Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
Agreed.
Just think how many people would fancy living on the Thames.
Also, the Corbynistas would go crazy about the prices the resultant flats would sell for.
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go. .
I agree with that statement. But I don't see that the case has been made. Yes, I and others makes appeals to history. But in the absence of a compelling case, such an appeal is entirely reasonable. Given the Ummuna suggestion is not to sell for development, it wouldn't save money, so even if the argument were purely about finances, which it isn't, that doesn't apply in this instance. If second home allowance is an issue, why not build some London apartments for the use of MPs at a fraction of the cost of a new parliament building elsewhere?
The Westminster bubble argument I regard as nonsensical. Why are other areas better 'centres'? Many nations have dedicated administrative or economic centres which are not their political capitals, but the UK is dominated by London in a way most are not. I personally am not a fan of London, and there is certainly a case to be made about more being done to help places outside it, but it has for a very long time dominated this island as a Primate City, not all places require discrete economic/political centres, and taking the political centre out of London would be nothing but a silly gesture.
I am not against change. I am sentimental about some symbols, but sometimes it is best to change them however sentimental one is. But appeals to move the parliament for what I feel are rather spurious reasons (gets them out of the bubble, symbolic, etc), is the opposite problem, making a change which will not solve any of the 'problems' it is supposed to fix, because the thing that causes the problem (a political class for instance) are not caused by the thing being fixed, or are not, I would argue in some instances, really a problem at all (eg getting rid of some antiquated and quaint procedures, which might well be fine purely on the basis they are antiquated, but presented as though doing so will stop the problem of parliament being distant to most people - Carswell presented preventing Periscoping as some blow against reform - can be just needless).
Finance is the only reason I would support such a change, and given the amount that has to be spend on maintaining the place, as it is a World Heritage Site, and the cost of any new building, which without question would be estimated at one thing and then cost many times more, the case is not overwhelming. Given that, I allow my sentimentality to be at the forefront, in the absence of other factors.
Mr. 1000, you are John Bercow, and I claim a date with Snow White.
Mr. Andrew, that's to effect structural repairs (parts of the Palace of Westminster are actually sinking). A museum would also need such repairs, unless you propose demolishing, rather than converting, the building.
I despise John Bercow. And I despise politicians who are so casual with their constituents hard earned pounds. Six to ten billion pounds of costs to "refurbish" or ten billion pounds of revenues from selling the site. Which is in the public interest? And that is ignoring the massive ongoing savings from lower home allowances and from being somewhere cheaper.
I absolutely hate that idea. A living historical building (even if mostly symbolic given the building mostly dates from the 19th Century) is so much more powerful, and since even in his example they'll need to spend money on maintaining it for public use, they might as well just spend the money needed to keep it fit for purpose.
I agree. It is as much as symbol (for good or ill) as a building.
And alternatives can be vastly costly as well - just look at the Scottish parliament fiasco.
It should be noted that the building has had trouble since it was built - from memory its stonework was reclad early on, and then again in ?clipsham? stone between the wars, at vast expense.
I recall a story where the architect responsible was elderly, and went round lots of quarries. Colleagues disagreed with his choice, but none felt fit to argue. The original stonework was decaying almost as soon as it was erected.
(I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm this story - I can't remember where I heard it. And the environment of Victorian London cannot have been good for most stonework. Perhaps they should have built it from Coade stone. ).
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
I suggest you try to convince a future president Trump when he flogs the White House for redevelopment. After all the W.H and Congress are much older buildings so even more unsuited for the 21st century.
Are you working for an architect with a vision for the future ect ect?
I absolutely hate that idea. A living historical building (even if mostly symbolic given the building mostly dates from the 19th Century) is so much more powerful, and since even in his example they'll need to spend money on maintaining it for public use, they might as well just spend the money needed to keep it fit for purpose.
I agree. It is as much as symbol (for good or ill) as a building.
And alternatives can be vastly costly as well - just look at the Scottish parliament fiasco.
It should be noted that the building has had trouble since it was built - from memory its stonework was reclad early on, and then again in ?clipsham? stone between the wars, at vast expense.
I recall a story where the architect responsible was elderly, and went round lots of quarries. Colleagues disagreed with his choice, but none felt fit to argue. The original stonework was decaying almost as soon as it was erected.
(I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm this story - I can't remember where I heard it. And the environment of Victorian London cannot have been good for most stonework. Perhaps they should have built it from Coade stone. ).
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
I suggest you try to convince a future president Trump when he flogs the White House for redevelopment. After all the W.H and Congress are much older buildings so even more unsuited for the 21st century.
Are you working for an architect with a vision for the future ect ect?
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
We could build an extra wing on Belmarsh and remove the 2nd homes subsidy at a stroke.
While you are joking (and I am not), your point is a sound one. There are plenty of places in the UK that could be suitably repurposed at a fraction of the cost of refurbishing the Houses of Commons. Between Portcullis House and the Houses themselves there is perhaps ten billion pounds of real estate. (Prime cap rates are about 3% - and you would easily get 300m of rent for the site once its been built up into apartments.)
