, with all this redecorating going on, surely the rooms are now substantially smaller than they were when it first became the PM's accomodation?
 
Last edited:

BrumJim

Forum Stalwart (won't take the hint and leave...)
£650,000 to decorate a flat 23 years ago - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm

£400 for a roll of wallpaper.
Yes, that was dreadful wasn't it.

The worst quote from that report is:
" Lord Irvine of Lairg said the investment on his official apartment in the House of Lords would be appreciated by future generations. "

More like ripped down and replaced within a couple of parliaments.
 
The point here is not the cost.

Of course Prime Ministers should have excellent living quarters. If in a historic building, perhaps even (as in @Joey Shabadoo 's whataboutery above) period relevant, bespoke and fantastically expensive.

The point is that Johnson knew what the allowance was, chose to disregard it and took someone else's money (whether as loan or cash matters not) to pay for it.

That puts him in the position of owing a debt to that person or organisation. What did they want back for their cash? This is corruption, pure and simple.

And it's also entitlement, which goes to the heart of what Johnson is. He believes he's entitled to rule over us, to break rules, to the best of everything, hell, to channel public money to his sexual partners, without consequence.

He won't even state how many children he has, and he runs his government exactly as he does his private affairs.
 

bitsandbobs

Senior Member
The standard "flat" refurbishment allowance appears to be a gross waste of money. However this is not just an ordinary flat - it is a 4 bedroom house, perched above government offices, so I guess a pretty substantial property rather than just somewhere to sleep if you are late home from work. And it is very much where the Prime Minister's family live. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to live in accomodation decorated to the style of the previous incumbent. Unlike normal family homes, the owner changes hands quite frequently (or has done recently), so whilst it is a terrible waste that furnishings and decorations that are only a few years old will be just binned, it is a bit of a special situation.

But yes, £200,000 is a ludicrously large amount of money for an interior redecoration. Fortunately there will be an independent review of the spending with absolutely no interference from the PM himself which will come up with an utterly unbiased and uncensored view as to if it was acceptable or not. This will be the sort of review for which the current government is renowned as having delivered regularly since the last election with honour and integrity, and for which we are world-leading.

Lastly, with all this redecorating going on, surely the rooms are now substantially smaller than they were when it first became the PM's accomodation?
Could have taken the smaller flat at no. 10 if he were concerned about costs. Blair was the first PM to live at no. 11, but perhaps not unreasonable given he had 3 (then 4) children. Same for Cameron who had three children.

Johnson only has.....ah, I see the problem with this reasoning..
 

BrumJim

Forum Stalwart (won't take the hint and leave...)
Hold on - Boris has taken the flat above 11 ever since he became Prime Minister as it is bigger than that above No.10

Despite the fact that his first Chancellor had 4 children living with him, and the current one has 2.

He really is a s***bag, isn't he!

And please no comments about Tony Blair. Gordon Brown had no children at all when TB, wife and 3, latterly 4 kids moved into the No.11 flat.
 

battered

Veteran
What's in the rest of Downing St? Is it civil service stuff?
I imagine so. Meeting rooms, press rooms, offices for visiting dignitaries, probably some accommodation for the same, after all the whole street is fenced off and guarded 24/7 so if you have the visiting King of Outer Upperland then you can stick him and his family and entourage in the flat(s) there and know they will be safe.

Alternatively the whole street might be piled high with old BBC comedy scripts.
 

byegad

Legendary Member
Location
NE England
He completely lost it during PMQs yesterday. Methinks he's guilty as charged. Given he was allegedly broke only a year or so ago, even sleeping in his car when his wife kicked him out. It strains credulity that he had that kind of cash to hand in so short a time.
 

Joey Shabadoo

My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
The point here is not the cost.

Of course Prime Ministers should have excellent living quarters. If in a historic building, perhaps even (as in @Joey Shabadoo 's whataboutery above) period relevant, bespoke and fantastically expensive.
It wasn't really intended as whataboutery, more pointing out ;

1) The huge costs involved in decorating politician's temporary accommodation
2) The massive sense of entitlement they have and the complete disconnect with the public.
 
Top Bottom