Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
Straw manning again.
I have said nothing about the building which should house Parliament, other than it shouldn't be the current monument. And I'm entirely happy to conserve the monument at a reasonable cost.
Some Victorian buildings are amenable to renovation to meet current building standards; this one really isn't.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
On the whole, yes
Really? Tell that to Arsenal fans, about to win the league, or Everton fans in their new home. New grounds have improved the experience for fans no end.
I think that football fans on the whole think that Highbury and Goodison Park were better than their replacements. Winning the league has nothing to do with it.
More historic. More memories. More emotion tied up. All yes. But better? Goodison Park wasn't better by any other criteria. Not least to the 13000+ extra who can now actually attend. And see the penalty area as well.
It’s the same arguments for a new St James Park. I happen to support a new stadium for the reasons you give but I don’t expect it to be better, just more expensive and less accessible.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
On the whole, yes
Really? Tell that to Arsenal fans, about to win the league, or Everton fans in their new home. New grounds have improved the experience for fans no end.
I think that football fans on the whole think that Highbury and Goodison Park were better than their replacements. Winning the league has nothing to do with it.
More historic. More memories. More emotion tied up. All yes. But better? Goodison Park wasn't better by any other criteria. Not least to the 13000+ extra who can now actually attend. And see the penalty area as well.
Thank you. I feel that Gallowgate is speaking for his own opinion, not that of thousands of fans who now get to experience modern stadia, with better toilets, food and drink outlets, views of the game etc.
Starmer is drowning and he knows it. He will get more like Gordon Brown as the end is nigh.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 5m Starmer's evasiveness on Doyle was actually worse than on Mandelson. Didn't even attempt to justify his actions. Just raged at the people asking the questions. Very clear he's worried about this.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
Straw manning again.
I have said nothing about the building which should house Parliament, other than it shouldn't be the current monument. And I'm entirely happy to conserve the monument at a reasonable cost.
Some Victorian buildings are amenable to renovation to meet current building standards; this one really isn't.
Starmer is drowning and he knows it. He will get more like Gordon Brown as the end is nigh.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 5m Starmer's evasiveness on Doyle was actually worse than on Mandelson. Didn't even attempt to justify his actions. Just raged at the people asking the questions. Very clear he's worried about this.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
On the whole, yes
Really? Tell that to Arsenal fans, about to win the league, or Everton fans in their new home. New grounds have improved the experience for fans no end.
I think that football fans on the whole think that Highbury and Goodison Park were better than their replacements. Winning the league has nothing to do with it.
More historic. More memories. More emotion tied up. All yes. But better? Goodison Park wasn't better by any other criteria. Not least to the 13000+ extra who can now actually attend. And see the penalty area as well.
It’s the same arguments for a new St James Park. I happen to support a new stadium for the reasons you give but I don’t expect it to be better, just more expensive and less accessible.
St James is several decades more modern and fit for purpose than Goodison was.
Plus. You can't really be more accessible as regards location than St James. Although lifts in the Milburn would help. The new ground is easier to reach for most than Goodison.
Christ alive. Starmer, a former DPP, has to be reminded by the Speaker, generally regarded as a bit of a wet blanket, that he shouldn't be discussing live cases before the courts. What a prat.
Starmer is drowning and he knows it. He will get more like Gordon Brown as the end is nigh.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 5m Starmer's evasiveness on Doyle was actually worse than on Mandelson. Didn't even attempt to justify his actions. Just raged at the people asking the questions. Very clear he's worried about this.
"History is women following behind with the bucket."
So Morgan McSweeney has been replaced by Jill Cuthbertson and Vidhya Alakeson. Antonia Romeo is about to take over from Chris Wormald. Steph Driver may return to fill Tim Allan's vacancy.
Sense that now there's a mess to mop up, get the women in
Hearing similar things about the Labour leadership - that it has to be Rayner or Powell or Mahmood, because we just can't have another clever boy at the helm with his clever boys club.
Which is great. But it would be nice if women could get the top jobs that weren't just about clearing up the mess
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
His problem is his evasiveness gives people more reason to hate him and he has precious little support left to shore up with whataboutery and angry 'how dare you, im awesome' stuff. The soundbites always damage with the wary/weary. Classic unpopular PM at PMQs problems. The opposition need to be careful not to give him a 'Gordon Browns handwriting on letters to soldiers bereaved families' sympathy out
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Kemi and the Tories are a total irrelevance irrespective of Starmer. Farage is the only game in town
You're right on that count for anyone centre right or right Farage is the only game in town.