There's no need to build anything. MPs could do their non-jobs on-line from their beds without any impact on the country.
I thought the refurbishment was needed because it was crumbling? The massive cost of the refurb is going to be mostly necessary no matter what its eventual purpose (unless they knock it down!) so any proposal to permenantly relocate Parliament will cost extra.
They're talking about spending 6 billion on the refurb - add pork/incompetence that's going to be over 10 billion. There's no way a museum costs anything like that much.
Move it to Birmingham.
A lot of the issues would seem to be irrespective of what is used for (stonework for instance). So it would still be a lot even if it is not the full cost to keep it as a working parliament. The add the also to be underestimated cost of building even in cheaper locations - either larger than the Palace to accommodate offices as at Portcullis House, or also building office space nearby to any chosen location with all the necessary security etc that'd be necessary, and if there is any financial benefit, I doubt it would be much.
ComRes IoS S Mirror online poll coming up at 1930. One team won't be happy
I'm assuming OGH is implying Labour have taken the lead?
ComRes - particularly the weekend survey - has consistently produced the biggest Tory leads since May 2015. Will be surprising if the Tory lead is not in double figures - say 12%!
I absolutely hate that idea. A living historical building (even if mostly symbolic given the building mostly dates from the 19th Century) is so much more powerful, and since even in his example they'll need to spend money on maintaining it for public use, they might as well just spend the money needed to keep it fit for purpose.
I agree. It is as much as symbol (for good or ill) as a building.
And alternatives can be vastly costly as well - just look at the Scottish parliament fiasco.
It should be noted that the building has had trouble since it was built - from memory its stonework was reclad early on, and then again in ?clipsham? stone between the wars, at vast expense.
I recall a story where the architect responsible was elderly, and went round lots of quarries. Colleagues disagreed with his choice, but none felt fit to argue. The original stonework was decaying almost as soon as it was erected.
(I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm this story - I can't remember where I heard it. And the environment of Victorian London cannot have been good for most stonework. Perhaps they should have built it from Coade stone. ).
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
We could get a lot of flats up at Stonehenge and those colleges in Cambridge and Oxford would bring in a few bob..The Natural History Museum..The British Museum..St Pauls and Westminster Cathedrals are well placed.. and that old observatory at Greenwich could go.. Lincolns Inn Fields.. good site..The liut is endless ..lets turn the entire country into a foreign owned apartment block..good little earner..
ComRes IoS S Mirror online poll coming up at 1930. One team won't be happy
I'm assuming OGH is implying Labour have taken the lead?
ComRes - particularly the weekend survey - has consistently produced the biggest Tory leads since May 2015. Will be surprising if the Tory lead is not in double figures - say 12%!
Probably - personally I'm looking forward to see if, at some point, all the polls look like 2020 will be a hung parliament, we all ignore it because of what happens this time, and they are right or even overestimate Tory support due to overcorrection.
I despise John Bercow. And I despise politicians who are so casual with their constituents hard earned pounds. Six to ten billion pounds of costs to "refurbish" or ten billion pounds of revenues from selling the site. Which is in the public interest? And that is ignoring the massive ongoing savings from lower home allowances and from being somewhere cheaper.
The decision's already been made - in the refurb report there wasn't even an option to move elsewhere. They'll just spend whatever it costs.
ComRes IoS S Mirror online poll coming up at 1930. One team won't be happy
I'm assuming OGH is implying Labour have taken the lead?
ComRes - particularly the weekend survey - has consistently produced the biggest Tory leads since May 2015. Will be surprising if the Tory lead is not in double figures - say 12%!
Probably - personally I'm looking forward to see if, at some point, all the polls look like 2020 will be a hung parliament, we all ignore it because of what happens this time, and they are right or even overestimate Tory support due to overcorrection.
The most interesting thing I've heard from a pollster in the last six months is that even for the corrections made since the election, they are still overestimating Labour/underestimating the Tories.
The Palace of Westminster (excluding Westminster Hall and other minor parts) were built after the fire in 1834. The construction stretched from 1840 to the 1860s, and problems with the Anston stonework were known very early on.
There appears to have been some significant running renovations in the early 1900s.
It was then rebuilt in Clipsham stone from the 1930s to 1950s, interrupted by the war and war damage.
There was then more work on the stonework between 1980 and the mid 1990s.
So it appears there is a really bad (and expensive) recurring problem with the building. If we are to spend billions on renovating it, we should try to ensure that the work will last at least a hundred years, and not thirty.
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
Labour won most votes across the UK in 2005, the Tories were fractionally ahead in England. The LDs would have done a deal with Labour rather than the Tories had there been a hung parliament, probably with the requirement Brown replaced Blair. The party which won most votes has lost twice since the war, Labour in 1951 and the Tories in February 1974
GE Results:
2001
Lab: 10,724,923 Con: 8,357,615
Labour Magoraty of 176 MPs
2010
Con: 10,703,654 Lab: 8,606,517
Conservatives 16 MPs short of a Majoraty.
The currant arangments i.e. not requiring equal size constituancys, masivly favers the Labour party.
