Jump to content

UK.Government buys £12m luxury New York apartment for diplomat.


Did the Government spend too much?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the UK Government have spent £12m on an apartment?

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      12


Recommended Posts

Guest makapaka
6 hours ago, bendix said:

The government owns thousands of buildings all around the world.  Don’t be ridiculous.  

 

How can anyone possibly argue that it makes more sense to pay for a permanent trade envoy to live in a NY hotel, rather than acquire property which can be used in perpetuity and sold when no longer needed?

 

 

Why not?

3 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Not to mention the security implications.

Which could be mitigated in the same way as if the government owned the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest makapaka
29 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

Clearly, that's not true. Do you think a hotel would be happy to have a proliferation of CCTV cameras and a viewing suite installed?

So does every travelling politician / dignitary have a house purchased for them on their travels?

 

keep justifying the purchase of a £12m house for an individual with taxpayers money if you like - it’s up to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

So does every travelling politician / dignitary have a house purchased for them on their travels?

 

keep justifying the purchase of a £12m house for an individual with taxpayers money if you like - it’s up to you. 

It is not for a travelling politician.  It is for a permanent trade negotiator who would be living there full-time, until he is replaced by another who - guess what - would live there too.

 

You make it sound like they have bought this place for a guy who gets to keep it to hand down to his kids.

 

Simple fact:  The Foreign Office owns property around the world worth close to £2bn, used for embassies, ambassador residences, consular offices. 

In some expensive cities - like NY for example - they have rented instead.  For example,  it pays £1.4 a year in rent for consular offices on a fixed term lease of around 15 years.  Do the math and tell me again which strategy makes more sense.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

So does every travelling politician / dignitary have a house purchased for them on their travels?

No, they probably stay in the  building their country already owns - like when Trump came to the UK he stayed at the US ambassador’s official residence, Winfield House, in Regent’s Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest makapaka
58 minutes ago, bendix said:

It is not for a travelling politician.  It is for a permanent trade negotiator who would be living there full-time, until he is replaced by another who - guess what - would live there too.

 

You make it sound like they have bought this place for a guy who gets to keep it to hand down to his kids.

 

Simple fact:  The Foreign Office owns property around the world worth close to £2bn, used for embassies, ambassador residences, consular offices. 

In some expensive cities - like NY for example - they have rented instead.  For example,  it pays £1.4 a year in rent for consular offices on a fixed term lease of around 15 years.  Do the math and tell me again which strategy makes more sense.

 

 

 

 

None of it makes sense it’s a ludicrous waste of money.

 

nothing you have said provides any justification for the cost does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, makapaka said:

None of it makes sense it’s a ludicrous waste of money.

 

nothing you have said provides any justification for the cost does it.

Buying something outright for £12m that you can sell in the future is a damn sight more sensible than spending £1.4m a year to rent somewhere on a fixed 15 year lease. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, makapaka said:

None of it makes sense it’s a ludicrous waste of money.

 

nothing you have said provides any justification for the cost does it.

Well, yeah, actually it does.

 

What doesn't make sense is you refusing to accept it makes sense when the figures clearly shows that it . . . ummm . . makes sense.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest makapaka
1 hour ago, Robin-H said:

Buying something outright for £12m that you can sell in the future is a damn sight more sensible than spending £1.4m a year to rent somewhere on a fixed 15 year lease. 

Why do you have to spend 1.4m a year to rent somewhere?

1 hour ago, bendix said:

Well, yeah, actually it does.

 

What doesn't make sense is you refusing to accept it makes sense when the figures clearly shows that it . . . ummm . . makes sense.

 

 

 

If you are happy to have your tax money spent on large value property purchases that’s fine - you’re prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, makapaka said:

So does every travelling politician / dignitary have a house purchased for them on their travels?

 

keep justifying the purchase of a £12m house for an individual with taxpayers money if you like - it’s up to you. 

Where have I tried to justify the purchase, or made any comments about what happens to other travelling dignitaries?

 

I was merely refuting your point. Try reading a bit harder next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.