Supposedly Tony Blair, or any other PM, lives at 10 or 11 Downing Street. It’s a townhouse…an apartment! I know, I know… it’s a very nice roomy one, but the fact is, it is still an apartment.
Maybe I am coming from too much of an American standpoint where unless you live downtown in a big city, a house is the way to go. Just look at the White House, its 150 rooms with gardens, etc! I know most of the brits hate our president, but at least he gets to live in style.
It just seems that a country of the population and world prominence of the UK should take better care of their PM and at least get him a nice sizeable house in London.
points-counterpoints
It’s downtown, there isn’t a lot of room downtown.— He is your leader for goodness sakes, I think he should get the cream of the crop (after the royalty of course). Level a block, build the man a house.
It’s bigger than it looks. — True, but I doubt it’s THAT big. Nothing comparable to a stately big house… say 50 good sized rooms at least.
He has other residences. — True. Maybe this is a personal preference, but I would rather have one large nice location than to be hopping all over the place.
Has this issue ever been brought up before in the UK? Do people there feel the same way?
(Mind you, 10 Downing St isn’t small - there’s a virtual tour here. The main reason for it still being used as it is is it’s location, just yards from Parliament and also from the various government buildings around Whitehall.)
You answer your own question. 10 Downing Street is about as “downtown, big city” as you can get. It has the advantage of being very close to the Houses of Parliament. See map.
Plus, of course, the prime minister gets the use of Chequers, a big house in the country.
10 Downing Street (always say the ‘Street’ part) is a big old Georgian (?) house. Those places are deceptively big, though they don’t look it from the outside. The apartment is roomy for a London apartment anyway, but the downstairs is used to house reception rooms and the servants’ and security quarters. It’s convenient to their workplace, too. And PMs usually have their own house and/or apartment to which they can retreat.
And the PM also has use of Chequers, a big huge stately mansion about 50 miles outside of London. Think Camp David in its usage.
I for one am glad that the PM’s accommodation isn’t grander. Anything that reminds them that they’re representatives of the people, not holier-than-thou leaders or presidents, is fine by me. And let’s face it, Blair needs reminding that he’s not a president.
Don’t forget, too, property in central London ain’t cheap. Apparently 10 Downing Street is valued at £20 million, or about $36 million. This does sound fairly high, so I guess it takes into account the fame value and presumably the contents. FWIW the White House has been valued at $106 million.
The Current PM lives in 11 Downing St (the residence of the Chancellor - the Chief Whip lives at number 12) as the accommodation is larger and Blair still has a family living with him. Gordon Brown Lives in Number 10 and works in number 11. He only has a little baby.
Why do they live in a smallish house? For the same reason that lots of things happen in Britain - because they always have done.
Blair’s also just brought a house in a truly vile part of london for about £3.5m - it’s horrid. That is his private home from his own money.
Part the first - not as far as I know - which is not far, admittedly.
Part the second - this person here does not feel the same way. Let him go and live in an inner-city tower block, or near the nuclear weapons of which he seems so fond.
(Yes, I have other suggestion too, but thought I ought to stop there)
I overlooked this…and no, there’s no way there’d be public support for giving the PM any more freebies. Quite the reverse. Even a raise in his salary is enough to cause disquiet.
Partly this is the difference with a presidential system - Bush is the head of state, the the role responible for displaying the prestige of the nation. In Britain, that’s the Queen’s position (hence the extraordinary Royal Banquets and the like for state visits).
Let’s also remember that, unlike the L’Entfant and Americans who planned D.C., when the British decided to make the Executive residence official, they didn’t have the luxury of putting it any damn place they wanted and then building a city around it.
