Thread by @theonlywayisup

Re: The Downing St refurbishments.

Okay, don't @ me for this, but I have questions:
Downing St doesn't belong to the incumbent, so shouldn't any necessary maintenance and refurbishment be the responsibility of the government? In which case, what was actually done to No 10, and..

...why is Johnson paying for it? If it wasn't necessary work to preserve the fabric of the building or make it habitable, but as a result of him fancying a change, then he should rightly be footing the bill. However, why would someone fork out all that money on a place which.....

.....doesn't belong to him and which he might be turfed out of any day? It would like me paying to redecorate a hotel room where I was staying for a short while until my house purchase was completed; I'm not going to get the benefit of it, so why would I? And this is what seems..

...very dodgy to me. Johnson has apparently had some grumbles about his loss of income since he's been PM, and looking at the state of him you can tell he's tightfisted when it comes to putting his hand in his own pocket, rather than someone else's. Plus there is the fact that ..

....he might not be there for much longer. I can't see "But you can't get rid of me, I've only just put this paper up'' washing with the infamous men in grey suits, somehow. So by my thinking, the only way this work was done is if Johnson thought he'd found someone to pay for it.

Any ''audit trail'' is therefore presumably a concoction designed to make it look like it was all above board.
Of course, if the ''refurbishments'' are not to the building, but are things he can take with him when he goes -- a 60" flatscreen TV and a massive cocktail cabinet...

....for example, then it's not refurbishment, it's just 'stuff'
There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye.