On the day that a Times poll has the Tories 13% ahead it will be Mail that will get the most attenti

TheJezziah said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheJezziah said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Off-topic, can I say how much I enjoyed last night's discussion on AI. This site has become more fun since the Jezziah AI programme was switched back on. Especially as the 2019 election has been deleted from its programming.

Given Starmers great polling it was clear all along that being left wing was the problem and any other leader would be 20 points ahead, you were right, I was wrong.

I just thought centrism was a dead ideology but the dramatic response to Starmers charismatic leadership have blown me away and turned me into a true believer.

Would Starmer have been considered a centrist pre-Corbyn?

Apart from now talking about Yemen instead of Israel how much has Starmer actually moved Labour to the "centre".

TBH I wouldn't take much convincing that Starmer cares less for the people of Yemen than Boris Johnson does.

There are some Blairites who don't want to kill people in Yemen (admittedly there are those that do) I don't think it is an exclusively left wing position (a mostly left wing one maybe) but if his leadership was more like that people would probably think of him as left wing, more of an exception than the rule though in Starmers time as leader his actions have been far more anti left.

Insane.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

The bottom line is that decorating number ten should not be a priority at this moment. It's a total indulgence.

And it is a private matter unless public money is involved which as I understand it is not the case

How is our elected officials accepting cash bungs a private matter?

What on earth has happened to standards in public life?

Has a cash bung been accepted

Ive no idea, but the Daily Mail reports it was discussed with the PM present.

"The Daily Mail has been told that Mr Johnson was present when a plan was mooted to ask Tory donors – including environment minister Lord [Zac] Goldsmith, a close friend of Miss Symonds, and billionaire JCB construction boss Lord Bamford – to contribute. It is not known whether either man has provided funds."

It interesting that Boris Johnson has been more focussed on getting the money for doing up Number 10 than say feeding starving kids.

Marcus Rashford really has shamed him on that front.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

The bottom line is that decorating number ten should not be a priority at this moment. It's a total indulgence.

And it is a private matter unless public money is involved which as I understand it is not the case

No it is not a private matter.

If a Minister is financially benefiting then it needs to be transparent. Sunshine is the best disinfectant for corruption.

I agree if public money is involved

It applies to private money also. Do you think all the brown envelope stuff that happened in the past was ok?

TheScreamingEagles said:

It interesting that Boris Johnson has been more focussed on getting the money for doing up Number 10 than say feeding starving kids.

Marcus Rashford really has shamed him on that front.

I dont actually mind public money being spent on the refurb, but pretending its a charitable cause or hoping for cash bungs is out of order.

I really think the chancellor's budget is set to fall apart by Sunday morning. The CT rise is already being labelled as investment and job killing (which it is). The treasury's own homework on it says as much as does the OBR EFO.

As I said on the day, we should be going in the other direction. Lowering CT, putting measures in place to allow companies to invest their money in the UK and growing the economy so that we catch up to pre-COVID rates and have a higher baseline.

This was a Tory chancellor turning a Thatcherite economy into something that looks positively French. A high debt, high tax, low yield economy that had lost its dynamism because the state is afraid of bad headlines and still manages to pick them up.

I also see that the 1% NHS payrise has been noticed. Absolutely insulting for the frontline workers who have tirelessly battled against COVID this year. Even a one off 5% bonus would do well if they didn't want to set a higher baseline. It's a nothing amount of money either, ~£1.6bn I think for a 5% bonus.

YBarddCwsc said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheJezziah said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Off-topic, can I say how much I enjoyed last night's discussion on AI. This site has become more fun since the Jezziah AI programme was switched back on. Especially as the 2019 election has been deleted from its programming.

Given Starmers great polling it was clear all along that being left wing was the problem and any other leader would be 20 points ahead, you were right, I was wrong.

I just thought centrism was a dead ideology but the dramatic response to Starmers charismatic leadership have blown me away and turned me into a true believer.

Would Starmer have been considered a centrist pre-Corbyn?

Apart from now talking about Yemen instead of Israel how much has Starmer actually moved Labour to the "centre".

Starmer was (and is) centre left of the labour party...

Have not most Labour leaders drifted rightwards over the course of time?

Warmonger Blair started out a member of CND. Wilson was a leftist firebrand who resigned over the imposition of NHS charges.

To get the leadership, SKS emphasised his leftist credentials.

But, the signs are already there that he is moving sharply rightwards. E.g., all the bloody Union Jacks.

Having the flag of your own country isn't rightwing.

The fact that you think it is or that its even controversial just shows how far off the deep end Labour have gone.

NickPalmer said:

If it turns out that the cost is being paid either directly by taxpayers or indirectly by making it a charity (If someone's bedroom redecoration is a charity, where do you draw the line?), then I think people will indeed be outraged. If it's merely paid by some Tory chums, then most people will shrug, though if Tory HQ is paying then some of the supporters who chip in £50 to the email appeals may feel a bit miffed.

Four points:-

1. Taxpayers' money should not be used for extravagant interior decoration, beyond the normal appointment already budgeted for. If extra is wanted it should be paid for by the PM personally.
2. Interior decoration is not a charitable purpose. The idea of creating a "charity" for such a purpose is simply taking the piss and unlawful under current U.K. laws.
3. Donors funding it should not be permitted. It creates an obvious conflict of interest. It's no different from bunging the PM a few quid in the hope of some reward. Bluntly it risks being seen as - or actually being - a bribe.
4. The PM has a very grand country house to enjoy and a 4 - bedroom flat in Central London. Let's get real: this is extravagant by any normal standards. Rather than moan about it he - and his other half - should reflect on their good fortune and enjoy it while it lasts.

