Houses of Parliament to undergo £4 billion restorations

[GT49er]

Marvellous. Then over the years the criteria changes and some bright spark says we should move again. Furthermore, who decides who decides? Is it going to be a cross party committee of MPs and members of the house of Lords? Would it be economists, business leaders, architects etc etc.

It's also not the case of just staying put because that's how it's been for years. The whole of government infrastructure is pretty much established in London, ministries, legislature. There are loads of reasons why it should remain in London. Seems the only reason some think it should go up north is because of the envy of the north over the south. In the short term there might be some cost savings but I'm not sure the Mancunians (and let's be honest that is the only other city really being considered) wouldn't be too happy when they can't afford to buy homes in the own city which is now blighted by additional airports etc etc.

And that is part of the problem. Whole ministries need to be moved out of London. A small London (or wherever Parliament is) office for the Minister - staff of 20 or 30 max, including cleaners, etc. All else can bee carried on electronically on a day to day basis. Occasionally the minister might have to travel for a particularly important meeting - so be it.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Moving parliament and the ministries to somewhere like Nottingham, Birmingham or Derby would have an amazing effect on the country. There'd be massive economic boost to the north and midlands and some sensible house prices in London. And the reduction in traffic and rail passengers would be tremendous

All well & good but I for one would worry enormously about the potential increase in bat- vehicle collisions.

 

[Badger]

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/09/08...-excessive-drink-drug-use-closed-permanently/

London venue infamous for excessive drink and drug use to be closed permanently


A famous London venue that has been linked to heavy alcohol and drug use is to be closed permanently, over health fears for the people who attend it.




The venue – known affectionately as ‘Parliament’ by regular goers – sees up to 650 people attending various events, many of whom enjoy excessive amounts of subsided alcohol sold in the Palace of Westminster’s eight bars.


Footage from inside the venue reveals the utter ****ing state of the attendees.A recent undercover police investigation into Parliament revealed that many inside the venue were seen displaying unusual behaviour, such as “sweating, glazed red eyes and staring into space.” Traces of cocaine were also found in a number of toilets in the Palace, which was famously closed in 1834 after a fire that resulted in nine people being so seriously injured they required hospitalisation.


“This building is at the heart of British politics,” said one stunned Parliament-goer, who vowed to start an online petition against Westminster City Council’s decision.


“If a venue like this is closed, where will the next generation of politicians go to start illegal wars and pass bills that **** over large parts of the UK’s population? It’s madness.”

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Agree with the above posts. I would not only move parliament out of Westminster, I'd move it out of London altogether.

Brussels? oh no,we voted Leave (well i did)....where's the money coming from i wonder,our EU contribution.

 

[drew]

Why would the criteria change? And yes a panel of economists, architects, social scientists, transport engineers etc.
Why is it ok to have unaffordable homes in london but not in manchester? Heritage is all good and well but why not consider new things?

Why couldn't it, aren't you arguing that the criteria for it being in London has changed?

 

[sydney]

Why don't they sell the ****ing place to developers like they did with Fabric. Would make billions.

i wouldn't rule it out mate.

 

[5ways]

Move it, with the entire civil service, to Manchester. It would save us billions and it would re-balance the UK economy. Not many countries are as centralised as the UK and I'm not sure it has many benefits.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Anyone involved in construction will know that £4B is just the starting point. Refurbishment contracts of this size have a nasty habit of going way over budget and programme. And recent government projects like Portcullis House and the Scottish Assembly Building were not exactly shining examples of cost control. Typically a lot of things will only come to light once contracts have been awarded - additional nasties like asbestos, the condition of the structure itself etc - good luck with getting this done for £4B.

 

[synavm]

Despite working in the Commons, as a matter of principle, I'd support a move out of London. Logistically, it could be an big problem, though. You're not just looking at MPs and Peers, there's a further 13,000 members of House staff. Then you've got Ministries and their London based staff. Realistically, you're probably looking at about 20,000 jobs. Some people would be easily replaced but then there are others who have worked within Parliament for decades who would be irreplaceable.

