Talk

Advanced search

To be fucking furious

(72 Posts)
bert3400 Tue 26-Mar-19 23:25:22

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/26/the-16m-new-york-penthouse-fit-for-a-uk-civil-servant.

So our schools & NHS are struggling...but Jeremy Cunt can authorise this

Sfgb Wed 27-Mar-19 09:50:35

Educate yourself????......France, Germany and Italy do not have a NHS to fund - which is where I would have preferred this money to have been spent

LaurieMarlow Wed 27-Mar-19 10:02:54

international trade is something we once dominated, educate yourself.

I choked laughing at this.

Loads of countries ‘once’ dominated international trade. Greeks, Persians, Romans, Spanish, Turks, Portuguese. Luckily for them they’re not dumb enough to think you can just turn back the clock.

The world has changed. Just what do we have to offer right now to ‘dominate’ world trade? We don’t make much, don’t have an empire to plunder, so what’s our strategy?

Apart from the fancy apartment, which will obvs bring them all flocking to our door to sign deals hmm

GCAcademic Wed 27-Mar-19 10:17:51

Look at our selection of canapes and tremble at our might!

Lol! Though perhaps canapes and champagne are a bit too European for our post-EU reincarnation. How about sausage rolls and babycham? That will show them!

thedisorganisedmum Wed 27-Mar-19 10:18:43

Rent a bloody office space, like every other organisation does?

grin grin grin

yes, that's where most decisions are made, in a Regus-type meeeting room.

I love MN. grin

SpoonBlender Wed 27-Mar-19 10:31:57

We do already have an embassy in NY.

AnnaComnena Wed 27-Mar-19 10:41:23

Palaces would make just as much an impression to the world if they were opened to the public, and not just "private" residence with maintenance funded by the tax payer.

Windsor and Buckingham Palace are not private residences. They belong to the nation and are used for official business, state occasions, entertaining. The Queen probably wouldn't use BP if she didn't need a London base. They would have to be maintained whoever lived there, or didn't live there.

And parts of them are open to the public.

Balmoral and Sandringham are the Queen's private property and are paid for by her. Although she does do quite a lot of official entertaining at Balmoral.

downcasteyes Wed 27-Mar-19 10:51:28

Seems a bit steep.

thedisorganisedmum Wed 27-Mar-19 10:57:32

Windsor and Buckingham Palace are not private residences. They belong to the nation and are used for official business, state occasions, entertaining.

so they are funded by the tax payer, who is given the immense privilege of being allowed to pay for tickets to visit a few times a year grin

The whole think is a circus, and we sheep are happy to waste a fortune to entertain a royal family that some of us think are our better.

It would make absolutely no difference if the state was taking back its properties, and we got rid of the royal family. It would just be cheaper.

Basecamp65 Wed 27-Mar-19 10:58:54

I think some people are missing the point - Why should any nation have to spend tax payers money to impress other nations who are spending tax payers money to impress them.

Surely all the leaders in the world should just grow up and stop this farce.

If nations said - hey we are not wasting our citizens taxes on this crap but booking a room at the local hotel like everyone else does when they need a meeting this would soon stop it.

Its a bit like the emperors new clothes - someone has to stand up and say what a joke it is. Why cannot these meetings be held where everyone else holds a meeting - yes decisions can and are made just as well in Regus rented room as in a posh £16m room - its the believe that we have to play these stupid games that is the problem.

Many of the most important treaties have been signed in tents

bert3400 Wed 27-Mar-19 11:02:58

Bluerussian...damn predictive text, cause he's not really a cunt is he ?? 😂😂😂

Also why shouldn't I get angry that these privileged wankers are spending my hard earned taxes on a beautiful penthouse in NY ....it's obscene especially when so many ordinary people can't afford to fucking eat ...yes I'm fucking angry

Jaxhog Wed 27-Mar-19 11:05:03

That's fair enough when thier is a budget for essential and the country isn't on its knees. I wonder how many Tory ministers will get to use it for a nice little jolly. 7 bedrooms

Do you really think that 'poorer' nations don't have these pads too?! No nation thinks they're flush enough!! At least we have an NHS - most counties don't. Why single out Tory Ministers? Do you think the others won't use it too if they can?

Part of attracting investment to a country is being able to flash about like this. Unpleasant though it may be, it's actually a much smaller cost than losing said investment.

Jaxhog Wed 27-Mar-19 11:07:58

Surely all the leaders in the world should just grow up and stop this farce.

And pigs might fly, the sun go round the moon and all people have equal opportunity. Wake up please. The world isn't like this. Nor is it likely to change in our lifetime; much as we think it should.