Kemi is taking the Tories to complete extinction.
Any Tory leader has the same problem, you can't out Reform Reform so what exactly is the purpose of the tory party and how does that give you 100 seats minimum at the next election.
"History is women following behind with the bucket."
So Morgan McSweeney has been replaced by Jill Cuthbertson and Vidhya Alakeson. Antonia Romeo is about to take over from Chris Wormald. Steph Driver may return to fill Tim Allan's vacancy.
Sense that now there's a mess to mop up, get the women in
Hearing similar things about the Labour leadership - that it has to be Rayner or Powell or Mahmood, because we just can't have another clever boy at the helm with his clever boys club.
Which is great. But it would be nice if women could get the top jobs that weren't just about clearing up the mess
The one thing the past shows us is that whenever women are put in the top/senior political positions they do an amazing job that makes the country wealthy, respected, organised, well run and they do lots of nice things that make them very popular, stop wars and ensure equality for all.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
That’s from 2017. And it doesn’t change the rules. The fact of the matter is that you’re supposed to volunteer payments if you go abroad and if you don’t you’re acting fraudulently and defaulting on your loan. Maybe you can get away with it in some circumstances but it’s not right.
I graduated in 2013 and still have £20k+ of “debt”. I currently pay circa. £500 a month on top of other taxes, like I am supposed to.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
I actually disagree with that.
There are plenty of old buildings as important. I might start with the pre-discussed cathedrals, Dover Castle, or the Tower of London.
I think one answer for the PoW is to follow the County Hall model - move out and repurpose the original if it cannot be done at a reasonable cost.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
On the whole, yes
Really? Tell that to Arsenal fans, about to win the league, or Everton fans in their new home. New grounds have improved the experience for fans no end.
I think that football fans on the whole think that Highbury and Goodison Park were better than their replacements. Winning the league has nothing to do with it.
More historic. More memories. More emotion tied up. All yes. But better? Goodison Park wasn't better by any other criteria. Not least to the 13000+ extra who can now actually attend. And see the penalty area as well.
It’s the same arguments for a new St James Park. I happen to support a new stadium for the reasons you give but I don’t expect it to be better, just more expensive and less accessible.
Kemi and the Tories are a total irrelevance irrespective of Starmer. Farage is the only game in town
You're right on that count for anyone centre right or right Farage is the only game in town.
Kemi is taking the Tories to complete extinction.
Any Tory leader has the same problem, you can't out Reform Reform so what exactly is the purpose of the tory party and how does that give you 100 seats minimum at the next election.
The Tory Party have lost many MPs to Reform.
The One Nation Tories have 3 months to install a credible leader for the first time since Cameron, or Kemi will render the Tories the same as the original Liberal Party
I think that football fans on the whole think that Highbury and Goodison Park were better than their replacements. Winning the league has nothing to do with it.
Having been to half of the 92, and all of the top division save a couple of the newest ones, Goodison had easily the worst away end of any ground over a 20,000 capacity, a real step back in time. The Lower Bullens will not be missed.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 6m The thing I find incredible is that some Labour MPs genuinely seem to think it will be possible for Starmer to "move on" from all this. After his evasiveness at PMQs we've now got a whole new media cycle that will be devoted to Doyle. Then it'll go back to Mandelson. And on...
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
Kemi and the Tories are a total irrelevance irrespective of Starmer. Farage is the only game in town
Durham Council Tax increase 0%, care precept 1.99%
That will do me.
I didn’t vote Reform but if they are able to deliver then I’ll consider moving from a Labour Party that is content to pick the pockets of the workers to reward the economically inactive and underutilised.
"History is women following behind with the bucket."
So Morgan McSweeney has been replaced by Jill Cuthbertson and Vidhya Alakeson. Antonia Romeo is about to take over from Chris Wormald. Steph Driver may return to fill Tim Allan's vacancy.
Sense that now there's a mess to mop up, get the women in
Hearing similar things about the Labour leadership - that it has to be Rayner or Powell or Mahmood, because we just can't have another clever boy at the helm with his clever boys club.
Which is great. But it would be nice if women could get the top jobs that weren't just about clearing up the mess
The one thing the past shows us is that whenever women are put in the top/senior political positions they do an amazing job that makes the country wealthy, respected, organised, well run and they do lots of nice things that make them very popular, stop wars and ensure equality for all.
Generally speaking Britain's/England's female monarchs have been better regarded than the blokes - Victoria, Elizabeth's I & II - but for Prime Ministers I wouldn't say it has quite worked out that way yet.
Maybe a female Labour PM will be more successful than the last two female PMs and less divisive than the first one?
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
His problem is his evasiveness gives people more reason to hate him and he has precious little support left to shore up with whataboutery and angry 'how dare you, im awesome' stuff. The soundbites always damage with the wary/weary. Classic unpopular PM at PMQs problems. The opposition need to be careful not to give him a 'Gordon Browns handwriting on letters to soldiers bereaved families' sympathy out
What a pointless nonsense that PMQs was. Starmer didn't even pretend to answer any question. Every time he responded with whataboutery and "no lessons". I felt Ed got to the point in 1 question more than Kemi did in 6 and it seemed to rattle SKS somewhat but of course he didn't answer that either. Absolutely nothing new. No attempt to move the story on. Pointless.
If politics is entertainment for ugly people some of our politicians need to remember to entertain. At least occasionally.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
LOL good luck to anyone who tries docking payrolls in Dubai. You’d need to turn up in court for each case.
With no local income tax, a lot of people (Americans mostly, but also people in sales jobs) earn a nominal salary and a bonus paid in actual cash.
It's not very funny for the Treasury though, is it? The only reason these jobs are viable is because expats expect to able to flee back to the UK when the beheadings start or they need 20+ years of NHS care and a juicy state pension.
It's classic socialise the costs, privatise that the profits. Should be dealt with one way or the other.
Well maybe the Treasury should try and understand that the market for skilled high earners is now very much international?
The state pension requires NI payments, so people who have lived their life abroad can’t come back and get a pension.
However young graduates emigrating is a massive problem, it’s not only a brain drain, not only a student loan liability, but many of them will then stay abroad for various reasons, perhaps they’ll find their calling in life to be somewhere else?
I had a rewarding career in the UK as a lawyer but I have encouraged my children to pursue careers that are more easily transferable to other countries, because it has been obvious from a long way out that there was, and still is, a significant risk of the UK getting stuck in a doom loop.
They're in their mid to late 20s now. Hitting the peaks on that marginal tax rate graph. They know that neither Reform nor the Greens are the answer, but who can they vote for that is both honest about the country's finances and electable on a platform of achievable routes to fixing them ?
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
I actually disagree with that.
There are plenty of old buildings as important. I might start with the pre-discussed cathedrals, Dover Castle, or the Tower of London.
I think one answer for the PoW is to follow the County Hall model - move out and repurpose the original if it cannot be done at a reasonable cost.
We could replace all the foreign rubbish in the British Museum and only have British things in there - at least the tourist won’t be misled when they expect to see British objects and have to look at things from their countries.
Then we can turn the PoW into the Imperial Museum and stack it full of all the things we legally bought and collected and preserved for the world when we were the most outward looking of countries.
We could have floors dedicated to colonial wars, the spread of English language and laws and a small area to say sorry and point out the more questionable parts.
The Imperial Museum will tie in our great Empire with great empires of the past whose finest works will all be on display together in one place.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
I actually disagree with that.
There are plenty of old buildings as important. I might start with the pre-discussed cathedrals, Dover Castle, or the Tower of London.
I think one answer for the PoW is to follow the County Hall model - move out and repurpose the original if it cannot be done at a reasonable cost.
Wasn't County Hall converted to accommodation? I think most people in the shires and the north would welcome such a conversion for use as asylum accommodation. None of this out of sight, ought of mind.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
I agree - they risk Starmer getting some sympathy if they think he's being punished for others' crimes. Starmer had no connection with Epstein whatsoever, obviously, and more generally despite his errors it's absolutely clear that he has no truck with padeophiles or other sex offenders. But it's as if some on the right are encouraging the view that Starmer was himself a perpetrator.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
I agree 'Birmingham' (or almost anywhere else) doesn't have quite the same ring. OTOH perhaps the Scottish politicians would find it useful not to be blaming Westminster for things.
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
Lord Longford famously believed that you should hate the sin and love the sinner, which is why he spent many years visiting Myra Hindley in prison.
Kemi and the Tories are a total irrelevance irrespective of Starmer. Farage is the only game in town
Durham Council Tax increase 0%, care precept 1.99%
That will do me.
I didn’t vote Reform but if they are able to deliver then I’ll consider moving from a Labour Party that is content to pick the pockets of the workers to reward the economically inactive and underutilised.
They need to be talking about that loudly as it counters the general narrative.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
Kemi is handed her questions before PMQ
She had to agree to that because her own efforts were dire.
She started by having them on 6 folds that she opened, a terrible look
She now reds them off notes. Fundamentally if you watch her she doesn't listen. She doesn't make notes or changes like Starmer.
She relies on burghardt, Philp or Pritti normally to prompt her.
She makes the odd decent ore scripted joke, but she's be crap at poker as its preface by a weird quite arrogant face movement.... She even says "wait for it" as she reads the script.
Starmer is not a good pmq performer but he wins far more than not even when she has own goals
She needs to watch William Hague
James Cleverly would be far better at Pmq would not need a script, could react and be flexible and actually get blows in.
Cleverly v Rayner who is razor sharp would be A list entertaining
Kemi and the Tories are a total irrelevance irrespective of Starmer. Farage is the only game in town
Durham Council Tax increase 0%, care precept 1.99%
That will do me.
I didn’t vote Reform but if they are able to deliver then I’ll consider moving from a Labour Party that is content to pick the pockets of the workers to reward the economically inactive and underutilised.
That's actually idiotic by Reform, they should be increasing things now while the election is years away so they have a surplus ready to cut things later...
If we do not increase council tax in 2026/27 the council will face an increased budget deficit of £6.1 million, for which the council will be unable to identify suitable savings at this stage.”
The council’s budget proposals suggest the authority faces a budget deficit of around £9.5 million in the next year and an additional deficit of around £42 million for the following three years.
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
Lord Longford famously believed that you should hate the sin and love the sinner, which is why he spent many years visiting Myra Hindley in prison.
That is certainly the Christian approach, which has much to admire about it. Hindley, though. That really is taking it to extremes.
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
The answer will reasonably vary depending on circumstances. How contrite they are, and determined to reform themselves.
Epstein, for example, showed no contrition, and Mandelson seems to have treated him as the victim in the situation. Certainly that is not appropriate behaviour.
With Doyle, it seems that his paedophile friend was convicted for a second time, so that also indicates a lack of contrition and resolution to change.
It's difficult certainly but I think that is where I would draw the line.
I rarely watch PMQ’s, been out in spite of the weather. But catching up on Twitter this response to Ed Davey from a clearly rattled Sturmer is a disgrace.
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
Lord Longford famously believed that you should hate the sin and love the sinner, which is why he spent many years visiting Myra Hindley in prison.
Maybe Lord Longford would have advised Kemi to have the man sat next to her today.
Given the subject matter Chris Pincher couldn't have been worse
Starmer is drowning and he knows it. He will get more like Gordon Brown as the end is nigh.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 5m Starmer's evasiveness on Doyle was actually worse than on Mandelson. Didn't even attempt to justify his actions. Just raged at the people asking the questions. Very clear he's worried about this.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
I agree - they risk Starmer getting some sympathy if they think he's being punished for others' crimes. Starmer had no connection with Epstein whatsoever, obviously, and more generally despite his errors it's absolutely clear that he has no truck with padeophiles or other sex offenders. But it's as if some on the right are encouraging the view that Starmer was himself a perpetrator.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
I agree - they risk Starmer getting some sympathy if they think he's being punished for others' crimes. Starmer had no connection with Epstein whatsoever, obviously, and more generally despite his errors it's absolutely clear that he has no truck with padeophiles or other sex offenders. But it's as if some on the right are encouraging the view that Starmer was himself a perpetrator.
Therein lies the danger for the opposition- conflating the disgust at whats happened and Starmers personal unpopularity. Push that hes not up to the job, not fit to lead. We are all cspable of independently drawing our own conclusions on his character
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
There is a difference as to whether you are in public life or not. A politician has an obligation to behave in accordance with the expected rules of public office.
A private citizen can absolutely choose their own friends. A politician or senior political appointee has to be held to higher standards.
Mandelson clearly didn't meet those standards. Doyle clearly didn't either.
Starmer did not know how to ask the right question. Or deliberately chose not to.
I have had a number of former friends and acquaintances convicted of serious abuse related charges. I am no longer in contact with any of them. And I would be willing to talk to them but maintaining a friendship would depend on how far they had come.
But I don't hold public office nor do I ever intend to.
Kemi and the Tories are a total irrelevance irrespective of Starmer. Farage is the only game in town
Durham Council Tax increase 0%, care precept 1.99%
That will do me.