Then there's all the buildings that will need to be sold off, security to be re-established. It'd cost more than £4 Billion to move out, then, what of the Palace? The private sector isn't going to restore it and it's in such a state in some parts that it would have been ordered to be demolished if it wasn't a protected building.

So, yeah, principally , a move sounds right but practically, it isn't going to happen.

 

[W.C.]

I can't believe people are saying knock the building down and build something more suitable! Its one of the most beautiful and famous buildings in the world, many millions of tourists visit London every year and the Palace of Westminster is high on their list of attractions. Restoration is a snip at 4 billion IMO.

Who said knock it down? (on this thread anyway)

 

[drew]

Move it, with the entire civil service, to Manchester. It would save us billions and it would re-balance the UK economy. Not many countries are as centralised as the UK and I'm not sure it has many benefits.

Why Manchester? Why not Birmingham, or even Nottingham which would be more central. Exactly how would it re-balance the economy? Will the finance sector in London follow the government to Manchester or any other arbitrary city that people will push for.

 

[biddles911]

Who said knock it down? (on this thread anyway)

I did! Post 8........

Anyone who thinks that £4bn to renovate this is a good deal has got a different perspective on value for money than I do.

In a time of both uncertainty and austerity we ought to at least consider radical options, I believe.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billy the Fish]

This thread is brilliant, turn a world heritage site into a hotel!

 

[W.C.]

I did! Post 8........

Anyone who thinks that £4bn to renovate this is a good deal has got a different perspective on value for money than I do.

In a time of both uncertainty and austerity we ought to at least consider radical options, I believe.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Missed that!

 

[5ways]

Why Manchester? Why not Birmingham, or even Nottingham which would be more central. Exactly how would it re-balance the economy? Will the finance sector in London follow the government to Manchester or any other arbitrary city that people will push for.

In other major economies I think it is true that the finance centre and the political centre at in separate cities. Frankfurt and Berlin, Beijing and Shanghai, DC and NY. The other very centralised country is France I think.

I always thought of Manchester as the second city.

Re-balance because you move a bunch of highly paid people up north. Space is cheaper if you do need to build new buildings. London suffers from overpopulation etc - this pressure could be relieved slightly in this way.

Also it's never such a bad thing to separate the purse-strings and the politics, William had the right idea keeping the Treasury (monks) in Winchester and moving his capital to London. Though I might be wrong about that I don't know the history well.

 

[Danny-Boy]

It cost us all enough when the MPs were allowed to bill us for the duck houses, ornamental moats, pergolas, antique fireplaces and every last sheet of toilet paper in their second homes. Imagine if they moved Parliament outside London....they'd all be demanding a third house

And a brothel, with fitted out cellar etc.

The comment about football clubs spending £1bn. on players set me wondering...why can't we transfer our politicians. For example Keith Vaz to Romania..Ploiesti has a lot of slippery stuff around.

 

[Danny-Boy]

I always thought of Manchester as the second city.

Brum doesn't. Except that in football terms with only West Brom of the Midlands conurbation in the top flight, against the duopoly of City/United maybe the power has shifted. Away from Liverpool too.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

We were fortunate to do the tour of it last year (as well as to the top of big ben)

Stunning building and amazing to walk around. I got to see the queens toilet.

I'd have had to popped in for a quick Sherman.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

I get that but £4 billion?!? It's an insane amount of money.

Don't worry,by the time it's completed it would've risen to £8 billion,bargain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[biddles911]

Don't worry,by the time it's completed it would've risen to £8 billion,bargain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Apparently the Scottish Parliament cost about £400m to build and houses 129 SMPs and 1,000 staff and civil servants (per Wikipedia).

Can't see that building a new Parliament in London should cost anything like 5 times the amount for 600 MPs (plus 5,000 civil servants!?). Even it did, that comes out at £2bn, half the projected cost of renovation!

Should be able to use the Scottish experience to get it right too.....? Might pacify those North of the Border if we gave them the business?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk