During last week, it has been reported that Buckingham Palace is due for some "serious" refurbishments - costing the taxpayer £369,000,000 according to the Treasury.
|Can he fix it within budget?|
However, one could enquire: how did it end up in such a state with the building appearing to be at risk from electrics, plumbing and heating which had barely been updated since the 1950s? If the palace had remained in a good state, with the services being regularly updated, surely it would cost less than the enormous sum by which we will be indebted. Is it really fair for us all to have to pay for this, when it is the Palace's fault that these repairs were not addressed sooner and less expensively?
It might also be argued that, when the work commences in April next year, the Queen will continue to live there with the ongoing repairs. Can we conclude, therefore, that what is alleged to be "serious" be less extensive than has been reported; if so: where is all the money going to?
However, it is our duty to see sense. Because of the risk of fires and flooding, there could be potential damage done to the Royal Collection of Art belonging to the nation - in addition to the question of the safety of our Queen and her family. We also have to consider the fact that these necessary refurbishments will in the long term be justifiable, because the longer it is delayed the higher the costs will rise. Furthermore, Buckingham Palace has served as the official London residence of Britain's sovereigns for over two hundred years and the Queen also holds weekly big audiences with diplomats, Heads of State and Britain's Prime Minister; even though Buckingham Palace is occupied by the Queen, it falls to the government to maintain it in good service.
So who is really to blame?