Temporary debating chamber for MPs expected to cost about £500,000,000

[geared]

So what you're saying is build them a little town somewhere to do everything in?

[Robin-H]

11 minutes ago, geared said:

So what you're saying is build them a little town somewhere to do everything in?

Yes.

 

It would have to be somewhere with excellent transport links so that when people from further afield are needed they can get their easily. It would also have to be an international transport hub for foreign visitors etc. 

 

It would also be good if it was somewhere where ordinary people lived, so that the tens of billions it would cost to build also benefited ordinary people (through facilities and improved transport etc) and wasn’t just for the benefit of civil servants.

 

We could name it London... 

[Pettytom]

Maybe we should just do without a government for five years. We’ve essentially existed without one for the last three, so I can’t see it being much of a problem.

[Mister M]

57 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Absolute nonsense.

 

I know that the forum reactionaries have that great wet dream that politicians and their servants should be forced to work out of cardboard boxes and live on nothing but bread and dripping but thats not real life.

 

Outside of government this "outrage"  wouldnt exist.  Face facts, this is no different than any other massive organisation and thousands of staff having to relocate out of several different buildings into a new place.

 

Land, materials, construction workers, fixtures and fittings are all costs money.  It's money that comes out of the budget for such purposes.

 

Given the amount of money spent on   plenty of other government organizations I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

 

Whenever stories like this crop up it's always the same nonsense about how many nurses could that pay for, how many GP's, how many social workers etc...  Quite frankly it's irrelevant.  

 

Whether people like it or not the politicians and their thousands of staff members have to work somewhere.  Occasionally someone has to spend money on the less "worthy" things such as paper clips and fixing leaky roofs. 

So why don't the rules of 'Best Value' or 'Compulsory competitive Tendering' apply? Why aren't the other suggestions put forward by Simon Jenkins (who knows a bit about the area he's talking about if you read his biography) and others being considered? Does the temporary building's debating chamber need to be made of the same materials at extra costs.

I'm not against reasonableness. But I am against  needless excess, especially when people are being harassed to death by the DWP, and this does happen.

54 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

A good opportunity, but not very practical. 

 

https://www.citymetric.com/politics/no-parliament-should-not-move-out-london-while-they-rebuild-palace-westminster-3679

 

Also, parliament at Westminster works synergistically with Whitehall as governmental officials and ministers go back and forth, (often at very short notice), to appear before MPs in committees or in the case of ministers, answering urgent last-minute questions from MPs in the Commons chamber.  This would not be possible if ministers were still based in London but parliament was hundreds of miles away. 

 

83,500 civil servants are based in London. The government still to function as efficiently as it does now (however inefficient that may be..) the vast majority of those people would also have to be relocated. 

 

But these are problems that are not insurmountable, digital technology such as Skype has come on in leaps and bounds.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Mister M

[Lockdoctor]

21 minutes ago, geared said:

So what you're saying is build them a little town somewhere to do everything in?

It wouldn't be a bad idea to build  a little town or big village somewhere away from London to accommodate everything needed to rule the country.   The security implications must be one of the biggest expenses  so an ex military base would be ideal.  After Westminster has been refurbished then the properties used to temporary rule the country could be sold of to the highest bidders.  The Olympic village in London has a new use and a temporary place to rule the country could have alternative uses after it is no longer needed.

[geared]

Palace of Westminster would be a massive tourist attraction as well if punters could go right inside.

[Robin-H]

24 minutes ago, geared said:

Palace of Westminster would be a massive tourist attraction as well if punters could go right inside.

You can.. 

 

https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/visiting-and-tours/

 

Granted you can't go into everyone's offices, as these are still being used, but I'm not sure going into empty office rooms would be that much of a tourist draw... 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Robin-H

[Robin-H]

43 minutes ago, Mister M said:

So why don't the rules of 'Best Value' or 'Compulsory competitive Tendering' apply? Why aren't the other suggestions put forward by Simon Jenkins (who knows a bit about the area he's talking about if you read his biography) and others being considered? Does the temporary building's debating chamber need to be made of the same materials at extra costs.

I'm not against reasonableness. But I am against  needless excess, especially when people are being harassed to death by the DWP, and this does happen.

But these are problems that are not insurmountable, digital technology such as Skype has come on in leaps and bounds.

Face to face is the most secure method. Government doesn’t have a particularly good track record when it comes to digital technology. 

[Anna B]

4 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Absolute nonsense.

 

I know that the forum reactionaries have that great wet dream that politicians and their servants should be forced to work out of cardboard boxes and live on nothing but bread and dripping but thats not real life.

 

Outside of government this "outrage"  wouldnt exist.  Face facts, this is no different than any other massive organisation and thousands of staff having to relocate out of several different buildings into a new place.

 

Land, materials, construction workers, fixtures and fittings are all costs money.  It's money that comes out of the budget for such purposes.

 

Given the amount of money spent on   plenty of other government organizations I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

 

Whenever stories like this crop up it's always the same nonsense about how many nurses could that pay for, how many GP's, how many social workers etc...  Quite frankly it's irrelevant.  

 

Whether people like it or not the politicians and their thousands of staff members have to work somewhere.  Occasionally someone has to spend money on the less "worthy" things such as paper clips and fixing leaky roofs. 

Except we, the long suffering taxpayers are the suckers paying for it. It's disrespectful to taxpayers who have been tightening their belts for the last ten years until the pips squeak.

 

It's supposed to be a temporory fix for heaven's sake, surely they could have found somewhere suitable with a bit of tinkering for security etc. Let's face it, their performance in government lately hardly showers them in glory to deserve such largesse.

 

By all means build a permanent, state of the art, work place for government that's properly suitable for purpose, (which the current house of commons really isn't,) and keep the old one as the museum it i if you like, but spending money like this on a temporory fix just isn't on. 

 

And "the amount of money spent on plenty of other government organisations," certainly doesn't make it any better, but worse. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Anna B

[Lex Luthor]

52 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Except we, the long suffering taxpayers are the suckers paying for it. It's disrespectful to taxpayers who have been tightening their belts for the last ten years until the pips squeak.

 

It's supposed to be a temporory fix for heaven's sake, surely they could have found somewhere suitable with a bit of tinkering for security etc. Let's face it, their performance in government lately hardly showers them in glory to deserve such largesse.

 

By all means build a permanent, state of the art, work place for government that's properly suitable for purpose, (which the current house of commons really isn't,) and keep the old one as the museum it i if you like, but spending money like this on a temporory fix just isn't on. 

 

And "the amount of money spent on plenty of other government organisations," certainly doesn't make it any better, but worse. 

I like the idea of keeping Westminster as a museum, and the old self-serving politicians can be housed there as relics.