to think the Camerons could have spent less on home improvements?

[worcesterweatherwax]

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/27/david-cameron-taxpayers-home-improvements

YABU other papers are reporting that they paid for the improvements themselves.

a lot less than the Blairs spent 10 years ago

We need to get to the bottom of it. What figure is quoted?

According to the article it was £680,000.... And it was tax payer's money.

If I remember rightly they have an allowance for improvements, anything on top of that allowance they have to self fund.

Well, if the Gruniad story is wrong; I think DC will say so.

That's ok then? Forgot that we were all in this together obviously.

This may not be the case with No 10. Downing Street, but a lot of these buildings that require refurbishment/redecorating are listed buildings. This means you can't just stick up some wallpaper from B&Q. You need specialist materials to protect the existing building and to keep it in the right state for future generations.

I'm not defending their spending, I'm jsut saying that some of these buildings require specialist care to conserve them the correct standrad.

All in this together? Are you mad?

Conserve them to the correct standard

Preview, preview

The money was spent on their flat at no 11 only - £680,000 would buy a lot of Farrow and Ball paint I'm thinking.

Oh FGS! Read the article.

They used £30k to refurbish the Flat that is allowed for all prime Ministers and put some of ther own money in as well. No public money was spent on their furniture etc.

"The other £653,192.34 was spent on external and internal renovation work to the offices and reception rooms in Downing Street, including cabling, plumbing and energy efficiency improvements."

This is a public building and vast majority of the money was spent on public rooms in a Grade I Listed building. What do you expect? Pop down B&Q and get a few tins of magnolia and do it all themselves?

It is a lovely kitchen.

But it wasn't worcester, it's right there in the article.

The other £653,192.34 was spent on external and internal renovation work to the offices and reception rooms in Downing Street, including cabling, plumbing and energy efficiency improvements.

So they spent what was allowed, funded the rest themselves, and all the rest was essential repairs on old buildings.

Yet another non-story being misinterpreted for an agenda

Isn't there some sort of office to run 10 Downing Street and co-ordinate stuff in the building like wiring or plumbing improvements? Is it really up to the current incumbent to refurbish it or have the wiring done, fill in paperwork, etc?

The Grauniad article doesn't really make it clear whether there's a committee for building maintenance for No. 10 or how the 600,000+ came to be disbursed, or who has oversight of its disposition aside from the suggestion that it was all done by the Camerons themselves.

It seems really crazy that there's no office running the building itself (it is a Grade 1 listed building btw) if this is the case.

waxyworcester is stirring with a big wooden spoon !

So... Being unreasonable it seems. Maybe I'm just twitchy because of the juxtaposition of these figures with the average pension, the closure of essential services etc. The yawning gap between the haves and have nots seems to have reached Dickensian proportions and unless the spending at Downing Street was essential it would seem a slap in the face to those losing their jobs within government. Ho hum.

Maybe Blair should have controlled his spending a bit better then.

worcesterww - yes you have a very legitimate point about the enormous gap that has opened up between the low/middle income and the very top. It is eating away at the fabric of society - but this story about the Camerons does not illustrate that issue.

The fact that bankers and very senior business people get 100 x more salary than the average worker and all because of Govt bailouts is the real scandal - not what David Cameron gets paid and legitimately claims in expenses.

agree

they only used £30K to refurb the flat if its not been done since Blair went into power in 1997 then i don't think that's too bad

the rest was on public offices ( my company regularly spend £Ms on office refurbs they don't come cheap)

the same with the report on Blair's spending £1m was spent on refurbing the public offices, which no doubt includes upgrading computer/security systems and services, v. expensive stuff.

its just newspapers trying to outrage people as usual, and why i don't read them any more.

and i agree it is a lovely kitchen

Good point. The article's misleading headline was re-written between my seeing it initially and then referring back to it after starting this thread. If I cared enough I'd have pointed this out sooner.