Leafyhouse Wed 27-Mar-19 11:09:05

@LaurieMarlow The world has changed. Just what do we have to offer right now to ‘dominate’ world trade?

Well, the one thing we do really well is the much-maligned 'City'. And we are the world's best at that. The only other city that even comes close in terms of financial services is New York, funnily enough.

$15m is a drop in the ocean, money well worth spending. To put it in perspective, London trades on average $2.7trn per day in Foreign Exchange.

NWQM Wed 27-Mar-19 11:09:59

The British Consulate really doesn't look like it's shabby and the UN building itself has pretty impressive facilities. Would love to see the business case for this particular decision.

Ohmygoodness101 Wed 27-Mar-19 11:10:04

I’m in Ireland and read an article. Ireland are currently consolidating consulates / development agencies looking for foreign development investment under one roof. This consolidation is currently being done by many nations but the UK seems behind the curve on this one

PlainSpeakingStraightTalking Wed 27-Mar-19 11:13:22

I cant get hysterical about a property investment on behalf of the government. Do you expect peopel to rent a marquee on sidewalk or something?

15 million is fuck all, it's not even a handful of peanuts.

Treaclesweet Wed 27-Mar-19 11:13:37

Yes @BaseCamp65 exactly this!

It is barely disguised plutocracy.

LaurieMarlow Wed 27-Mar-19 11:14:07

Well, the one thing we do really well is the much-maligned 'City'. And we are the world's best at that. The only other city that even comes close in terms of financial services is New York, funnily enough.

And one of the most important reasons why that’s so successful is because we’re in the EU and have passporting rights. Once we lose this we will no longer be of any use to US/Asian firms who use us as their European base. Naturally we won’t be too desirable to EU firms either.

Honestly I feel like banging my head on my desk at how god damn ignorant some leavers views are. You’re right, financial services were a huge asset. We’re about to piss it all away.

AnnaComnena Wed 27-Mar-19 11:17:40

It would make absolutely no difference if the state was taking back its properties, and we got rid of the royal family. It would just be cheaper.

The state can't 'take back' what it already owns. And it wouldn't be cheaper. The maintenance costs would be the same.

What would increase costs significantly would be to open more of them to the public. Cost of necessary H&S work, making areas accessible, staffing, security - and the unavoidable fact that increased numbers of visitors ends up causing damage to what they've come to see.The ultimate examples are the pyramids and Stonehenge, which no-one can now visit. But the custodian of quite a small country house once told me that their quite modest numbers of visitors cause significant amounts of wear and tear.

GirlcalledJack Wed 27-Mar-19 11:19:00

So why couldn’t one of our National Trust properties be used for this smooching of other diplomats?

Why could we not use an already existing building?

It seems a convenient excuse that this hugely expensive and lavish property is essential for building relations with other top brass.

thedisorganisedmum Wed 27-Mar-19 11:25:27

oh please do not tell me that we keep the royal family to make savings in the budget!

If the state really does own them, but they are kept nearly exclusively for the enjoyment of one or 2 people, that's really something! (and you are right, that's exactly what it is . they are not private to ensure the tax payer finance the upkeep!)

You do realise the security already exist for the sake of that one family, so we could use the fundings for that and transfer it to the security of the actual building. (not the actual personnel, just the funding).
The increase number of visitors would pay for tickets too, or make copies of the most valuable objects and keep the original safe. At least someone else than a private family could see them.
The French manage with Versailles, the German with Neuschwanstein and so on.

However things are organised, we don't need the royal family any more.
UK nationals would argue just the same about Brexit without them....

Acis Wed 27-Mar-19 11:30:21

Where would you find a property with a huge space for entertaining but no bedroms, Acis??

In the rather large embassy and consulate buildings that we already own?

Billben Wed 27-Mar-19 12:00:17

It was by having an empire, not by schmoozing people and getting on our knees in front of US medical companies and their industrial farming lobby. Neither are anything to be proud of.

How did we get that empire? By colonising everything and exploiting it. Neither are anything to be proud of.

GCAcademic Wed 27-Mar-19 12:16:10

Billben - er, that was my point?

StormTreader Wed 27-Mar-19 12:21:14

"Annual budget NHS 127.7 billion
So the cost is about 1 ten billionth of a percent of the NHS budget for 1 year. Not really going to make a difference. Numerical illiteracy is a real problem."

How many nurses salaries would it pay for for 5 or 10 years? How much medicine? The real issue is the attitude of "when I'm already in so much debt, buying booze and a takeaway every night won't make any difference" when in fact the ONLY way to address financial shortfalls is to look at where any savings at all can be made.

Do you think this is the only time the government has spaffed this kind of money on themselves? Would all those bits and pieces add up to a large chunk of money that could be used where its really needed, do you think?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »