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

[Mister Gee]

1 minute ago, Robin-H said:

It was an independent inequiry, so no.. 

I bet you're relieved aren't you?

[Robin-H]

Just now, Mister Gee said:

I bet you're relieved aren't you?

What? 

 

What would be a cheaper solution that would be as efficient as that proposed? 

 

Do you think the independent research was compromised so that the answer was whatever the ‘establishment’ wanted? 

 

I hope you've taken your evidence to the police.. If the tendering process was illegal they would surely want to know? 

[Guest makapaka]

12 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Is it a ridiculous amount? Like I said, the Google HQ cost twice as much and can only house half as many people as this new office space needs to.. 

 

What is your realistic solution that would be just as efficient and wouldn't cost anywhere near this figure? 

Mothball it as it is - make it safe for tourists.

 

build a new building out of central London  with accommodation for mps next door.

[ECCOnoob]

17 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Mothball it as it is - make it safe for tourists.

 

build a new building out of central London  with accommodation for mps next door.

All well and good but you are forgetting two very important things.

 

A vast majority of the Government Departments, Foreign Offices, Diplomatic Emabassies, Royal Households and Corporate Headquarters that parliament deals with in thieir day to day business is based in and around London.     Its the capital city for a reason - just like every other capital city around the world.

 

Hardly conducive to efficient running of the country to have MPs and their staff spending hours a week travelling around from city to city.  Some parlimentary business can involve crossing between office building to office building, chamber to chamber dozens of time a day.     Its one thing to do a short walk or drive within a couple of square miles of  Whitehall or Westminster.    Bit different to be expected to be nipping down from some new Parliament campus in Leeds or Manchester to the Home Office or Department of Health or the Privvy Council Offices in London.

 

Secondly, you seem to misunderstand the prime purpose of that "accommodation" allowance.     Its not about living close to Parliament.   Most MPs already own houses in London as their work is obviously majority based there.   The Second Home expenses allowance (which has recently been limited to single person rented flats only) is for those MPs who have constituances spread all over the place.   

 

No point putting them into some glorified hostel next to the debating chamber because that would not solve any issue.     They would still need other accommodation elsewhere no matter where you choose to site a new Parliament Building.   

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Robin-H]

8 hours ago, makapaka said:

Mothball it as it is - make it safe for tourists.

 

build a new building out of central London  with accommodation for mps next door.

What would that solve? 

 

In order for the building to be safeguarded for the future it needs a full work of renovation. Even minimal work to stop the imminent risks to the building would need to be extensive and expensive. You'd then be left with a building that still wasn't in a good enough state to actually be used for anything, and would require continual preventative maintenance as each issue that had not been resolved became critical. It is way more cost effective in the long run to do a full work of renovation in one go, fix everything and reduce the ongoing maintenance and running costs. 

 

Also, I don't really understand why people think an empty Palace of Westminster would be a bigger tourist draw than it is now. The vast majority of the building is made up of boring small office rooms. The public can already go on tours of all the interesting parts. The most interesting thing about it is that it is a living building and the heart of government. 

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

What would that solve? 

 

In order for the building to be safeguarded for the future it needs a full work of renovation. Even minimal work to stop the imminent risks to the building would need to be extensive and expensive. You'd then be left with a building that still wasn't in a good enough state to actually be used for anything, and would require continual preventative maintenance as each issue that had not been resolved became critical. It is way more cost effective in the long run to do a full work of renovation in one go, fix everything and reduce the ongoing maintenance and running costs. 

 

Also, I don't really understand why people think an empty Palace of Westminster would be a bigger tourist draw than it is now. The vast majority of the building is made up of boring small office rooms. The public can already go on tours of all the interesting parts. The most interesting thing about it is that it is a living building and the heart of government. 

But it's simply not fit for purpose. It's not big enough for a start. There aren't enough offices. And it's antiquated, heaven knows what state the wiring is in,  no desks, no terminals or modern communications systems in the debating chamber, compared with other countries it's just delapidated grandeur and ritual for the sake of it, and not at all conducive to serious debate or work in what should be a modern, fast moving country.  It's just a  slow, ponderous, show piece that exagerates a sense of entitlement rather than a place of work.

We have to move with the times.

[Robin-H]

52 minutes ago, Anna B said:

But it's simply not fit for purpose. It's not big enough for a start. There aren't enough offices. And it's antiquated, heaven knows what state the wiring is in,  no desks, no terminals or modern communications systems in the debating chamber, compared with other countries it's just delapidated grandeur and ritual for the sake of it, and not at all conducive to serious debate or work in what should be a modern, fast moving country.  It's just a  slow, ponderous, show piece that exagerates a sense of entitlement rather than a place of work.

We have to move with the times.

That's why they're doing it up... 

[ANGELFIRE1]

Move the parasites out of Westminster on a permanent basis. Build a new Government headquarters close to that London, but not smack in the center of it where prices are beyond ridiculous. Then do the much needed repairs over a larger number of years, spreading the costs, you never know we may even have sorted Brexit by then.

 

Angel1.

[geared]

On 11/05/2019 at 02:05, ECCOnoob said:

A vast majority of the Government Departments, Foreign Offices, Diplomatic Emabassies, Royal Households and Corporate Headquarters that parliament deals with in thieir day to day business is based in and around London.     Its the capital city for a reason - just like every other capital city around the world.

but several countries have separated their government departments from their main economic centres, which is really what is being suggested.

[Robin-H]

56 minutes ago, geared said:

but several countries have separated their government departments from their main economic centres, which is really what is being suggested.

I can't think of that many countries whose capital isn't also the seat of government. Amsterdam is the one the springs to mind (the Hague being where government sits), and Bolivia (Sucre the capital but government in La Paz). 

 

Not that a dearth of other countries doing it means it's necessarily a bad idea but I really don't see the benefit. It would be horrendously expensive to move governmental departments to somewhere else (which would have to be newly built to house the tens of thousands of people) and I don't see how that cost could be justified.