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

[iansheff 86]

Isn't it marvellous how the Government keep saying there is no money yet they spend £12m on a luxury apartment. Obviously the person who will live there will be doing a lot of entertaining but surely they didn't need to spend that amount of money.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-47717397

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by iansheff

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

A Consulate is a sort of scaled-down Embassy. What's the problem? HMG is unlikely to los money on prime USA Real Estate, anyway.

[bendix 10]

Property is booming in New York.  It makes sense to buy a property (owned by the taxpayers) to be used for entertaining business people and as a venue to negotiate and secure trade deals.  

 

The property will go up in value. It's an investment.

 

Why is that not a better and more prudent strategy than renting and throwing the money away forever?

[ez8004 10]

36 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

A Consulate is a sort of scaled-down Embassy. What's the problem? HMG is unlikely to los money on prime USA Real Estate, anyway.

We can’t use, 3100 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC because?

Edited March 27, 2019 by ez8004

[melthebell 862]

another 12m thrown at brexit, and that was supposedly to save money Oo

 

******* up the wall springs to mind

[Dardandec 32]

It's the will of the people, they voted to be poorer. Are you now saying people can't make themselves poorer if they wish? Whatever is the world coming too?

 

I voted yes because it's what the majority of people want apparently. 

[Guest makapaka]

5 hours ago, bendix said:

Property is booming in New York.  It makes sense to buy a property (owned by the taxpayers) to be used for entertaining business people and as a venue to negotiate and secure trade deals.  

 

The property will go up in value. It's an investment.

 

Why is that not a better and more prudent strategy than renting and throwing the money away forever?

Hotel.

 

send the £12m somewhere that needs it.

 

bear in mind the recent Tory initiative to help the “forgotten” northern towns equated to £30m per affected area.

 

the government aren’t there to invest money in property - it’s not their remit.

 

its a disgrace.

 

 

 

 

[Lex Luthor 10]

I must drop Theresa a line to say thank you.  I can't wait to take the family when it's our turn to use it.   

 

I wouldn't even mind sharing it with another family.  We can 'all be in it together'. 

[bendix 10]

7 hours ago, makapaka said:

Hotel.

 

send the £12m somewhere that needs it.

 

bear in mind the recent Tory initiative to help the “forgotten” northern towns equated to £30m per affected area.

 

the government aren’t there to invest money in property - it’s not their remit.

 

its a disgrace.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

[alchresearch 214]

3 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?

 

 

Not to mention the security implications.

[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.

[Bargepole23 337]

8 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Why not?

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

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?