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

[geared]

Not the seat of government not being in the capital, more the capital not being also the main economic centre.

 

So like Australia and the USA, where the seat of government and capital is mostly just that and not much else, the main economic centre and largest city is somewhere else.

[Robin-H]

3 hours ago, geared said:

Not the seat of government not being in the capital, more the capital not being also the main economic centre.

 

So like Australia and the USA, where the seat of government and capital is mostly just that and not much else, the main economic centre and largest city is somewhere else.

What would be the benefit of the UK doing that? 

[Anna B]

7 hours ago, Robin-H said:

What would be the benefit of the UK doing that? 

It would share things out a bit perhaps. At the moment everything is Londoncentric, nobody else gets a look in. And land / property prices might be less elsewhere. 

[alchresearch]

14 hours ago, Robin-H said:

What would be the benefit of the UK doing that? 

A good article here:

 

Parliament needs to leave London and reconnect with the people

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/brexit-britain-needs-mps-out-of-westminster-provinces-neglected

 

[Robin-H]

23 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

A good article here:

 

Parliament needs to leave London and reconnect with the people

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/brexit-britain-needs-mps-out-of-westminster-provinces-neglected

 

Jenkins doesn't seem to comprehend the scale of what would be involved in moving government out of London. We aren't just talking about 650MPs, over 8,000 people have offices in the Palace of Westminster. If you include people working in other areas of government in London the number swells to over 80,000. 

[tinfoilhat]

35 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Jenkins doesn't seem to comprehend the scale of what would be involved in moving government out of London. We aren't just talking about 650MPs, over 8,000 people have offices in the Palace of Westminster. If you include people working in other areas of government in London the number swells to over 80,000. 

We've moved other parts of government before - how many moved to Moorfoot back in late 70s early 80s?

[Robin-H]

4 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

We've moved other parts of government before - how many moved to Moorfoot back in late 70s early 80s?

I have absolutely no problem in having regional departmental government hubs, as we do now. That is different to moving the seat of government somewhere else for seemingly an arbitrary reason. There are over 400,000 civil servants in the UK, and only around 80,000 work in London, so the vast majority already live and work elsewhere..

 

I don't see what is gained by moving 80,000 people and their families.

 

 

[Robin-H]

10 hours ago, Anna B said:

It would share things out a bit perhaps. At the moment everything is Londoncentric, nobody else gets a look in. And land / property prices might be less elsewhere. 

I appreciate that the UK is unusual in that our largest city is so much larger than the next biggest, but I don't think the solution to that is moving the seat of government out of London. 

 

Firstly, it would be incredibly expensive. You'd essentially be having to build a new city. To move government out of London would require moving many tens of thousands of people. Also, that wouldn't solve the problem that started this whole debate. The Palace of Westminster and Northern Estate would still need billions spending on them to be restored. The massive conservation deficit means it would never be tackled without government funding, no business or private venture would take it on. 

[geared]

The palace of Westminster needs refurbishment/renovation, there's no question about that.  It's a cost we have to swallow.

 

I think most people issue is that after spending all that money, they're not particularly happy with who is going to be enjoying the use of the building.

Public opinion of Parliament is at an all time low, people won't give them the time of day, let alone a freshly refurbished palace to work in.

 

Besides if you kick the lot out of London they might be forced to realise there is actually something outside of the M25, maybe the rest of the country can then get the investment it badly needs instead of everything being spent on one city.

[Robin-H]

49 minutes ago, geared said:

The palace of Westminster needs refurbishment/renovation, there's no question about that.  It's a cost we have to swallow.

 

I think most people issue is that after spending all that money, they're not particularly happy with who is going to be enjoying the use of the building.

Public opinion of Parliament is at an all time low, people won't give them the time of day, let alone a freshly refurbished palace to work in.

 

Besides if you kick the lot out of London they might be forced to realise there is actually something outside of the M25, maybe the rest of the country can then get the investment it badly needs instead of everything being spent on one city.

So who should be enjoying the use of the building? As has been mentioned, the interesting parts of the building are already open to the public. I very much doubt that tourism would increase just because the thousands of pokey uninteresting office rooms were empty..