wednesday1 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 David Cameron has spent £680,000 of taxpayers' cash on Downing Street http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/27/david-cameron-taxpayers-home-improvements All in it together eh??? Nice work if you can get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger lily Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 words can't describe how i feel about this man.he certainly doesn't live in the same world as us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I have never voted Tory and never will but having a go at Cameron for doing up the house is just petty. Of course the taxpayer paid for a state owned building, who do you think should pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Maybe you should quote a little bit from your source: "This spend relates to the Downing Street Building Modernisation Programme launched in 2006, under the last government, to address structural repairs and the renewal of failing infrastructure, having gone without refurbishment for some 50 years. This work is still ongoing. Downing Street is a Grade I listed building. As such it requires a certain level of maintenance. The prime minister has paid for changes to the flat out of his own pocket, beyond the annual maintenance budget threshold." That changes things a bit eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted May 28, 2011 Author Share Posted May 28, 2011 I have never voted Tory and never will but having a go at Cameron for doing up the house is just petty. Of course the taxpayer paid for a state owned building, who do you think should pay for it? If it's just general maintenance then I would agree, but £680,000 on a property which would have been well-maintained anyway seems way over the top to me and just shows how arrogant and out of touch he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 If it's just general maintenance then I would agree, but £680,000 on a property which would have been well-maintained anyway seems way over the top to me and just shows how arrogant and out of touch he is. When you take my quote above into account, you must therefore be satisfied. It's part of a modernisation program started under the previous government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 It's not been well maintained as noted before. The program was started under Blair, so it's hardly Cameron starting to do the work. Those private modifications he wanted he appears to have funded himself, as did Brown and Blair to my knowledge. So why persist in lying when you have been told otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted May 28, 2011 Author Share Posted May 28, 2011 It's not been well maintained as noted before. The program was started under Blair, so it's hardly Cameron starting to do the work. Those private modifications he wanted he appears to have funded himself, as did Brown and Blair to my knowledge. So why persist in lying when you have been told otherwise? Why is Cameron is refusing to give all the details? see below Tom Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, who has been campaigning for greater openness about the financing of Downing Street, described the £30,000 grant as a "hidden bonus for the PM" to supplement a flat he lives in rent-free. He said: "£30,000 is more than a nurse's salary. People need to know what's gone in there and how much it's cost. It's not their building, it's the nation's building. "The PM heralded the age of transparency and said we're in a for a period of austerity. Lo and behold the taxpayers subsidised a £30,000 kitchen and he's refusing to give all the details. He's not living up to his pledges. "He has to come clean about his own taxpayer's subsidy. He's supposed to be setting an example to rest of public sector." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emma royd Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 If it's just general maintenance then I would agree, but £680,000 on a property which would have been well-maintained anyway seems way over the top to me and just shows how arrogant and out of touch he is. You are of course refering to Tony Blair who booked the work. Typical overspending socialists. Just like his mate Lord Irvine who did exactly the same on his own ministerial dwellings. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Lord-Irvines-650000-wallpaper-to.2763884.jp IT WAS the first signal of the excesses of New Labour after Tony Blair came to power. Derry Irvine provoked ridicule and outrage in the early months of his period as Lord Chancellor with his demands for a lavish makeover at his official residence. The huge operation, involving hand-printed wallpaper at £300 a roll, ultimately set the taxpayer back some £650,000. But it can now be revealed that the empire Lord Irvine fashioned during six years as head of the English judiciary is being brutally dismantled. And, most galling of all, the notoriously expensive wallpaper is set to dignify the Westminster equivalent of a works canteen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Why is Cameron is refusing to give all the details? see below Tom Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, who has been campaigning for greater openness about the financing of Downing Street, described the £30,000 grant as a "hidden bonus for the PM" to supplement a flat he lives in rent-free. He said: "£30,000 is more than a nurse's salary. People need to know what's gone in there and how much it's cost. It's not their building, it's the nation's building. "The PM heralded the age of transparency and said we're in a for a period of austerity. Lo and behold the taxpayers subsidised a £30,000 kitchen and he's refusing to give all the details. He's not living up to his pledges. "He has to come clean about his own taxpayer's subsidy. He's supposed to be setting an example to rest of public sector." Sorry, answer the first question and I may consider answering yours. That's how debate works. Well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.