For all the reasons previously discussed I think it’s wrong for the PM to ever benefit from personal donations like this, but I think most voters will hear “not using public money” and move on until one of the donors is ennobled.

Where the NHS is concerned, the Gvt is, as usual, failing to point out that a 1% raise isn’t a 1% raise because they get increments too (I think that’s still true). Also this is the terms of reference for the review and Hancock/Boris might get to “heroically” overturn it later.

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

On topic: I don't see how this damages the PM. OK, so £200k on decorations sounds utterly absurd. To most normals it also sounds impossible. Gender politics comes into effect - most married men understand what its like when their better half pushes the button on spending cash for their project. And I suspect that many women reading it will treat the story with the same outraged anti-woman tone that all of the Mail's SHE'S FAT, WHAT UGLY CLOTHES, LOOK - CELLULITE! photo exclusives.

Shagger dumped his wife and kids whilst she was having cancer treatment, knocked up the fling, shagged a musician on the side for good measure. And people still think "he's a lad". So there are no stories of basic ethics and morality that can get him. None.

His wife kicked him out, he didn’t dump her.

He treated her badly that even she finally had enough and kicked him out. The real question is why she put up with him for so long.

What has it got to do with you or anyone else for that matter? How do you know she wasn't equally awful to him if indeed he was awful.to her.

TheScreamingEagles said:

noneoftheabove said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It interesting that Boris Johnson has been more focussed on getting the money for doing up Number 10 than say feeding starving kids.

Marcus Rashford really has shamed him on that front.

I dont actually mind public money being spent on the refurb, but pretending its a charitable cause or hoping for cash bungs is out of order.

Agree, I've said for years the entire Downing Street complex is unsuitable for the leader of our country.

Kick Brenda out of Buckingham Palace and move the PM and most of the government there.

It costs the country nothing.

Not a bad idea at all, but wait for Charles before doing it.

MaxPB said:

I really think the chancellor's budget is set to fall apart by Sunday morning. The CT rise is already being labelled as investment and job killing (which it is). The treasury's own homework on it says as much as does the OBR EFO.

As I said on the day, we should be going in the other direction. Lowering CT, putting measures in place to allow companies to invest their money in the UK and growing the economy so that we catch up to pre-COVID rates and have a higher baseline.

This was a Tory chancellor turning a Thatcherite economy into something that looks positively French. A high debt, high tax, low yield economy that had lost its dynamism because the state is afraid of bad headlines and still manages to pick them up.

I also see that the 1% NHS payrise has been noticed. Absolutely insulting for the frontline workers who have tirelessly battled against COVID this year. Even a one off 5% bonus would do well if they didn't want to set a higher baseline. It's a nothing amount of money either, ~£1.6bn I think for a 5% bonus.

Agree Max.

The problem is that pensioners are stuffed with gold and house owners can anticipate some lovely price inflation to make them feel wealthier.

The budget was too clever by half.

This is early term, and Rishi had a chance to right some wrongs and set us up on a better path for growth.

He flunked it.

(With the exception of the investment subsidy).

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, your EU-fixation is showing.

I just said that there were legitimate grounds to attack both the pay rise and the track and trace spending. That doesn't make a stupid statistical comparison anything other than stupid.

No, I was pointing out the Tory party and their supporters yesterday were gleefully taking a quote out of context by Starmer, don't be surprised when other people start taking other things out of context to attack them.

"Don't be surprised when other people start"?
Taking things out of context has been going on in politics for my entire lifetime.

Dura_Ace said:

noneoftheabove said:

What on earth has happened to standards in public life?

Nobody give a fuck about them. The opposition are dreaming if they think Johnson pivoting the office of PM to a Patreon model is going to move the polls.

I certainly dont expect them to move the polls but a few of us do still care about them, and lament the current lack of standards and decency.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I may have mentioned it a few times on here but the focus groups have consistently picked up on the monies spent on track & trace and on contracts that seem to end up with Tory donors but what is really egregious is the fact the contracts are seemingly to those inexperienced and unqualified to deliver them.

It is a bonanza for Tory donors, pensioners are safe, and austerity for the rest of us.

We locked down to save granny, but granny doesn’t give a shite.

You really are very unpleasant today.

This pensioner does care and expects the triple lock to go, indeed it would have but for labour who decided they wanted it to stay for some strange reason (politics)

Wait, so it is Labour’s fault?

Wow. You have severe Stockholm Syndrome.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

noneoftheabove said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It interesting that Boris Johnson has been more focussed on getting the money for doing up Number 10 than say feeding starving kids.

Marcus Rashford really has shamed him on that front.

I dont actually mind public money being spent on the refurb, but pretending its a charitable cause or hoping for cash bungs is out of order.

Agree, I've said for years the entire Downing Street complex is unsuitable for the leader of our country.

Kick Brenda out of Buckingham Palace and move the PM and most of the government there.

It costs the country nothing.

Isn't there hundreds of millions worth of refurbishment to do to Buckingham palace as well that the crown estate currently pays for? Unless of course you're suggesting we expropriate that too?

350 million pounds worth of renovations. The Crown would still pay for that, think of it as all the backdated income tax the Queen and her antecedents failed to pay.

Ah retrospective tax, the tool of despots and kleptocrats all over the world.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kjh said:

RobD said:

kjh said:

I can't grasp how it is possible to spend £200k on a decoration unless you have more money than sense. I spent a similar amount between 2012 and 2014 but that got me a huge oak porch, a large extension to the garage, new heating to 17 room house, a massive patio, a concrete raised pond demolished and filled in, new natural style pond dug, new oak staircase, walls demolished and new walls built with several beams, 4 bathrooms bought and fitted and a kitchen and utility room, etc, etc.