I didn’t vote Reform but if they are able to deliver then I’ll consider moving from a Labour Party that is content to pick the pockets of the workers to reward the economically inactive and underutilised.
They need to be talking about that loudly as it counters the general narrative.
They do although their increases as a rule are lower than the other parties.
Also they need to crack on with the changes to the bin collections as I need my glass bottle tub for growing potatoes.
Kemi and the Tories are a total irrelevance irrespective of Starmer. Farage is the only game in town
Durham Council Tax increase 0%, care precept 1.99%
That will do me.
I didn’t vote Reform but if they are able to deliver then I’ll consider moving from a Labour Party that is content to pick the pockets of the workers to reward the economically inactive and underutilised.
That's actually idiotic by Reform, they should be increasing things now while the election is years away so they have a surplus ready to cut things later...
If we do not increase council tax in 2026/27 the council will face an increased budget deficit of £6.1 million, for which the council will be unable to identify suitable savings at this stage.”
The council’s budget proposals suggest the authority faces a budget deficit of around £9.5 million in the next year and an additional deficit of around £42 million for the following three years.
Somehow I didn’t think you’d be a fan, whatever they did. 😉
The increase was going to be 2% but that’s changed.
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
One of my boyhood memories is of one of our Scoutmasters being jailed for playing silly whatsits with one of the scouts. General opinion among the boys was that it was six and two threes, but anyway the chap got two years. My father was on the troop’s management committee and when the jail term was over helped the (former) scoutmaster rehabilitate himself. IIRC he emigrated to New Zealand.u
I rarely watch PMQ’s, been out in spite of the weather. But catching up on Twitter this response to Ed Davey from a clearly rattled Sturmer is a disgrace.
@TomMcTague Exclusive: Gordon Brown weighs into Epstein scandal.
—Demands full UK police investigation into Epstein’s enablers in Britain —Sets out questions the Met must answer over failures to investigate people named in files —Calls for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to be interviewed by police over Epstein flights from Stansted
Read Brown's extraordinary intervention in this week's @newstatesman and on the website today
I surely hope that Piglet is bailing harder than Starmer: or Starmer is at least more aware. If only a little bit.
The rain rain rain came down down down In rushing rising riv'lets Till the river crept out of its bed And crept right into Piglet's
For Piglet he was frightened with quite a rightful fright And so in desperation a message he did write He placed it in a bottle and it floated out of sight
And the rain rain rain came down down down So Piglet started bailing He was unaware atop his chair While bailing he was sailing
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
One thing you can be sure of, as will most projects in this country, there will be a colossal overspend.
Kemi and the Tories are a total irrelevance irrespective of Starmer. Farage is the only game in town
Durham Council Tax increase 0%, care precept 1.99%
That will do me.
I didn’t vote Reform but if they are able to deliver then I’ll consider moving from a Labour Party that is content to pick the pockets of the workers to reward the economically inactive and underutilised.
That's actually idiotic by Reform, they should be increasing things now while the election is years away so they have a surplus ready to cut things later...
If we do not increase council tax in 2026/27 the council will face an increased budget deficit of £6.1 million, for which the council will be unable to identify suitable savings at this stage.”
The council’s budget proposals suggest the authority faces a budget deficit of around £9.5 million in the next year and an additional deficit of around £42 million for the following three years.
Somehow I didn’t think you’d be a fan, whatever they did. 😉
The increase was going to be 2% but that’s changed.
Look at my first paragraph - my statement was it's idiotic because you could play politics better than they are - I would be aiming to front load the tax increases while you can blame Labour while pocketing the gains so that you could reduce things as the next set of council elections come along.
So I would have increases of 5%, 5%, 3%, 2% rather than 0%, 5%, 5%, 5% because I suspect they are creating problems for themselves down the line...
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
I agree 'Birmingham' (or almost anywhere else) doesn't have quite the same ring. OTOH perhaps the Scottish politicians would find it useful not to be blaming Westminster for things.
Not everyone in Labour sticking their head in the sand over Epstein.
@TomMcTague Exclusive: Gordon Brown weighs into Epstein scandal.
—Demands full UK police investigation into Epstein’s enablers in Britain —Sets out questions the Met must answer over failures to investigate people named in files —Calls for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to be interviewed by police over Epstein flights from Stansted
Read Brown's extraordinary intervention in this week's @newstatesman and on the website today
@TomMcTague Exclusive: Gordon Brown weighs into Epstein scandal.
—Demands full UK police investigation into Epstein’s enablers in Britain —Sets out questions the Met must answer over failures to investigate people named in files —Calls for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to be interviewed by police over Epstein flights from Stansted
Read Brown's extraordinary intervention in this week's @newstatesman and on the website today
@TomMcTague Exclusive: Gordon Brown weighs into Epstein scandal.
—Demands full UK police investigation into Epstein’s enablers in Britain —Sets out questions the Met must answer over failures to investigate people named in files —Calls for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to be interviewed by police over Epstein flights from Stansted
Read Brown's extraordinary intervention in this week's @newstatesman and on the website today
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
One thing you can be sure of, as will most projects in this country, there will be a colossal overspend.
IIRC the 2012 London Olympics was delivered on time and on budget, so it can be done.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
I'm with Leon on this. I cycle past the palace of Westminster regularly and I still get a thrill to see it. There's always a young Chinese couple getting their wedding photo taken in front of it too - it is absolutely a symbol of who we are and what we stand for. It is the beating heart of our body politic, the theatre where much of our island story has played out. It is completely irreplaceable.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
@TomMcTague Exclusive: Gordon Brown weighs into Epstein scandal.
—Demands full UK police investigation into Epstein’s enablers in Britain —Sets out questions the Met must answer over failures to investigate people named in files —Calls for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to be interviewed by police over Epstein flights from Stansted
Read Brown's extraordinary intervention in this week's @newstatesman and on the website today
Pmqs round 2 was never going to.match up to the Round 1 where Starmer knocked off his feet twice but just not quite enough for a technical.ko. Round 2 had Starmer struggling about yet another appalling decision for which he had no answer.... and just bullshitted nonsense.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
I’d love to know the legislative basis for that, does anyone here have the details?
It's called a loan agreement, i.e. a contract.
Penalties in contracts are usually seen as unlawful unless there is a legitimate interest (geddit). Usually its purpose is to enforce the main terms but such penalties can be challenged if they fall outside the narrow definition of LI. See Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi.
Pmqs round 2 was never going to.match up to the Round 1 where Starmer knocked off his feet twice but just not quite enough for a technical.ko. Round 2 had Starmer struggling about yet another appalling decision for which he had no answer.... and just bullshitted nonsense.
Mandleson is brewing up in the background...
Doyle isnt the instant recognition that Mandy was, it needs a week or two to filter into the lublic connsciousness PMQs will return to a cinema near you 25 Feb
Pmqs round 2 was never going to.match up to the Round 1 where Starmer knocked off his feet twice but just not quite enough for a technical.ko. Round 2 had Starmer struggling about yet another appalling decision for which he had no answer.... and just bullshitted nonsense.
Mandleson is brewing up in the background...
The two are coming together and Starmer still says he didn't know
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
I’d love to know the legislative basis for that, does anyone here have the details?
It's called a loan agreement, i.e. a contract.
Penalties in contracts are usually seen as unlawful unless there is a legitimate interest (geddit). Usually its purpose is to enforce the main terms but such penalties can be challenged if they fall outside the narrow definition of LI. See Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi.
Yes, I am aware as I am a commercial solicitor. The test is that they can’t be out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interests. Not really relevant here.
I rarely watch PMQ’s, been out in spite of the weather. But catching up on Twitter this response to Ed Davey from a clearly rattled Sturmer is a disgrace.
It was a crap answer to a very well constructed question from Davey (but I would say that wouldn’t I), but I don’t think it was particularly outrageous. Angry whataboutery is pretty normal PMQs fare.
Starmer should have channeled @taz and called him the hammer of the subpostmasters. That scandal would be a bit more on point given it’s about the question of proper ministerial due diligence, criminal establishment behaviour and being lied to.
I rarely watch PMQ’s, been out in spite of the weather. But catching up on Twitter this response to Ed Davey from a clearly rattled Sturmer is a disgrace.
It was a crap answer to a very well constructed question from Davey (but I would say that wouldn’t I), but I don’t think it was particularly outrageous. Angry whataboutery is pretty normal PMQs fare.
"I'll take no lessons from XXX" usually means I'm bang to rights but your lot did it too/first.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
Nope. Accessibility is identified as 6%.
If you really think accessibility is about "wheelchairs", then you are atill bobbing about on fantasy island in about 1972 .
The huge majority of accessibility is about more thought, not more money.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
We had a lot of economic growth in the 50s and 60s and living standards improved dramatically over that time.
Comments
I have said nothing about the building which should house Parliament, other than it shouldn't be the current monument.
And I'm entirely happy to conserve the monument at a reasonable cost.
Some Victorian buildings are amenable to renovation to meet current building standards; this one really isn't.
You are a luddite.
He'd fit right in here.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
5m
Starmer's evasiveness on Doyle was actually worse than on Mandelson. Didn't even attempt to justify his actions. Just raged at the people asking the questions. Very clear he's worried about this.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2021560128991113418
"We're moving on from that."
https://x.com/factpostnews/status/2021300225801953544
You are not 'winning here,'
https://x.com/i/status/2021311990392852903
Plus. You can't really be more accessible as regards location than St James. Although lifts in the Milburn would help.
The new ground is easier to reach for most than Goodison.
And - compulsory CCTV in nurseries? Ugh.
Rachel Cunliffe
@rmcunliffe.bsky.social
"History is women following behind with the bucket."
So Morgan McSweeney has been replaced by Jill Cuthbertson and Vidhya Alakeson. Antonia Romeo is about to take over from Chris Wormald. Steph Driver may return to fill Tim Allan's vacancy.
Sense that now there's a mess to mop up, get the women in
Rachel Cunliffe
@rmcunliffe.bsky.social
Hearing similar things about the Labour leadership - that it has to be Rayner or Powell or Mahmood, because we just can't have another clever boy at the helm with his clever boys club.
Which is great. But it would be nice if women could get the top jobs that weren't just about clearing up the mess
https://bsky.app/profile/rmcunliffe.bsky.social/post/3meldgkxgzk2k
Kemi is taking the Tories to complete extinction.
Classic unpopular PM at PMQs problems.
The opposition need to be careful not to give him a 'Gordon Browns handwriting on letters to soldiers bereaved families' sympathy out
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
I graduated in 2013 and still have £20k+ of “debt”. I currently pay circa. £500 a month on top of other taxes, like I am supposed to.
There are plenty of old buildings as important. I might start with the pre-discussed cathedrals, Dover Castle, or the Tower of London.
I think one answer for the PoW is to follow the County Hall model - move out and repurpose the original if it cannot be done at a reasonable cost.
The One Nation Tories have 3 months to install a credible leader for the first time since Cameron, or Kemi will render the Tories the same as the original Liberal Party
@DPJHodges
·
6m
The thing I find incredible is that some Labour MPs genuinely seem to think it will be possible for Starmer to "move on" from all this. After his evasiveness at PMQs we've now got a whole new media cycle that will be devoted to Doyle. Then it'll go back to Mandelson. And on...
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2021563558358831521
Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
Brutal attacks from opposition leaders on Starmer over this at PMQs.
Tory Kemi Badenoch says Labour MPs are “stuck in government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists”.
Lib Dem Ed Davey adds: “To appoint one paedophile supporter cannot be excused as misfortune. To appoint two shows a catastrophic lack of judgement.”
Labour backbenches looking grim.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/2021559666635862328
That will do me.
I didn’t vote Reform but if they are able to deliver then I’ll consider moving from a Labour Party that is content to pick the pockets of the workers to reward the economically inactive and underutilised.
Maybe a female Labour PM will be more successful than the last two female PMs and less divisive than the first one?
If politics is entertainment for ugly people some of our politicians need to remember to entertain. At least occasionally.
They're in their mid to late 20s now. Hitting the peaks on that marginal tax rate graph. They know that neither Reform nor the Greens are the answer, but who can they vote for that is both honest about the country's finances and electable on a platform of achievable routes to fixing them ?
Then we can turn the PoW into the Imperial Museum and stack it full of all the things we legally bought and collected and preserved for the world when we were the most outward looking of countries.
We could have floors dedicated to colonial wars, the spread of English language and laws and a small area to say sorry and point out the more questionable parts.
The Imperial Museum will tie in our great Empire with great empires of the past whose finest works will all be on display together in one place.
Aren't they supposed to have about 100 HQ staff now to catch this sort of thing?
Bangor University have banned Reform and called us “racist, transphobic and homophobic”.
Bangor receives £30 million in state funding a year, much of which comes from Reform-voting taxpayers.
I am sure they won’t mind losing every penny of that state funding under a Reform government.
After all, they wouldn’t want a racist’s money would they?
https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/2020948356483489905
She had to agree to that because her own efforts were dire.
She started by having them on 6 folds that she opened, a terrible look
She now reds them off notes. Fundamentally if you watch her she doesn't listen. She doesn't make notes or changes like Starmer.
She relies on burghardt, Philp or Pritti normally to prompt her.
She makes the odd decent ore scripted joke, but she's be crap at poker as its preface by a weird quite arrogant face movement.... She even says "wait for it" as she reads the script.
Starmer is not a good pmq performer but he wins far more than not even when she has own goals
She needs to watch William Hague
James Cleverly would be far better at Pmq would not need a script, could react and be flexible and actually get blows in.
Cleverly v Rayner who is razor sharp would be A list entertaining
The Prime Minister says he changed the Labour Party.
He's right. He changed it from a party of principle, workers and peace, to a party of patronage, the establishment and war.
Poverty, corruption and complicity in genocide. That will be his government's legacy.
Actually it's even in the Northern Echo reporting - https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/25844846.durham-reform-council-change-council-tax-rise-plans/
If we do not increase council tax in 2026/27 the council will face an increased budget deficit of £6.1 million, for which the council will be unable to identify suitable savings at this stage.”
The council’s budget proposals suggest the authority faces a budget deficit of around £9.5 million in the next year and an additional deficit of around £42 million for the following three years.
Epstein, for example, showed no contrition, and Mandelson seems to have treated him as the victim in the situation. Certainly that is not appropriate behaviour.
With Doyle, it seems that his paedophile friend was convicted for a second time, so that also indicates a lack of contrition and resolution to change.
It's difficult certainly but I think that is where I would draw the line.
https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/2021564191589470661?s=61
Given the subject matter Chris Pincher couldn't have been worse
Push that hes not up to the job, not fit to lead.
We are all cspable of independently drawing our own conclusions on his character
A private citizen can absolutely choose their own friends. A politician or senior political appointee has to be held to higher standards.
Mandelson clearly didn't meet those standards. Doyle clearly didn't either.
Starmer did not know how to ask the right question. Or deliberately chose not to.
I have had a number of former friends and acquaintances convicted of serious abuse related charges. I am no longer in contact with any of them. And I would be willing to talk to them but maintaining a friendship would depend on how far they had come.
But I don't hold public office nor do I ever intend to.
Also they need to crack on with the changes to the bin collections as I need my glass bottle tub for growing potatoes.
The Tory benches had the opposite feeling about their Leader... Equally important
Somehow I didn’t think you’d be a fan, whatever they did. 😉
The increase was going to be 2% but that’s changed.
Starmer is fatally tainted by all of this.
Exclusive: Gordon Brown weighs into Epstein scandal.
—Demands full UK police investigation into Epstein’s enablers in Britain
—Sets out questions the Met must answer over failures to investigate people named in files
—Calls for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to be interviewed by police over Epstein flights from Stansted
Read Brown's extraordinary intervention in this week's
@newstatesman
and on the website today
https://x.com/TomMcTague/status/2021567873424953592?s=20
The rain rain rain came down down down
In rushing rising riv'lets
Till the river crept out of its bed
And crept right into Piglet's
For Piglet he was frightened with quite a rightful fright
And so in desperation a message he did write
He placed it in a bottle and it floated out of sight
And the rain rain rain came down down down
So Piglet started bailing
He was unaware atop his chair
While bailing he was sailing
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
So I would have increases of 5%, 5%, 3%, 2% rather than 0%, 5%, 5%, 5% because I suspect they are creating problems for themselves down the line...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/10/peter-mandelson-new-labour-jeffrey-epstein-corporate-power
They'll be exonerated now for sure.
By the same token, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph has backed Starmer, so he's still in grave danger.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/10/the-starmer-palace-coup-is-a-national-disgrace/
Almost like he/(and)she arent Tories anymore
Round 2 had Starmer struggling about yet another appalling decision for which he had no answer.... and just bullshitted nonsense.
Mandleson is brewing up in the background...
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
https://x.com/i/status/2021562040826183770
PMQs will return to a cinema near you 25 Feb
Starmer should have channeled @taz and called him the hammer of the subpostmasters. That scandal would be a bit more on point given it’s about the question of proper ministerial due diligence, criminal establishment behaviour and being lied to.
(That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
If you really think accessibility is about "wheelchairs", then you are atill bobbing about on fantasy island in about 1972
The huge majority of accessibility is about more thought, not more money.
What's your point?