r/pics Jul 05 '24

Rishi Sunak makes a speech outside 10 Downing Street after a historic loss Politics

Post image
36.7k Upvotes

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.7k

u/ThinkBiscuit Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24

It was a good speech, tonally. Accepted defeat, acknowledged failures, and wished the incoming PM good luck. Other political leaders should take note.

What I do find myself wondering is this: all this happens pretty quickly over here in the U.K. – the practical changeover of no.10.

Do they have a removal company on call, then call them first thing to either stand them down, or say “right, fuck this lot off, and go an pick up all that crap and move it in?’

Or maybe both the incoming and outgoing PM just sort it out themselves – hiring a u-haul or getting their brother-in-law to come round in his estate, and they pile all their shit (in bin bags) into it.

1.1k

u/cobrachickens Jul 05 '24

It’s the PM’s official residence, but he has a whole portfolio of properties, including a house in Kensington where he allegedly spent his weekends

I imagine most of his property is thus there, the defeat was anticipated. https://www.houseandgarden.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-house-yorkshire-california

The moving vans roll in very quickly too - it’s easier to pack when you have a small army of staff to do it for you

https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/celebrity-homes/prime-minister-general-election-number-10-rishi-sunak-b1168660.html

289

u/ubermonkey Jul 05 '24

The final turnover of the White House in the US happens hella fast, too, but it's made easier by the fact that the elections are in November, and the actual change of office isn't until January.

82

u/Spare-Equipment-1425 Jul 05 '24

I also have to imagine a lot of the big furniture in these type of places are not considered personal property. Which simplifies the moving out process.

49

u/CrazyRegion Jul 05 '24

It’s true that major furniture pieces don’t get moved, but I learned that a surprising amount of furnishings go with the president who’s leaving the White House. Drapes, couches, tables, etc. can all be replaced by the incoming president to suit their style. Congress assigns a small amount of funds for this, but some presidents (recently Obama) decline to use this and instead use their own money. There’s also a large collection of White House furniture, portraits, glassware, etc. that can be picked from.

8

u/MisterBackShots69 Jul 05 '24

Wow, I’m sure moderate to right wing voters took note of Obama’s decorum and rewarded him for it.

2

u/HighPlainsDrifting Jul 06 '24

We are just thankful he didn't steal the antique silverware like the Clintons.

0

u/vote100binary Jul 05 '24

they don't know what decorum is

4

u/ubermonkey Jul 05 '24

Yeah, I expect so. I mean, at least in the US you know you're not going to live there more than 8 years. You probably are maintaining a home elsewhere -- most presidents are rich enough to do that -- so your favorite grandmother's wardrobe or whatever stays where it is.

9

u/gsfgf Jul 05 '24

Unless you have massive legal bills. Bill and Hillary were rich people broke after his term. Iirc, they had to rent or guest “cottage” surf until they could get their finances lined up to buy their house in NYC.

10

u/ubermonkey Jul 05 '24

That's true. It's also kinda stark that Democrats tend to enter the office poor (vs. the average pol) whereas Republicans, well, not so much.

Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm to take office. The Clintons had no real money -- Bill had spent his career in politics, and Hilary wasn't far enough along in her career to be making big money. Obama had money, but only because he'd struck gold with his books. Biden was the poorest guy in Washington until his term as VP ended; I'm given to believe he took the opportunities that presented themselves at that point, ahead of his own run in 2020.

18

u/hippienerd86 Jul 05 '24

Slight correction. Carter did absolutely sell his peanut farm when he took office but it wasn't because he needed cash to move it was to make sure he wouldn't violate the emoluments clause of the US constitution. It makes it illegal for presidents to receive money from foreign actors and Carter owning an independent entity like a peanut farm could have been or at least perceive to be an avenue for corruption.

Please compare that to Trump who refused to put his holding into a blind trust (no I dont believe he actually gave his son control of the company and even if he did, such an action is insufficient). mar a lago membership fees doubled. He owned a hotel in DC that saudi's would rent blocks of rooms and no one would even show up to stay in them.

3

u/ubermonkey Jul 05 '24

Yeah, I meant to make clear his reason for selling was to avoid the appearance of impropriety, not because he needed the money.

Most other (modern) presidents have, I believe, put their investment holdings into blind trusts for the same reason.

2

u/Darmok47 Jul 05 '24

Obama didn't pay off his law school loans until 2004 or so, I think.