Oh and decorated.

A couple of years ago we bought a terrace house in Southwold. Gutted, new kitchen, bathroom, electrics and heating for about £20k.

Oh and decorated.

Admit it, you just made this comment for the humblebrag about your £200k refurb.

Nope. I suspect there are several on here who can outbrag me. I know I am lucky to be able to afford it, but how else do you make the point that £200k on a flat is ridiculous.

I am also retired. It is the consequence of two well paid older individuals who aren't gullible and waste money on overpriced stuff.

As a rule of thumb for a complete refurbishment London is about £150-£200 psf for a flat.

I don’t know how large their flat is but if it is being totally redone I’m not surprised by the price.

I would say the same, but that includes rewiring and plumbing etc.

How big is the bloody flat anyway.

PB Decor Service, at your Service

It's 4 bedroom. The Daily Mail has an article about the last 3 makeovers. 64k for the Camerons for a bathroom, kitchen area, and new floor and ceiling. Dualit toaster and Britannia Range Cooker.

And 127k over several years for the Blairs. But then Cherie probably made more money than Boris, and did not have umpteen former husbands.

Here's the old plan, which you can access on the site mentioned I assume. It is some of this:



I will refrain from adding the Hello photos, unless you ask nicely.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9316209/The-modern-makeovers-Number-11-Downing-Street.html

You say its 4 bedroom but that floor plan shows - between No 10 and No 11 - a total of 18 bedrooms. How much of that do they have to refurbish?

Not that much, the issue is that Mrs May followed David Cameron's & Margaret Thatcher's lead that the taxpayer shouldn't lavish Number 10 but Ms Symonds really doesn't like Mrs May's John Lewis nightmare choice of decor.

If she doesn't like it she should pay for the changes herself. I can understand making changes/redecorating because of wear and tear but it should be within a fixed budget and on a fixed timescale - every so many years. And both those should be decided by someone other than the PM and his current sleeping partner.

£200k is the price of a nice semi with garden in Darlington. Wonder what they'll make of this up there?

Might be an idea to let Lawrence have a twirl.

Posts an Essex member!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

The bottom line is that decorating number ten should not be a priority at this moment. It's a total indulgence.

And it is a private matter unless public money is involved which as I understand it is not the case

You can be sure that future favours, ie gongs or plum contracts, will result though.

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

I really think the chancellor's budget is set to fall apart by Sunday morning. The CT rise is already being labelled as investment and job killing (which it is). The treasury's own homework on it says as much as does the OBR EFO.

As I said on the day, we should be going in the other direction. Lowering CT, putting measures in place to allow companies to invest their money in the UK and growing the economy so that we catch up to pre-COVID rates and have a higher baseline.

This was a Tory chancellor turning a Thatcherite economy into something that looks positively French. A high debt, high tax, low yield economy that had lost its dynamism because the state is afraid of bad headlines and still manages to pick them up.

I also see that the 1% NHS payrise has been noticed. Absolutely insulting for the frontline workers who have tirelessly battled against COVID this year. Even a one off 5% bonus would do well if they didn't want to set a higher baseline. It's a nothing amount of money either, ~£1.6bn I think for a 5% bonus.

Thing is, we have a national-populist government. I can think of lots of examples where such governments do very well electorally. Are there any examples of countries thriving under their rule?

No. They tend to debauch the country ethically and economically.

See Trump, Berlusconi etc.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

The bottom line is that decorating number ten should not be a priority at this moment. It's a total indulgence.

And it is a private matter unless public money is involved which as I understand it is not the case

No it is not a private matter.

If a Minister is financially benefiting then it needs to be transparent. Sunshine is the best disinfectant for corruption.

I agree if public money is involved

Even more important where private money is involved!

I would have less problem with public money. It may be extravagant but isn't potentially corrupt.

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

If it turns out that the cost is being paid either directly by taxpayers or indirectly by making it a charity (If someone's bedroom redecoration is a charity, where do you draw the line?), then I think people will indeed be outraged. If it's merely paid by some Tory chums, then most people will shrug, though if Tory HQ is paying then some of the supporters who chip in £50 to the email appeals may feel a bit miffed.

Four points:-

1. Taxpayers' money should not be used for extravagant interior decoration, beyond the normal appointment already budgeted for. If extra is wanted it should be paid for by the PM personally.
2. Interior decoration is not a charitable purpose. The idea of creating a "charity" for such a purpose is simply taking the piss and unlawful under current U.K. laws.
3. Donors funding it should not be permitted. It creates an obvious conflict of interest. It's no different from bunging the PM a few quid in the hope of some reward. Bluntly it risks being seen as - or actually being - a bribe.
4. The PM has a very grand country house to enjoy and a 4 - bedroom flat in Central London. Let's get real: this is extravagant by any normal standards. Rather than moan about it he - and his other half - should reflect on their good fortune and enjoy it while it lasts.

5. The only correct course of action: Wind in the extravagance as much as you can for the remaining work, come to an agreement with the contractors on a payment schedule for the amount above allowance, pay.

Boris is happy to be photographed with his hands in his pockets, let's see the money come out. He's allowed the overspend to go unchecked, he should take responsibility.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kjh said:

RobD said:

kjh said:

I can't grasp how it is possible to spend £200k on a decoration unless you have more money than sense. I spent a similar amount between 2012 and 2014 but that got me a huge oak porch, a large extension to the garage, new heating to 17 room house, a massive patio, a concrete raised pond demolished and filled in, new natural style pond dug, new oak staircase, walls demolished and new walls built with several beams, 4 bathrooms bought and fitted and a kitchen and utility room, etc, etc.

Oh and decorated.

A couple of years ago we bought a terrace house in Southwold. Gutted, new kitchen, bathroom, electrics and heating for about £20k.

Oh and decorated.

Admit it, you just made this comment for the humblebrag about your £200k refurb.

Nope. I suspect there are several on here who can outbrag me. I know I am lucky to be able to afford it, but how else do you make the point that £200k on a flat is ridiculous.

I am also retired. It is the consequence of two well paid older individuals who aren't gullible and waste money on overpriced stuff.

As a rule of thumb for a complete refurbishment London is about £150-£200 psf for a flat.

I don’t know how large their flat is but if it is being totally redone I’m not surprised by the price.

I would say the same, but that includes rewiring and plumbing etc.

How big is the bloody flat anyway.

PB Decor Service, at your Service

It's 4 bedroom. The Daily Mail has an article about the last 3 makeovers. 64k for the Camerons for a bathroom, kitchen area, and new floor and ceiling. Dualit toaster and Britannia Range Cooker.

And 127k over several years for the Blairs. But then Cherie probably made more money than Boris, and did not have umpteen former husbands.

Here's the old plan, which you can access on the site mentioned I assume. It is some of this:



I will refrain from adding the Hello photos, unless you ask nicely.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9316209/The-modern-makeovers-Number-11-Downing-Street.html

You say its 4 bedroom but that floor plan shows - between No 10 and No 11 - a total of 18 bedrooms. How much of that do they have to refurbish?

Not that much, the issue is that Mrs May followed David Cameron's & Margaret Thatcher's lead that the taxpayer shouldn't lavish Number 10 but Ms Symonds really doesn't like Mrs May's John Lewis nightmare choice of decor.

If she doesn't like it she should pay for the changes herself. I can understand making changes/redecorating because of wear and tear but it should be within a fixed budget and on a fixed timescale - every so many years. And both those should be decided by someone other than the PM and his current sleeping partner.

There's an annual £30k maintenance budget for the PM and their spouse to use on the upkeep for Downing Street.

Clearly that's not enough for Boris Johnson and his inamorata.

NerysHughes said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Two genuinely stupid moves by Johnson yesterday and both can easily be linked. The first is this story about the No 10 refit which is just crass and stupid. It says Johnson is worried - well he bloody well should be. And if the story is true then he should be ashamed.

The second story - which for me is linked - is the idiotic decision to give NHS staff a pay rise below inflation. It just looks callous and makes a mockery of all the claims about how important they are and how much they are valued.

Yes things are tough and yes we can't keep splashing taxpayers money around all over the place without regard for the debt but a 1% pay rise is £340 million. So go for 5% and make it meaningful. As the study by the London Economics consultancy shows the Government will get most of that back anyway in increased taxes.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/18/government-pay-rise-cost-nhs-england-staff-report

As OGH says. Very poor optics across the board yesterday for Johnson.

Agree 100%. I can live without a pay rise for next year - it would be nice but times are tough and I’m aware others are ahead in the queue - but after the year they’ve had NHS medical staff definitely deserve one. Especially nursing staff.

I actually think this ridiculously low one for a small number is worse than none at all. It looks tokenistic.

Personally, I have no problem with 1%, and a blanket payrise for all NHS staff is poorly targeted.

An extra 2 weeks paid holiday for all those who worked in covid units, to be taken later in the year for recovery would be my suggestion.

As would be investment in training, so redeployed staff are not punished for not acquiring the skills that they should have been developing. My registrar has been on covid ICU for 3 months so has missed a large chunk of her Specialist Training. She is at risk of missing career progression as a result.

Paid holiday is a great idea. Give them all £1,000 tax free to spend on it too.

But the next couple of years are also going to see the NHS under extreme stress as they deal with the vast backlog of treatment deferred. The staff are going to be under the cosh into the mid-distance.

And politically, unlike the NHS there are going to be so many people in the private sector who have lost their jobs, taken pay cuts, lost pensions. They might also rightly claim they have made a huge sacrifice in these times of Covid.

A nurse with 10 years service already gets 10 weeks holiday

One problem with 10 or so weeks holiday is that, as posted elsewhere, you can't afford to do much with all of it. Staff rotas are a bugger, too.
Back in the day I used to get 7 weeks, plus Time in Lieu for nights and Sundays. I did know one or two people who tried to save them up for a major trip, but that was frowned upon.

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I may have mentioned it a few times on here but the focus groups have consistently picked up on the monies spent on track & trace and on contracts that seem to end up with Tory donors but what is really egregious is the fact the contracts are seemingly to those inexperienced and unqualified to deliver them.

It is a bonanza for Tory donors, pensioners are safe, and austerity for the rest of us.

We locked down to save granny, but granny doesn’t give a shite.

You really are very unpleasant today.

This pensioner does care and expects the triple lock to go, indeed it would have but for labour who decided they wanted it to stay for some strange reason (politics)

Wait, so it is Labour’s fault?

Wow. You have severe Stockholm Syndrome.

The continuation of the triple lock was a labour commitment like it or not

When?

GE 2019

1.

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

The bottom line is that decorating number ten should not be a priority at this moment. It's a total indulgence.

And it is a private matter unless public money is involved which as I understand it is not the case

How is our elected officials accepting cash bungs a private matter?

What on earth has happened to standards in public life?

Remember Sir Alex Allan, the PM's advisor on Ministerial standards, who resigned 3 months ago, when the PM ignored his report on Priti Patel and bullying, the same Priti Patel whose treatment of Sir Philip Rutnam has led to a rumoured payout of £340,000 to him?

