Houses of Parliament to undergo £4 billion restorations

[Blue3]

A senior parliamentary committee is to recommend that all MPs and peers vacate both Houses of Parliament for six years to allow for urgent repairs.
The report will suggest they relocate to nearby buildings, as early as 2020, to enable the £4bn restoration project.

Why not ask one of the big hotel chains Travel lodge, Jurors inn or similar to build three hotels one up north another in the Midlands and the third in South each MP to be allocated a room and office in each hotel with onsite conference facilities.

Give the Houses of Parliament to the National Trust they have the money to renovate and then open to the public it could still be used for the geat state occasions if required.

This would stop all the expences issues, put Parliament out into the relations and solve yet another £4 billion black hole

 

[The Albion Roar]

Might well be cheaper to build a new parliament building.

Given how archaic the voting procedure is in the Commons (no modern technology), and the fact that the Commons can't seat all the MPs at the same time, a new fit-for-purpose building may well be the answer.

 

[BadFish]

Might well be cheaper to build a new parliament building.

Given how archaic the voting procedure is in the Commons (no modern technology), and the fact that the Commons can't seat all the MPs at the same time, a new fit-for-purpose building may well be the answer.

4bn would get you a pretty good parliament building.

 

[beorhthelm]

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

presumably along with all the ministries too? or we would have MPs shuttling back and forth between Parliament and Westminster.

theres a case for building a new parliament but it would need to be in London so would be expensive - though probably not £4bn. but then you'd still need to renovate the Palace of Westminster, or would we be happy to close it up and let it rot?

 

[happypig]

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

I'd move it to Edinburgh for no other reason than to upset Mary Doll and her SNP moaners.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I once read that when the old parliament burned down in 1834, the crowd of people watching all cheered.

 

[biddles911]

presumably along with all the ministries too? or we would have MPs shuttling back and forth between Parliament and Westminster.

theres a case for building a new parliament but it would need to be in London so would be expensive - though probably not £4bn. but then you'd still need to renovate the Palace of Westminster, or would we be happy to close it up and let it rot?

Personally, I'd just demolish the current one and start again. I agree it's a lovely and historic building but it's not fit-for-purpose and the skills needed to renovate it barely exist now, let alone in 50-100 years time, hence the massive cost.

I'd also downsize the requirement by reducing the number of MPs substantially, say by 150-200. Use technology much more intensively too so MPs don't have to live in London 24/7. What's wrong with tele-conferencing?!

By all means give them higher salaries; their current level equates to a middle manager in most companies these days, which seems ludicrous to me. Also, ensure they have adequate support staff (not their family either!).

I reckon you'd end up with a much more professional government in less expensive accommodation.

Can't see it happening but it's the future (maybe)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CHAPPERS]

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

 

[Gwylan]

presumably along with all the ministries too? or we would have MPs shuttling back and forth between Parliament and Westminster.

theres a case for building a new parliament but it would need to be in London so would be expensive - though probably not £4bn. but then you'd still need to renovate the Palace of Westminster, or would we be happy to close it up and let it rot?

Why would it need to be in London? Several countries don't have their government buildings in their largest city (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, Nigeria and USA to name just a few).

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

 

[seagull_special]

We're going to be governed from a portacabin

 

[beorhthelm]

Why would it need to be in London? Several countries don't have their government buildings in their largest city (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, Nigeria and USA to name just a few).

i didnt say is has to stay in London, i'm highlighting there's more to government than the parliament building. theres dozens of offices and tens of thousands of jobs. we are talking about moving the capital, quite possible, its just not a trivial thing to do. cost to move? probably more than £4bn, though many benefits too.

Personally, I'd just demolish the current one and start again. I agree it's a lovely and historic building but it's not fit-for-purpose and the skills needed to renovate it barely exist now, let alone in 50-100 years time, hence the massive cost.

its listed and a world heritage site, we dont demolished such buildings so someone will have to pay for some renovation (no need for modernisation if its going to turn into a museum i suppose). iirc they'e looked at a number of options, this is probably the best/cost effective option.

 

[Gwylan]

i didnt say is has to stay in London, i'm highlighting there's more to government than the parliament building. theres dozens of offices and tens of thousands of jobs. we are talking about moving the capital, quite possible, its just not a trivial thing to do. cost to move? probably more than £4bn, though many benefits too.



its listed and a world heritage site, we dont demolished such buildings so someone will have to pay for some renovation (no need for modernisation if its going to turn into a museum i suppose). iirc they'e looked at a number of options, this is probably the best/cost effective option.

Oh, it wouldn't trivial but, as I said, several countries have move parliament and civil service out of one city and to another. There would be a cost involved but so many other benefits.

And, yes, you couldn't demolish the building but it would make a fantastic hotel/conference centre, so that would be a way to recoup some of the costs of the move

 

[The Albion Roar]

Why would it need to be in London? Several countries don't have their government buildings in their largest city (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, Nigeria and USA to name just a few).

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

Most of those countries you list had purpose-built capitals. Also, while Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands, The Hague has been the constitutional and administrative seat for over 400 years.

The size of the city isn't the issue - it was the convenience.

 

[Pavilionaire]

For me this whole story just typifies all that is wrong about how this country is governed. The building has needed a makeover for decades yet the powers that be let it get into a critical state before taking action. Furthermore, £4 billion seems an incredible amount of money for an internal refit.. This doesn't seem to represent value for money, yet there doesn't appear to have been any consideration of the alternative option, such as a newbuild.

In addition, London's standing as a leading global capital city is already likely to suffer following the Brexit vote and possible exit of banks and other financial services. The relocation of Parliament outside of London would further downgrade its standing.

 

[bhachris]

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.

 

[Soulman]

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.

Yep. Our heritage and a beautiful building. Tasteful refurbish.

 

[beorhthelm]

For me this whole story just typifies all that is wrong about how this country is governed. The building has needed a makeover for decades yet the powers that be let it get into a critical state before taking action. Furthermore, £4 billion seems an incredible amount of money for an internal refit.. This doesn't seem to represent value for money, yet there doesn't appear to have been any consideration of the alternative option, such as a newbuild.

not wrong about leaving it so long, but there is a 124 page document from a committee considering the matter.

 

[pasty]

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.

Completely agree. I did a tour of it last year (free if you organise it via your local MP btw), and as Parliament were not sitting at the time, we were allowed into both Houses, Commons and Lords, as part of the tour. It is a magnificent building.

 

[Gwylan]

Most of those countries you list had purpose-built capitals. .

Then it's so much cheaper to move to an existing city. There are acres and acres of brownfield space in northern cities: land is cheaper, labour is cheaper. London would remain the financial centre and the creative centre but moving our political centre would transform the country. Unemployment in the north would be reduced drastically, transport links would be improved drastically, housing costs in London would stabilise.

The economy in this country is far too London centric, this would even things out at a stroke

 

[Driver8]

If my maths is correct then £4b is the cost of 20 Amexes. Ridiculous amount of money, particularly at the moment where public services are being cut all over the place.