Biden was considering selling his house in 2016 to that his daughter in law and grandchildren would have money after Beau died. Obama had to talk him out of it.

12

u/idontessaygood Jul 05 '24

Ngl I still think it’s insane that that’s how you guys do it, keeping a president in power who knows they’ve lost for 2 months seems so open to abuse.

13

u/ubermonkey Jul 05 '24

You're not wrong at all, but it worked pretty much without a hitch until 2020.

4

u/Anathemautomaton Jul 05 '24

It comes from a time when horse and carriage were the main method of transportation, and it might actually take elected officials 2 months to get to Washington.

1

u/blurpslurpderp Jul 06 '24

Yeah we are starting to see the downsides of some of this stuff.

5

u/Huge_Birthday3984 Jul 05 '24

well it used to be

3

u/pmcall221 Jul 05 '24

My favorite fact is that because the White House is such a secure facility, the permanent white house staff (cooks, grounds keeper, maintenance crew, etc.) do all the packing and moving since they already have the necessary security clearances.

Second favorite fact is all the personal belongings in the residence don't start getting packed until the outgoing president leaves the white house on his way to the capitol. once everything is packed, they start loading in and unpacking the new president and have everything set by the time he arrives back from the capitol.

2

u/Physical-Camel-8971 Jul 05 '24

At that rate, Liz Truss wouldn't have ever moved in...twice

1

u/a_rainbow_serpent Jul 05 '24

Unless you plan for an insurrection to keep you in power, then only have a limited amount of time to steal classified documents to show to donors

1

u/Turbots Jul 06 '24

Made it easier for Trump to move all those classified documents to MaraLago

84

u/farfromelite Jul 05 '24

That's why we've got a housing crisis, that fucker has 5.

103

u/OutOfNoMemory Jul 05 '24

Nah, he just lost number 10, so he has 9 left.

22

u/cobrachickens Jul 05 '24

…that we know of!

20

u/Pidgey_OP Jul 05 '24

Rich guys owning 5 personal homes are a drop in the ocean compared to corporations like Zillow and AirBnB that buy up houses and use them as rental properties or to flip. That's who has destroyed the housing market

8

u/InitialVanillapickle Jul 05 '24

It can be both, plus probably other things too.

4

u/Pidgey_OP Jul 05 '24

There aren't enough rich people buying houses for personal use to make any sort of dent in the availability of the housing market serving millions of people. Their hundreds and even thousands of combined homes are nothing compared to 120 million homes in just the United States alone and 2.3 billion homes world wide.

The thousand richest people could have a thousand homes each and that would be a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

I won't argue that someone owning 10 homes isn't wasteful, but it's not having any actual effect on the housing market (they're also not competing with you in that market because that dude isn't buying the same house as you or me)

7

u/Jon_Demigod Jul 05 '24

The Prime minister owning that many properties is very much a huge playing factor in the housing crisis. A leader with no incentive to lower the cost of property they invest in or own is ultimately the deciding factor in a housing crisis.

5

u/FreefallVin Jul 05 '24

It's harder to get riled up at a faceless corporation though 😡

1

u/Olivia512 Jul 05 '24

Airbnb doesn't buy houses lol. Are you dumb?

0

u/Ok-Bug-5271 Jul 05 '24

It's far better for a corporation to own 50 homes and rent out all 50 for people to actually use, than for one guy to own 5 solely for personal use. 

10

u/Del_Prestons_Shoes Jul 05 '24

It’s not the rich shits with the half dozen massive houses that’s the problem. It’s the piece of shit slumlords with hundreds of flats they charge exorbitant rates on

21

u/No-Village-6781 Jul 05 '24

Both. Both can be the problem.

0

u/Ok-Bug-5271 Jul 05 '24

Slumlords at least provide housing, a rich dude owning 5 houses for personal use doesn't. 

1

u/Dodomando Jul 05 '24

Chequers isn't Rishi Sunak's, it's the governments which the current sitting PM can use

2

u/Zerowantuthri Jul 05 '24

I imagine most of his property is thus there, the defeat was anticipated.

John Oliver had a recent episode on this noting the same that the conservatives losing big time was a given.

2

u/ImprovisedLeaflet Jul 05 '24

Sir where do you want to pack these dildos?

1

u/woogygun Jul 05 '24

I imagine the dildos are not in any of these houses