No. Not a surprise. The PM seems to have forgotten too. No replacement has been announced. There are no Ministerial standards anymore. Or, indeed, any standards in public life. Those who think there should be are stupid and/or naive old fogies. Snouts in the trough is the new and only standard.

Comedy Dave on EU blocking exports of AZN vaccine... nothing to see.

https://youtu.be/FVPEhKGbFME

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1367766241461559297
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1367771503115255808

Go down that route and the BMA will be demanding £200k for GPs and £300k for consultants.

Meanwhile folk in the private sector are left picking up the crumbs.

Gardenwalker said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

I really think the chancellor's budget is set to fall apart by Sunday morning. The CT rise is already being labelled as investment and job killing (which it is). The treasury's own homework on it says as much as does the OBR EFO.

As I said on the day, we should be going in the other direction. Lowering CT, putting measures in place to allow companies to invest their money in the UK and growing the economy so that we catch up to pre-COVID rates and have a higher baseline.

This was a Tory chancellor turning a Thatcherite economy into something that looks positively French. A high debt, high tax, low yield economy that had lost its dynamism because the state is afraid of bad headlines and still manages to pick them up.

I also see that the 1% NHS payrise has been noticed. Absolutely insulting for the frontline workers who have tirelessly battled against COVID this year. Even a one off 5% bonus would do well if they didn't want to set a higher baseline. It's a nothing amount of money either, ~£1.6bn I think for a 5% bonus.

Thing is, we have a national-populist government. I can think of lots of examples where such governments do very well electorally. Are there any examples of countries thriving under their rule?

No. They tend to debauch the country ethically and economically.

See Trump, Berlusconi etc.

That was my impression too, and Berlusconi's Italy is kinda where I fear we're heading.
Are there any exceptions people would like to present?

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kjh said:

RobD said:

kjh said:

I can't grasp how it is possible to spend £200k on a decoration unless you have more money than sense. I spent a similar amount between 2012 and 2014 but that got me a huge oak porch, a large extension to the garage, new heating to 17 room house, a massive patio, a concrete raised pond demolished and filled in, new natural style pond dug, new oak staircase, walls demolished and new walls built with several beams, 4 bathrooms bought and fitted and a kitchen and utility room, etc, etc.

Oh and decorated.

A couple of years ago we bought a terrace house in Southwold. Gutted, new kitchen, bathroom, electrics and heating for about £20k.

Oh and decorated.

Admit it, you just made this comment for the humblebrag about your £200k refurb.

Nope. I suspect there are several on here who can outbrag me. I know I am lucky to be able to afford it, but how else do you make the point that £200k on a flat is ridiculous.

I am also retired. It is the consequence of two well paid older individuals who aren't gullible and waste money on overpriced stuff.

As a rule of thumb for a complete refurbishment London is about £150-£200 psf for a flat.

I don’t know how large their flat is but if it is being totally redone I’m not surprised by the price.

I would say the same, but that includes rewiring and plumbing etc.

How big is the bloody flat anyway.

PB Decor Service, at your Service

It's 4 bedroom. The Daily Mail has an article about the last 3 makeovers. 64k for the Camerons for a bathroom, kitchen area, and new floor and ceiling. Dualit toaster and Britannia Range Cooker.

And 127k over several years for the Blairs. But then Cherie probably made more money than Boris, and did not have umpteen former husbands.

Here's the old plan, which you can access on the site mentioned I assume. It is some of this:



I will refrain from adding the Hello photos, unless you ask nicely.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9316209/The-modern-makeovers-Number-11-Downing-Street.html

You say its 4 bedroom but that floor plan shows - between No 10 and No 11 - a total of 18 bedrooms. How much of that do they have to refurbish?

Not that much, the issue is that Mrs May followed David Cameron's & Margaret Thatcher's lead that the taxpayer shouldn't lavish Number 10 but Ms Symonds really doesn't like Mrs May's John Lewis nightmare choice of decor.

If she doesn't like it she should pay for the changes herself. I can understand making changes/redecorating because of wear and tear but it should be within a fixed budget and on a fixed timescale - every so many years. And both those should be decided by someone other than the PM and his current sleeping partner.

Liked, but also wanted to say I liked, because I liked it so much.

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

I really think the chancellor's budget is set to fall apart by Sunday morning. The CT rise is already being labelled as investment and job killing (which it is). The treasury's own homework on it says as much as does the OBR EFO.

As I said on the day, we should be going in the other direction. Lowering CT, putting measures in place to allow companies to invest their money in the UK and growing the economy so that we catch up to pre-COVID rates and have a higher baseline.

This was a Tory chancellor turning a Thatcherite economy into something that looks positively French. A high debt, high tax, low yield economy that had lost its dynamism because the state is afraid of bad headlines and still manages to pick them up.

I also see that the 1% NHS payrise has been noticed. Absolutely insulting for the frontline workers who have tirelessly battled against COVID this year. Even a one off 5% bonus would do well if they didn't want to set a higher baseline. It's a nothing amount of money either, ~£1.6bn I think for a 5% bonus.

Thing is, we have a national-populist government. I can think of lots of examples where such governments do very well electorally. Are there any examples of countries thriving under their rule?

Time to roll out Al Tytler. Apocryphal or not it hits the spot right now.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

This story is ridiculous. I can't believe that Carrie was on the verge of forking out £200,00 for refurbishments, and then suddenly Boris got wind of it and was all queasy and shamefaced and stepped in to halt it. Most likely the pair of them were involved from the start, but now Boris's henchmen are trying to make it look like it was all Carrie's doing with Boris as the wronged party.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

The bottom line is that decorating number ten should not be a priority at this moment. It's a total indulgence.

And it is a private matter unless public money is involved which as I understand it is not the case

No it is not a private matter.

If a Minister is financially benefiting then it needs to be transparent. Sunshine is the best disinfectant for corruption.

I agree if public money is involved

It applies to private money also. Do you think all the brown envelope stuff that happened in the past was ok?

O course not

There you go then. What is the difference?

OT - great new (actually 3 years old) series on BBC iPlayer on the loss of HMS Erebus & Terror in the North West passage:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0954ks6/the-terror?seriesId=p0954l6v

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kjh said:

RobD said:

kjh said:

I can't grasp how it is possible to spend £200k on a decoration unless you have more money than sense. I spent a similar amount between 2012 and 2014 but that got me a huge oak porch, a large extension to the garage, new heating to 17 room house, a massive patio, a concrete raised pond demolished and filled in, new natural style pond dug, new oak staircase, walls demolished and new walls built with several beams, 4 bathrooms bought and fitted and a kitchen and utility room, etc, etc.

Oh and decorated.

A couple of years ago we bought a terrace house in Southwold. Gutted, new kitchen, bathroom, electrics and heating for about £20k.

Oh and decorated.

Admit it, you just made this comment for the humblebrag about your £200k refurb.

Nope. I suspect there are several on here who can outbrag me. I know I am lucky to be able to afford it, but how else do you make the point that £200k on a flat is ridiculous.

I am also retired. It is the consequence of two well paid older individuals who aren't gullible and waste money on overpriced stuff.

As a rule of thumb for a complete refurbishment London is about £150-£200 psf for a flat.

I don’t know how large their flat is but if it is being totally redone I’m not surprised by the price.

I would say the same, but that includes rewiring and plumbing etc.

How big is the bloody flat anyway.

PB Decor Service, at your Service

It's 4 bedroom. The Daily Mail has an article about the last 3 makeovers. 64k for the Camerons for a bathroom, kitchen area, and new floor and ceiling. Dualit toaster and Britannia Range Cooker.

And 127k over several years for the Blairs. But then Cherie probably made more money than Boris, and did not have umpteen former husbands.

Here's the old plan, which you can access on the site mentioned I assume. It is some of this:



I will refrain from adding the Hello photos, unless you ask nicely.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9316209/The-modern-makeovers-Number-11-Downing-Street.html

You say its 4 bedroom but that floor plan shows - between No 10 and No 11 - a total of 18 bedrooms. How much of that do they have to refurbish?

Not that much, the issue is that Mrs May followed David Cameron's & Margaret Thatcher's lead that the taxpayer shouldn't lavish Number 10 but Ms Symonds really doesn't like Mrs May's John Lewis nightmare choice of decor.

If she doesn't like it she should pay for the changes herself. I can understand making changes/redecorating because of wear and tear but it should be within a fixed budget and on a fixed timescale - every so many years. And both those should be decided by someone other than the PM and his current sleeping partner.

There's an annual £30k maintenance budget for the PM and their spouse to use on the upkeep for Downing Street.

Clearly that's not enough for Boris Johnson and his inamorata.

What’s the plural of inamorata?
Or is it already a plural.

Google tells me the plural of inamorata is inamoratas.

CarlottaVance said:

OT - great new (actually 3 years old) series on BBC iPlayer on the loss of HMS Erebus & Terror in the North West passage:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0954ks6/the-terror?seriesId=p0954l6v

Why post that here? No one watches the Beeb.

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I may have mentioned it a few times on here but the focus groups have consistently picked up on the monies spent on track & trace and on contracts that seem to end up with Tory donors but what is really egregious is the fact the contracts are seemingly to those inexperienced and unqualified to deliver them.

It is a bonanza for Tory donors, pensioners are safe, and austerity for the rest of us.

We locked down to save granny, but granny doesn’t give a shite.

You really are very unpleasant today.

This pensioner does care and expects the triple lock to go, indeed it would have but for labour who decided they wanted it to stay for some strange reason (politics)

Wait, so it is Labour’s fault?

Wow. You have severe Stockholm Syndrome.

The continuation of the triple lock was a labour commitment like it or not

When?

GE 2019

Remind me who won that election?
I do recall Corbyn lost it.

The labour 2019 manifesto stated

We will maintain the ‘triple lock’ and
guarantee the Winter Fuel Payment,
free TV licences and free bus passes
as universal benefits.

It is still labour policy unless you can show me where they have rejected it since December 2019

Big G.

It is this Tory government that is responsible for keeping pensioners stuffed with gold, while ordinary working people and younger folk can only look forward to austerity.

Or worse if you are one of the poor schmucks paying 5.6% on your university loan.

Putting the blame on Labour is truly pathetic, you are better than that.

The political consensus as of now is to keep it

I hope Rishi abolishes it next year but you cannot discount labour having ensured that it continued

YBarddCwsc said:

kjh said:

YBarddCwsc said:

kjh said:

However on the point you thought I was making about prices - they do seem somewhat high, but I suspect we are talking about different things when we say refurbishing. However I suspect there are also some decorators who charge a lot more for the same service to the gullible rich.

I think the point is that -- in a building like No 10 -- you will need to use heritage craftspeople, not trustatrader.

If you need to replace a door, or some flooring, or a toilet cistern, then it will have to be constructed bespoke because the building & its interior is listed.

The bespoke door or flooring will need to be made by a craftsman. The cistern may have to be sourced from a specialist dealer or made bespoke.

That is how historic, listed buildings work.😉

I have no idea whether the DM story is true, whether the sum is 200k, but your analogy was always ridiculous.

I agree with the point you are making but we are talking about order of magnitude here. It is gross. And we are talking about decoration and furnishings. Now going back to my house (no please don't) my stairs and porch are solid oak and handmade. So how do you account for that difference? None of the stuff you mention even if by craftsman should cost this unless you are paying through the nose.

Your stairs and porch are bespoke solid oak, sure.

But if you replace something in Downing Street -- say a door -- then it will have to be exactly the same as the original.

In practice, this will need to be a bespoke door made by a craftsperson in the same style as the original and with the same original material (if it can even be still sourced).

The rates charged by heritage craftspeople are very different from the rates charged by builders. It is a completely different scale, and it probably is an order of magnitude.

(As the building is listed, then any changes will need listed building consent, and so this will be insisted upon -- it is not Boris' and PNN's choice).

You are making a stout effort, but surely Carrie was only focused on wallpaper, paint and new furniture?

Farrow and Ball’s “Breakfast Room Green” is expensive but not *that* expensive.

noneoftheabove said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

noneoftheabove said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It interesting that Boris Johnson has been more focussed on getting the money for doing up Number 10 than say feeding starving kids.

Marcus Rashford really has shamed him on that front.

I dont actually mind public money being spent on the refurb, but pretending its a charitable cause or hoping for cash bungs is out of order.

Agree, I've said for years the entire Downing Street complex is unsuitable for the leader of our country.

Kick Brenda out of Buckingham Palace and move the PM and most of the government there.

It costs the country nothing.

Not a bad idea at all, but wait for Charles before doing it.

I thought you meant Charles on here but he would not countenance downgrading.

squareroot2 said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

RochdalePioneers said:

On topic: I don't see how this damages the PM. OK, so £200k on decorations sounds utterly absurd. To most normals it also sounds impossible. Gender politics comes into effect - most married men understand what its like when their better half pushes the button on spending cash for their project. And I suspect that many women reading it will treat the story with the same outraged anti-woman tone that all of the Mail's SHE'S FAT, WHAT UGLY CLOTHES, LOOK - CELLULITE! photo exclusives.

Shagger dumped his wife and kids whilst she was having cancer treatment, knocked up the fling, shagged a musician on the side for good measure. And people still think "he's a lad". So there are no stories of basic ethics and morality that can get him. None.

His wife kicked him out, he didn’t dump her.

He treated her badly that even she finally had enough and kicked him out. The real question is why she put up with him for so long.

What has it got to do with you or anyone else for that matter? How do you know she wasn't equally awful to him if indeed he was awful.to her.

It doesn't. I didn't start the comment thread. I was merely correcting the error that he dumped her. It was the other way around.

YBarddCwsc said:

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

If it turns out that the cost is being paid either directly by taxpayers or indirectly by making it a charity (If someone's bedroom redecoration is a charity, where do you draw the line?), then I think people will indeed be outraged. If it's merely paid by some Tory chums, then most people will shrug, though if Tory HQ is paying then some of the supporters who chip in £50 to the email appeals may feel a bit miffed.

Four points:-

1. Taxpayers' money should not be used for extravagant interior decoration, beyond the normal appointment already budgeted for. If extra is wanted it should be paid for by the PM personally.
2. Interior decoration is not a charitable purpose. The idea of creating a "charity" for such a purpose is simply taking the piss and unlawful under current U.K. laws.
3. Donors funding it should not be permitted. It creates an obvious conflict of interest. It's no different from bunging the PM a few quid in the hope of some reward. Bluntly it risks being seen as - or actually being - a bribe.
4. The PM has a very grand country house to enjoy and a 4 - bedroom flat in Central London. Let's get real: this is extravagant by any normal standards. Rather than moan about it he - and his other half - should reflect on their good fortune and enjoy it while it lasts.

The preservation & maintenance of the interior of a historic building is certainly listed as a charitable purpose by the Charity Commissioners.

Preservation and maintenance is very different from someone wanting to do different interior decor. That presumably is what the existing £30k budget is for. Given how often the flat has been redecorated by the Camerons and Mrs May and others I doubt there is very much that is historic about the interior or the John Lewis furniture. And if it is indeed a historic interior a la Kedleston Hall then it is wholly unsuitable to be lived in by a couple with toddler and dog.

On topic - the thing I don't get is that this is hardly the worst story in the world. Boris worried about renovation costs is not Boris has undertaken secret refurbishment and got donor to pay and hidden it from the public. He seems to be condemned for something he might do in the future.

Personally I don't think the PM should have to pay but he should also not be allowed to undertake works to a historic building. As others have said there is a flat and country house attached to being PM. Clearly Downing St is a working building of state and a conservation specialist should be in charge of building maintenance and decoration.

BBC News - Covid-19: Ministers urged to give NHS 'heroes' better pay rise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56288237

The unions don't do themselves a lot of favours. 1% isn't enough, perhaps a one off payment is better, but caling for 12.5% increase.......

YBarddCwsc said:

kjh said:

YBarddCwsc said:

kjh said:

However on the point you thought I was making about prices - they do seem somewhat high, but I suspect we are talking about different things when we say refurbishing. However I suspect there are also some decorators who charge a lot more for the same service to the gullible rich.

I think the point is that -- in a building like No 10 -- you will need to use heritage craftspeople, not trustatrader.

If you need to replace a door, or some flooring, or a toilet cistern, then it will have to be constructed bespoke because the building & its interior is listed.

The bespoke door or flooring will need to be made by a craftsman. The cistern may have to be sourced from a specialist dealer or made bespoke.

That is how historic, listed buildings work.😉

I have no idea whether the DM story is true, whether the sum is 200k, but your analogy was always ridiculous.

I agree with the point you are making but we are talking about order of magnitude here. It is gross. And we are talking about decoration and furnishings. Now going back to my house (no please don't) my stairs and porch are solid oak and handmade. So how do you account for that difference? None of the stuff you mention even if by craftsman should cost this unless you are paying through the nose.

Your stairs and porch are bespoke solid oak, sure.

But if you replace something in Downing Street -- say a door -- then it will have to be exactly the same as the original.

In practice, this will need to be a bespoke door made by a craftsperson in the same style as the original and with the same original material (if it can even be still sourced).

The rates charged by heritage craftspeople are very different from the rates charged by builders. It is a completely different scale, and it probably is an order of magnitude.

(As the building is listed, then any changes will need listed building consent, and so this will be insisted upon -- it is not Boris' and PNN's choice).

Why would you change a door , they are renting the place and rent free at that.

If we want to replace Downing Street as government homes why not relocate across the road to the MoD buildings.

Given the run down of the UK's military they must have plenty of space.

Better still we could relocate the MoD somewhere else in the country - I remember a 'Yes, Prime Minister' episode on that idea.

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I may have mentioned it a few times on here but the focus groups have consistently picked up on the monies spent on track & trace and on contracts that seem to end up with Tory donors but what is really egregious is the fact the contracts are seemingly to those inexperienced and unqualified to deliver them.

It is a bonanza for Tory donors, pensioners are safe, and austerity for the rest of us.

We locked down to save granny, but granny doesn’t give a shite.

You really are very unpleasant today.

This pensioner does care and expects the triple lock to go, indeed it would have but for labour who decided they wanted it to stay for some strange reason (politics)

Wait, so it is Labour’s fault?

Wow. You have severe Stockholm Syndrome.

The continuation of the triple lock was a labour commitment like it or not

When?

GE 2019

Remind me who won that election?
I do recall Corbyn lost it.

The labour 2019 manifesto stated

We will maintain the ‘triple lock’ and
guarantee the Winter Fuel Payment,
free TV licences and free bus passes
as universal benefits.

It is still labour policy unless you can show me where they have rejected it since December 2019

Big G.

It is this Tory government that is responsible for keeping pensioners stuffed with gold, while ordinary working people and younger folk can only look forward to austerity.

Or worse if you are one of the poor schmucks paying 5.6% on your university loan.

Putting the blame on Labour is truly pathetic, you are better than that.

The political consensus as of now is to keep it

I hope Rishi abolishes it next year but you cannot discount labour having ensured that it continued

Max above notes that Keir has agreed it should be suspended (although I missed that myself).

Presume you will hastily change your vote to Labour in principle.

I voted for Blair, but labour today are not electable, so no

TheScreamingEagles said:

Burgessian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1367766241461559297
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1367771503115255808

Go down that route and the BMA will be demanding £200k for GPs and £300k for consultants.

Meanwhile folk in the private sector are left picking up the crumbs.

Doctors have always been poorly paid.

I cannot tell you the hard life I had growing up as the son of an NHS doctor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHP-qgzUVLM

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Two genuinely stupid moves by Johnson yesterday and both can easily be linked. The first is this story about the No 10 refit which is just crass and stupid. It says Johnson is worried - well he bloody well should be. And if the story is true then he should be ashamed.

The second story - which for me is linked - is the idiotic decision to give NHS staff a pay rise below inflation. It just looks callous and makes a mockery of all the claims about how important they are and how much they are valued.

Yes things are tough and yes we can't keep splashing taxpayers money around all over the place without regard for the debt but a 1% pay rise is £340 million. So go for 5% and make it meaningful. As the study by the London Economics consultancy shows the Government will get most of that back anyway in increased taxes.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/18/government-pay-rise-cost-nhs-england-staff-report

As OGH says. Very poor optics across the board yesterday for Johnson.

Agree 100%. I can live without a pay rise for next year - it would be nice but times are tough and I’m aware others are ahead in the queue - but after the year they’ve had NHS medical staff definitely deserve one. Especially nursing staff.

I actually think this ridiculously low one for a small number is worse than none at all. It looks tokenistic.

Personally, I have no problem with 1%, and a blanket payrise for all NHS staff is poorly targeted.

An extra 2 weeks paid holiday for all those who worked in covid units, to be taken later in the year for recovery would be my suggestion.

As would be investment in training, so redeployed staff are not punished for not acquiring the skills that they should have been developing. My registrar has been on covid ICU for 3 months so has missed a large chunk of her Specialist Training. She is at risk of missing career progression as a result.

Paid holiday is a great idea. Give them all £1,000 tax free to spend on it too.

But the next couple of years are also going to see the NHS under extreme stress as they deal with the vast backlog of treatment deferred. The staff are going to be under the cosh into the mid-distance.

And politically, unlike the NHS there are going to be so many people in the private sector who have lost their jobs, taken pay cuts, lost pensions. They might also rightly claim they have made a huge sacrifice in these times of Covid.

For a cunning CoE, an extra week or two of paid leave as a one off doesn't inflate subsequent years too.

And investment in remedial training would truly be an investment. It is essential for both staff retention and tackling those backlogs.

Incidentally my Trust is building in decompression time to the return of redeployed staff, many of whom like Mrs Foxy have found it very gruelling.

I imagine the danger of offering just an extra weeks holiday is that it can easily be spun as "that won't pay the mortgage"...."what am I supposed to do with it, I can't afford to go anywhere".