Helen Martin: Papering only opens the cracks

Published on Monday 10 November 2008 08:59

IT took less than 12 hours from Barack Obama's victory speech for the world's media to address the vitally important subject of how the decor in the White House would change, and at what cost.

Lest anyone think this is newspapers and television focussing on trivia, it's worth remembering that the 150,000 redecorating allowance from the public purse comes on top of an annual maintenance allowance of 1 million.

It's expected the Obamas, like every presidential family before them, will spend way more than that, the rest coming from their own pocket and private donations.

Exactly the same sort of procedure takes place here with each Prime Minister and his wife redecorating to their taste which, almost certainly, bears no relation to that of the previous incumbent.

Quite apart from the sheer profligacy, this obsession with home styling (for what is at best a temporary home) lays the ground rules for anyone else who enjoys an official residence.

The best example in recent history has to be former Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine, who, in 1998, lavished 650,000 of public money on his House of Lords apartment, 59,000 of that on some hideously expensive wallpaper. But it dribbles down to occasional rows over excessively-grandiose council offices across the country.

The excuseniks cite the fact that the families, certainly of the President and PM, have to live there and are entitled to make it homely. Fair enough, a few scatter cushions, the odd lamp, some family photos and maybe some princess wallpaper in the girls' room.

But that doesn't explain why the Bushes ordered large silver serving salvers for buffet entertaining. What did the White House have before? Paper plates?

From specially-commissioned rugs to exclusive bespoke curtains, from Reagan's revamp of the private cinema to Clinton's installation of a running track on the south lawn and Obama's pledge to rip out Nixon's bowling alley and create a basketball court, it all smacks of excess. Indeed, the Blairs spent 1m redecorating Downing Street when Labour came to power.

Why is all this necessary? All these people have their own homes to go back to once their tenure is over. They are but tenants in public housing, albeit the most lavish public housing in the world.

Nor can it be put down to caretaking. The refurbs don't happen (as they would in most of our homes) because the paper's peeling, the skirting board's chipped or the paint needs freshening up.

It's not about preserving and conserving the old as would be the case in a palace or stately home.

It's about the first lady preferring green to blue or florals rather than satin ruche. Hundreds of tradesmen turn up to work with thousands of pounds of materials. Then four years later along comes another squad to pull it all apart and start again.

The sums spent – tiny potatoes in a national budget – are less important than the message being sent out and the lack of shame national and international leaders seem to experience at free- loading.

I have friends who also follow the Forth Bridge school of decorating. Soon as the paint's dry at one end of the house it's time to start again at the beginning. But it's their house, they own it and they pay for it.

Presidents and premiers are hardly on the minimum wage. If they really hate the wallpaper or the drapes, why not spend their own money instead of ours or that of US citizens?

Why can't the White House and Downing Street be impressively and stylishly decorated in neutral colours and returned to us in the same state.

When we elect them to lead the world, we expect political vision, financial wisdom, diplomatic genius and international strategy . . . not interior design or, as the Yanks would say, "home pre-sentation".

Our turn for a bonusGORDON BROWN'S new-found popularity will disappear like a fiver in a gale if he can't force the banking industry to comply with the bail-out conditions he promised the electorate.

Bank after bank has declared it will be paying bonuses as usual. Bank after bank is still insisting on putting its shareholders before its customers.

There is now so much public money swishing about the banking system that for most people, the priorities of banking have changed. We now believe that, unlike most other retailers or services, banks have an enormous duty of care to customers, their finances and interests. They have a duty to the Government and the economy. And they have a duty to maintain employment. Last, and certainly least, comes the interest of their shareholders. The people expect the Government to ensure that dividends and bonuses are down, if not completely non-existent.

We need even more radical solutions. We could split and re-shape the industry. We could have banks dealing with individual customers' and small businesses' day-to-day finances, along with sure, steady, low-risk savings plans.

And we could have other, unrelated, speculative investment businesses who gamble on the global market and do all the glamorous stuff earning their staff bonuses and their shareholders' dividends – or losses.

Carry on by all means, but not with our mortgages and savings.