It does seem odd that a flat owned by the state where the Prime Minister is expected to reside while in office (and vacate very quickly on leaving it) can be re-decorated by each incumbent to their own taste, even when their time in office is limited and they gain no long-term benefit from it. Presumably if Starmer took over and he disliked Carrie Antoinette's taste he would also want to re-decorate, and would either need to stump up the cost himself or find a willing donor. Was it in the time of Blair and Brown when the PM swopped the small flat above No.10 for the larger flat above No.11, as the Blairs had children and the Browns did not ? I wonder if re-decoration was involved then, and who paid for it ? It seems to me that the state should pay for a neutral re-decoration when required, and the individual PM should not be allowed to impose their taste. Does anyone know what happens in the living quarters of the White House in Washington ? If DumbAss Donald was allowed to cover it in bling during his time in office, presumably Biden would have wanted to re-decorate on taking over; if, heaven forbid, the Donald was to win again next time round, then the cycle would turn and bling would be back.
Richard Greenhough ● 1721d