P.S. sorry about speling cant make the Spell checker work today, b*****y 'windows 10' wish I had never updated it!!!!!
ComRes IoS S Mirror online poll coming up at 1930. One team won't be happy
I'm assuming OGH is implying Labour have taken the lead?
ComRes - particularly the weekend survey - has consistently produced the biggest Tory leads since May 2015. Will be surprising if the Tory lead is not in double figures - say 12%!
Online polls are the worst ones for Labour, so yes if it's the Comres online then it will be the usual 10+ lead for the Tories.
I absolutely hate that idea. A living historical building (even if mostly symbolic given the building mostly dates from the 19th Century) is so much more powerful, and since even in his example they'll need to spend money on maintaining it for public use, they might as well just spend the money needed to keep it fit for purpose.
I agree. It is as much as symbol (for good or ill) as a building.
And alternatives can be vastly costly as well - just look at the Scottish parliament fiasco.
It should be noted that the building has had trouble since it was built - from memory its stonework was reclad early on, and then again in ?clipsham? stone between the wars, at vast expense.
I recall a story where the architect responsible was elderly, and went round lots of quarries. Colleagues disagreed with his choice, but none felt fit to argue. The original stonework was decaying almost as soon as it was erected.
(I'd appreciate if anyone can confirm this story - I can't remember where I heard it. And the environment of Victorian London cannot have been good for most stonework. Perhaps they should have built it from Coade stone. ).
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
We could get a lot of flats up at Stonehenge and those colleges in Cambridge and Oxford would bring in a few bob..The Natural History Museum..The British Museum..St Pauls and Westminster Cathedrals are well placed.. and that old observatory at Greenwich could go.. Lincolns Inn Fields.. good site..The liut is endless ..lets turn the entire country into a foreign owned apartment block..good little earner..
You don't understand the difference between state owned and trust/privately owned property, do you.
Refusing to accept rising value of state owned property in the capital is modern Luddism.
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
Labour won most votes across the UK in 2005, the Tories were fractionally ahead in England. The LDs would have done a deal with Labour rather than the Tories had there been a hung parliament, probably with the requirement Brown replaced Blair. The party which won most votes has lost twice since the war, Labour in 1951 and the Tories in February 1974
GE Results:
2001
Lab: 10,724,923 Con: 8,357,615
Labour Magoraty of 176 MPs
2010
Con: 10,703,654 Lab: 8,606,517
Conservatives 16 MPs short of a Majoraty.
The currant arangments i.e. not requiring equal size constituancys, masivly favers the Labour party.
P.S. sorry about speling cant make the Spell checker work today, b*****y 'windows 10' wish I had never updated it!!!!!
We could get a lot of flats up at Stonehenge and those colleges in Cambridge and Oxford would bring in a few bob..The Natural History Museum..The British Museum..St Pauls and Westminster Cathedrals are well placed.. and that old observatory at Greenwich could go.. Lincolns Inn Fields.. good site..The liut is endless ..lets turn the entire country into a foreign owned apartment block..good little earner..
The government does not own the colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. And the land at Stonhenge is worthless. Farming acres round that part of the world go for thousands of pounds an acre.
In any case, do you really believe mock 19th century mock gothic is something we should spend taxpayer's money trying to save?
I thought the refurbishment was needed because it was crumbling? The massive cost of the refurb is going to be mostly necessary no matter what its eventual purpose (unless they knock it down!) so any proposal to permenantly relocate Parliament will cost extra.
They're talking about spending 6 billion on the refurb - add pork/incompetence that's going to be over 10 billion. There's no way a museum costs anything like that much.
Move it to Birmingham.
There are many, many barracks being closed that would provide office space and accommodation, with good security built in. Why not use one of those?
We could get a lot of flats up at Stonehenge and those colleges in Cambridge and Oxford would bring in a few bob..The Natural History Museum..The British Museum..St Pauls and Westminster Cathedrals are well placed.. and that old observatory at Greenwich could go.. Lincolns Inn Fields.. good site..The liut is endless ..lets turn the entire country into a foreign owned apartment block..good little earner..
How could you forget the Tower of London? Prime real estate on the river, excellent security and close to road, rail and airport links. Perfect investment opportunity for Chinese and Russian money launderers, maybe even the odd Arab Price wanting to escape the summer heat for a couple of months a year.
We could get a lot of flats up at Stonehenge and those colleges in Cambridge and Oxford would bring in a few bob..The Natural History Museum..The British Museum..St Pauls and Westminster Cathedrals are well placed.. and that old observatory at Greenwich could go.. Lincolns Inn Fields.. good site..The liut is endless ..lets turn the entire country into a foreign owned apartment block..good little earner..
Church attendance is down - do we really need an entire Cathedral in Salisbury? A smaller, less intimidating central space for reflective worship, with better electrics, would be more appropriate.
Edit - I know this sort of sarcastic example suggestion is sort of proving the point about us treating a building used for politics as a symbol (and yes, I know the difference between state owned and not, it's a point about eliminating things not fit for purpose, not a direct comparison to the exact example), but I don't even see why that is a problem, personally. Symbols are important, they can be more important than the reality sometimes. There will always been major costs associated with the business of government, and that will always be regarded as too much. That doesn't mean we should pump endless monies into specific sites, that there is no line to be crossed when a place is not able to be made functional in a cost appropriate fashion, but you move to somewhere else, it'll cost more than people think it should, and over time it will cost more to maintain, newer technologies will make it harder to upgrade, and then what? You move it again 20 years from now? 50?
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
We could build an extra wing on Belmarsh and remove the 2nd homes subsidy at a stroke.
While you are joking (and I am not), your point is a sound one. There are plenty of places in the UK that could be suitably repurposed at a fraction of the cost of refurbishing the Houses of Commons. Between Portcullis House and the Houses themselves there is perhaps ten billion pounds of real estate. (Prime cap rates are about 3% - and you would easily get 300m of rent for the site once its been built up into apartments.)
There's no need to build anything. MPs could do their non-jobs on-line from their beds without any impact on the country.
That's actually a pretty good idea. In these days of Skype and Slack and modern communications, why bother with a permanent place of residence at all.
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
Its worth remembering that in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand the government is not based in the centre of their biggest cities.
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
So it appears there is a really bad (and expensive) recurring problem with the building. If we are to spend billions on renovating it, we should try to ensure that the work will last at least a hundred years, and not thirty.
Just because something is part of our history does not necessarily mean it is worth keeping. Sometimes, for reasons of cost or convenience, you just have to let it go.
If we knocked down the Houses of Parliament, we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century, with more room, better security, 21 century electrics and communications, better facilities (ladies loos!) and the like.
And there is no reason why such a transition could not pay for itself. The Houses of Parliament and Portcullis House, which abut the Thames, could be sold off for private development, which would raise 3-10x the money that building a new Houses of Parliament would cost.
Furthermore, if we build the new Houses of Parliament somewhere like Neasden or Peckham or Denmark Hill or Glasgow Hillhead we could dramatically reduce what we pay MPs to spend on second residences in town. A two bed flat in Denmark Hill is probably a fifth of the price of what one costs at the Barbican. Finally, this would mean that MPs would actually see life outside of zone 1.
It's time to move the Houses of Parliament. It saves money. It results in a better centre for parliament. And it (literally) gets MPs out of the Westminster bubble. Appeals to "history" are merely an appeal to continue to rob the people of the United Kingdom to pamper and flatter our elected servants.
It's time for a change.
Its worth remembering that in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand the government is not based in the centre of their biggest cities.
It's worth remembering they are nowhere near as dominated by their biggest city as we are, and will remain to be, even if the political centre is moved. It would be a meaningless gesture. Plenty can and should be done to try to limit the dominance of London (and not just for cities), but moving the political centre achieves nothing in that regard.
So far, the only arguments against demolition have been:
1. It's a nice looking building. 2. I'd only have respect for parliament if it's on expensive real estate. and 3. We've always done it this way so we should keep doing it this way.
Those are three incredibly weak arguments and those propounding them should be ashamed of themselves.
ComRes IoS S Mirror online poll coming up at 1930. One team won't be happy
I'm assuming OGH is implying Labour have taken the lead?
ComRes - particularly the weekend survey - has consistently produced the biggest Tory leads since May 2015. Will be surprising if the Tory lead is not in double figures - say 12%!
Probably - personally I'm looking forward to see if, at some point, all the polls look like 2020 will be a hung parliament, we all ignore it because of what happens this time, and they are right or even overestimate Tory support due to overcorrection.
The most interesting thing I've heard from a pollster in the last six months is that even for the corrections made since the election, they are still overestimating Labour/underestimating the Tories.
Hopefully we'll see in some way in May, inasmuch as we can.
Speaking of, an acquaintance of mine working directly with a police commissioner was saying it looks like Independent Commissioners will probably do poorly this time around, which I hope is not the case. If we have have this ridiculous system I'd like some Independents to hold on.
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
Labour won most votes across the UK in 2005, the Tories were fractionally ahead in England. The LDs would have done a deal with Labour rather than the Tories had there been a hung parliament, probably with the requirement Brown replaced Blair. The party which won most votes has lost twice since the war, Labour in 1951 and the Tories in February 1974
No - I suppose I must apologise for the slip but I was referring to the comments in the link. The tories in 2015 got more votes and a greater vote share than Labour did in 2005 but got fewer seats than Labour did in 2005. So it is absurd of Corbyn to talk about a 'narrow' win - or pretend it is somehow an illegitimate win when compared to Labours win in 2005. Furthermore to spell it out further, if Labour in 2005 can consider the electoral system fair then the tories surely can in 2015 since they 'benefited' from it far less than Labour did in 2005.
Perhaps going on like this was why I made an attempt at brevity. Tories gained millions of votes over 10 years. Labour lost millions. Seeking power without the votes is the mark of the political harlot down the centuries.
ComRes IoS S Mirror online poll coming up at 1930. One team won't be happy
I'm assuming OGH is implying Labour have taken the lead?
ComRes - particularly the weekend survey - has consistently produced the biggest Tory leads since May 2015. Will be surprising if the Tory lead is not in double figures - say 12%!
Probably - personally I'm looking forward to see if, at some point, all the polls look like 2020 will be a hung parliament, we all ignore it because of what happens this time, and they are right or even overestimate Tory support due to overcorrection.
The most interesting thing I've heard from a pollster in the last six months is that even for the corrections made since the election, they are still overestimating Labour/underestimating the Tories.
Hopefully we'll see in some way in May, inasmuch as we can.
Speaking of, an acquaintance of mine working directly with a police commissioner was saying it looks like Independent Commissioners will probably do poorly this time around, which I hope is not the case. If we have have this ridiculous system I'd like some Independents to hold on.
That said, my theory of Shy Labour voters under Corbyn might have some merit
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
The Salford move has been great for Greater Manchester and Salford
So far, the only arguments against demolition have been:
1. It's a nice looking building. 2. I'd only have respect for parliament if it's on expensive real estate. and 3. We've always done it this way so we should keep doing it this way.
Those are three incredibly weak arguments and those propounding them should be ashamed of themselves.
Are we even allowed to demolish a World Heritage Site? I've not been focusing so much on that point, as I was not sure even if it is even possible without a change in the law?
And given the person making the suggestion not to use the site is not as far as I'm aware suggesting demolition, and so there will still be massive associated costs with the site and any replacement, your only argument of any substance, the financial case, stands up to even less scrutiny than those arguments you dismiss above!
And in the land of competing arguments, multiple ones which may be weak but also have emotional weight trumps weak arguments with shaky benefits.
Mr. 1000, would you demolish every building in London whose function could be replicated for less than the real estate value of the land?
For government buildings, obviously yes. The government exists to provide value for the people. It does not exist to "awe" them. There is very little justification for much of the civil service to be in London.
(This was, of course, a topic much debated on Yes Minister.)
The Palace of Westminster (excluding Westminster Hall and other minor parts) were built after the fire in 1834. The construction stretched from 1840 to the 1860s, and problems with the Anston stonework were known very early on.
There appears to have been some significant running renovations in the early 1900s.
It was then rebuilt in Clipsham stone from the 1930s to 1950s, interrupted by the war and war damage.
There was then more work on the stonework between 1980 and the mid 1990s.
So it appears there is a really bad (and expensive) recurring problem with the building. If we are to spend billions on renovating it, we should try to ensure that the work will last at least a hundred years, and not thirty.
There can be some common sense repairs that can go along way:
"Buildings and statues constructed of limestone can be protected from pollution by applying a thin, single layer of a water-resistant coating, according to new research. Researchers developed a new way to minimize chemical reactions that cause limestone buildings to deteriorate."
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
We should move the HoL into Edinburgh's General Assembly Hall. Just to annoy the Scots.
(The Hall is where the Scottish Parliament sat until their own disastrous boondoggle was complete).
Mr. 1000, that does suppose that the cultural heritage of such buildings has a value of zero, and that the government has the right to abandon it at will.
Reminiscent of how some want to carve England into regions...
PS - I find people who use the term “we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century” a tad crass with no appreciation for historical context.
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I str
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
The Salford move has been great for Greater Manchester and Salford
That aspect of the 'move parliament' argument can reasonably be made. It might not convince all, or override other factors, but it can made. And coupled with a more coherent cost factor argument, would find plenty of backers.
That it would in some real sense end the 'Westminster Bubble' phenomenon in any significant way is preposterous, for the reasons Sandpit argues. That is just tacking on a reason to the proposal to give it more emotional weight when it won't actually have any impact, like a planning application refusal adding reasons which more symbolic than anything else, to back up the solid main reason.
The Salford Docks development is a Sovietlike urban wasteland..windswept tower blocks that are mainly empty and no facilities..everyone I have met who works there..and that is a large number..absolutely hate it..
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
I agree; it would not be just MPs but the entire civil service and the entire fabric of government. Can you imagine the Cobra committee meeting at presumably short notice with the PM/ FS/ DS based in Derbyshire and MI5 MI6 (and all their secret documents dossiers) still based in London? How does that work?
Mr. 1000, would you demolish every building in London whose function could be replicated for less than the real estate value of the land?
For government buildings, obviously yes. The government exists to provide value for the people. It does not exist to "awe" them. There is very little justification for much of the civil service to be in London.
(This was, of course, a topic much debated on Yes Minister.)
Aside from the value of a redeveloped Westminster site the actual HoP buildings could be worth billions if sold to some oligarch as per old London Bridge.
Leave's greatest asset is Angela Merkel. It had never occured to me that I might vote leave until she invited millions of migrants and said we had to take our share.
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
Labour won most votes across the UK in 2005, the Tories were fractionally ahead in England. The LDs would have done a deal with Labour rather than the Tories had there been a hung parliament, probably with the requirement Brown replaced Blair. The party which won most votes has lost twice since the war, Labour in 1951 and the Tories in February 1974
No - I suppose I must apologise for the slip but I was referring to the comments in the link. The tories in 2015 got more votes and a greater vote share than Labour did in 2005 but got fewer seats than Labour did in 2005. So it is absurd of Corbyn to talk about a 'narrow' win - or pretend it is somehow an illegitimate win when compared to Labours win in 2005. Furthermore to spell it out further, if Labour in 2005 can consider the electoral system fair then the tories surely can in 2015 since they 'benefited' from it far less than Labour did in 2005.
Perhaps going on like this was why I made an attempt at brevity. Tories gained millions of votes over 10 years. Labour lost millions. Seeking power without the votes is the mark of the political harlot down the centuries.
It's absurd to argue that the Conservative government is somehow illegitimate due to winning 38%.
If we moved to PR, we'd have c. 80 UKIP MP's and 250 Conservatives. They'd either go into coalition, or UKIP would give supply and confidence to the Conservatives.
We could get a lot of flats up at Stonehenge and those colleges in Cambridge and Oxford would bring in a few bob..The Natural History Museum..The British Museum..St Pauls and Westminster Cathedrals are well placed.. and that old observatory at Greenwich could go.. Lincolns Inn Fields.. good site..The liut is endless ..lets turn the entire country into a foreign owned apartment block..good little earner..
Flogging off assets to pay for the excess of the wealth consumed over the wealth created is the basis of the modern UK economy.
It simply doesn't cost the stated sums to fix the buildings at Westminster.
A minor 'national programme' to train people in the art of repairing old buildings would have the quotes tumble.
The alleged costs of repairing Westminster combine the absolute worst of the civil service with the absolute worst of business. We get a bit of a spin up from the 'heritage' lobby too.
Everyone involved should be shot, and probably twice-over. The very nicely maintained Tower-of-London could perhaps earn its keep in finding a very damp cellar or two for these idiots.
Mr. 1000, would you demolish every building in London whose function could be replicated for less than the real estate value of the land?
Would not that destroy the real estate value of the land? If you were moving everything out of London who would want to live in the vacated government real estate anyway? Are we being trolled by Mr 1000? He is a jolly decent chap and all round good egg, but he has lost the plot big time if he is not. (hopefully this tentative but balanced dichotomy allows me be to remain unbanned)
Mr. 1000, that does suppose that the cultural heritage of such buildings has a value of zero, and that the government has the right to abandon it at will.
Reminiscent of how some want to carve England into regions...
There's a price for everything. If someone said you can have a hundred billion to knock down the Houses of Parliament and replace them with condominiums, you'd say - wow, 5% of the national debt, that's well worth it. On the other hand, if it cost a hundred billion it would be a definite no. At somewhere on the continuum, it becomes worth it.
Having respect for the electorate and the tax payer, my price is simply lower than your.
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
The Salford move has been great for Greater Manchester and Salford
But not for the BBC. There is a lesson to learn from the fiasco of closing down the BBC TV centre, trying to move to Saflord for political reasons, the failure and the slow move back to London at the more crammed Broadcasting House.
We could get a lot of flats up at Stonehenge and those colleges in Cambridge and Oxford would bring in a few bob..The Natural History Museum..The British Museum..St Pauls and Westminster Cathedrals are well placed.. and that old observatory at Greenwich could go.. Lincolns Inn Fields.. good site..The liut is endless ..lets turn the entire country into a foreign owned apartment block..good little earner..
Flogging off assets to pay for the excess of the wealth consumed over the wealth created is the basis of the modern UK economy.
And Corbyn and co(I believe) are correct there has to be a limit to that
Mr. 1000, would you demolish every building in London whose function could be replicated for less than the real estate value of the land?
Would not that destroy the real estate value of the land? If you were moving everything out of London who would want to live in the vacated government real estate anyway? Are we being trolled by Mr 1000? He is a jolly decent chap and all round good egg, but he has lost the plot big time if he is not. (hopefully this tentative but balanced dichotomy allows me be to remain unbanned)
Even jolly decent chaps can have what seem to other decent chaps (and chappettes) silly opinions.
I myself have been known to hold some silly opinions. Hard to accept, I know.
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
I agree; it would not be just MPs but the entire civil service and the entire fabric of government. Can you imagine the Cobra committee meeting at presumably short notice with the PM/ FS/ DS based in Derbyshire and MI5 MI6 (and all their secret documents dossiers) still based in London? How does that work?
My god, if only someone could invent some way of talking to people when they weren't in the same room!
The Palace of Westminster (excluding Westminster Hall and other minor parts) were built after the fire in 1834. The construction stretched from 1840 to the 1860s, and problems with the Anston stonework were known very early on.
There appears to have been some significant running renovations in the early 1900s.
It was then rebuilt in Clipsham stone from the 1930s to 1950s, interrupted by the war and war damage.
There was then more work on the stonework between 1980 and the mid 1990s.
So it appears there is a really bad (and expensive) recurring problem with the building. If we are to spend billions on renovating it, we should try to ensure that the work will last at least a hundred years, and not thirty.
There can be some common sense repairs that can go along way:
"Buildings and statues constructed of limestone can be protected from pollution by applying a thin, single layer of a water-resistant coating, according to new research. Researchers developed a new way to minimize chemical reactions that cause limestone buildings to deteriorate."
I agree, and that's my point. If we can make the repairs in a conservation-sympathetic manner, but also improve them to make them longer-lasting, then we should.
And Westminster Hall should never be altered, if only because of that hammerbeam roof. RCS shoudl stand underneath its glory and really ask himself if it should be demolished.
Although care needs to be taken: lots of historic repairs to stonework involved putting iron bars into the stone to help hold it together. In the long term that's often been disastrous as the iron rusts and swells.
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Would our MPs take their job any less seriously if they worked in a glass and steel building? Would people refuse to obey laws because they were passed in a building constructed after 1875.
If there is a better, cheaper alternative, then we should do it. In fact, it shows the contempt our elected representatives have for us that they have not yet proposed some proper cost saving proposal via moving somewhere cheaper.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
The Salford move has been great for Greater Manchester and Salford
Yes, but urban regeneration isn't in the BBCs remit.
They might as well book private trains from Virgin, the number of people they have moving between the two cities, not to mention the number of interviews they're now doing on video link from those who can't be arsed to spend 6 hours travelling door to door and back again for a few minutes on air.
Mr. 1000, that does suppose that the cultural heritage of such buildings has a value of zero, and that the government has the right to abandon it at will.
Reminiscent of how some want to carve England into regions...
Having respect for the electorate and the tax payer, my price is simply lower than your.
I agree with the basic premise, that everything does have a price, though I would dispute those on the opposite side to you must have less respect for the electorate when determining what their price on this issue is. Considering the cultural aspects, which do have a price, could be argued to be also thinking of the electorate, in a different sense.
ABC News poll finds Trump and Bush have a net favourability rating of -27% and -23%, lower than any candidates since 1984 who have won their party's nominations and close to the -22% rating Newt Gingrich had in January 2012. Romney in 2012 was at -15% at this stage, George W Bush at -10%. Cruz is at -1%, Rubio at -3%. Of the Democrats Hillary is at -1%, Sanders at +4% (Bill Clinton is at +10%)
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
Labour won most votes across the UK in 2005, the Tories were fractionally ahead in England. The LDs would have done a deal with Labour rather than the Tories had there been a hung parliament, probably with the requirement Brown replaced Blair. The party which won most votes has lost twice since the war, Labour in 1951 and the Tories in February 1974
No - I suppose I must apologise for the slip but I was referring to the comments in the link. The tories in 2015 got more votes and a greater vote share than Labour did in 2005 but got fewer seats than Labour did in 2005. So it is absurd of Corbyn to talk about a 'narrow' win - or pretend it is somehow an illegitimate win when compared to Labours win in 2005. Furthermore to spell it out further, if Labour in 2005 can consider the electoral system fair then the tories surely can in 2015 since they 'benefited' from it far less than Labour did in 2005.
Perhaps going on like this was why I made an attempt at brevity. Tories gained millions of votes over 10 years. Labour lost millions. Seeking power without the votes is the mark of the political harlot down the centuries.
It's absurd to argue that the Conservative government is somehow illegitimate due to winning 38%.
If we moved to PR, we'd have c. 80 UKIP MP's and 250 Conservatives. They'd either go into coalition, or UKIP would give supply and confidence to the Conservatives.
80 UKIP MPs is a good number, it would probably equal their combined IQ and is a good reason to drop PR into the dustbin.
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Wouldr.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
I agree; it would not be just MPs but the entire civil service and the entire fabric of government. Can you imagine the Cobra committee meeting at presumably short notice with the PM/ FS/ DS based in Derbyshire and MI5 MI6 (and all their secret documents dossiers) still based in London? How does that work?
My god, if only someone could invent some way of talking to people when they weren't in the same room!
More secure face to face! Want to keep confidential information secure? Write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone, can't hack it then!
(Although on the point of working across multiple locations etc, yes, that is perfectly achievable and not much of a reason not to move)
@georgeeaton: Corbyn: "Having narrowly won the general election, the Tories are now trying to rig the system to keep themselves in power". #fab16
@Jamin2g: Labour got 2 million fewer votes and nearly 100 fewer seats. Labour are in denial of their dire predicament. #fab16 https://t.co/W63N39Q2q9
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
Labour won most votes across the UK in 2005, the Tories were fractionally ahead in England. The LDs would have done a deal with Labour rather than the Tories had there been a hung parliament, probably with the requirement Brown replaced Blair. The party which won most votes has lost twice since the war, Labour in 1951 and the Tories in February 1974
No - I suppose I must apologise for the slip but I was referring to the comments in the link. The tories in 2015 got more votes and a greater vote share than Labour did in 2005 but got fewer seats than Labour did in 2005. So it is absurd of Corbyn to talk about a 'narrow' win - or pretend it is somehow an illegitimate win when compared to Labours win in 2005. Furthermore to spell it out further, if Labour in 2005 can consider the electoral system fair then the tories surely can in 2015 since they 'benefited' from it far less than Labour did in 2005.
Perhaps going on like this was why I made an attempt at brevity. Tories gained millions of votes over 10 years. Labour lost millions. Seeking power without the votes is the mark of the political harlot down the centuries.
It's absurd to argue that the Conservative government is somehow illegitimate due to winning 38%.
If we moved to PR, we'd have c. 80 UKIP MP's and 250 Conservatives. They'd either go into coalition, or UKIP would give supply and confidence to the Conservatives.
80 UKIP MPs is a good number, it would probably equal their combined IQ and is a good reason to drop PR into the dustbin.
I love you too.
Even when a member of UKIP agrees with you, you can't resist a cheap shot.
Leave's greatest asset is Angela Merkel. It had never occured to me that I might vote leave until she invited millions of migrants and said we had to take our share.
Yes, that was a...surprising, if inadvertent contribution to the debate on this issue. That she was feted as the only moral leader in Europe for doing so (basically anyway), when some people might have agreed the UK could take more than Cameron offered but that Merkel's plan was lunacy, only made it worse.
It simply doesn't cost the stated sums to fix the buildings at Westminster.
A minor 'national programme' to train people in the art of repairing old buildings would have the quotes tumble.
The alleged costs of repairing Westminster combine the absolute worst of the civil service with the absolute worst of business. We get a bit of a spin up from the 'heritage' lobby too.
Everyone involved should be shot, and probably twice-over. The very nicely maintained Tower-of-London could perhaps earn its keep in finding a very damp cellar or two for these idiots.
I was thinking of the nearby Westminster Abbey, which has stood since (from a quick check of Wiki) 1245. It's nearly 800 years old, and I'm fairly sure they don't spend billions renovating it. Millions, yes. Billions, no.
That's one of the reasons I think the problem is more the 1840s building. It's a sick building.
*If* RCS was going to get his way, then the bare minimum would be keeping Westminster Hall and the views across the river: that would mean keeping the stone frontage by the river and Elizabeth Tower. Just for the tourists.
Fortunately we've got very good at demolishing buildings whilst keeping their frontages; an example near me being the Cambridge John Lewis store, where the shop frontages (and I think in some cases the shops themselves) remained.
Mr. 1000, that does suppose that the cultural heritage of such buildings has a value of zero, and that the government has the right to abandon it at will.
Reminiscent of how some want to carve England into regions...
Having respect for the electorate and the tax payer, my price is simply lower than your.
I agree with the basic premise, that everything does have a price, though I would dispute those on the opposite side to you must have less respect for the electorate when determining what their price on this issue is. Considering the cultural aspects, which do have a price, could be argued to be also thinking of the electorate, in a different sense.
The Victorians would have knocked down the current building and built something way more arrogant and showy.. Given that that's what they did after the fire....
It simply doesn't cost the stated sums to fix the buildings at Westminster.
A minor 'national programme' to train people in the art of repairing old buildings would have the quotes tumble.
The alleged costs of repairing Westminster combine the absolute worst of the civil service with the absolute worst of business. We get a bit of a spin up from the 'heritage' lobby too.
Everyone involved should be shot, and probably twice-over. The very nicely maintained Tower-of-London could perhaps earn its keep in finding a very damp cellar or two for these idiots.
I was thinking of the nearby Westminster Abbey, which has stood since (from a quick check of Wiki) 1245. It's nearly 800 years old, and I'm fairly sure they don't spend billions renovating it. Millions, yes. Billions, no.
That's one of the reasons I think the problem is more the 1840s building. It's a sick building.
*If* RCS was going to get his way, then the bare minimum would be keeping Westminster Hall and the views across the river: that would mean keeping the stone frontage by the river and Elizabeth Tower. Just for the tourists.
Fortunately we've got very good at demolishing buildings whilst keeping their frontages; an example near me being the Cambridge John Lewis store, where the shop frontages (and I think in some cases the shops themselves) remained.
But I don't want that to happen.
If they did build a brand new building, I would hope they make it look historic at least. One reason I like the Palace of Westminster is they tried to make it with as modern as they could at the time, while giving it a very impressive, historic visage. It doesn't seem beyond the wit of man to update it now with modern tech such that it will last a long time and justify the cost. But as rcs says, everyone has a price, and for some that price has already been reached.
Leave's greatest asset is Angela Merkel. It had never occured to me that I might vote leave until she invited millions of migrants and said we had to take our share.
Yes, that was a...surprising, if inadvertent contribution to the debate on this issue. That she was feted as the only moral leader in Europe for doing so (basically anyway), when some people might have agreed the UK could take more than Cameron offered but that Merkel's plan was lunacy, only made it worse.
Her finance minister is tonight saying that there should be EU-wide taxes to prop up the Shengen zone security. Same as when they tried to use EU-wide payments to prop up the Euro.
If the Remain team want to win the referendum, they will need to get a whole bunch of EU politicians and bureaucrats to shut up for the duration of the campaign. Every time one of them opens their mouth another few voters move into the Leave camp.
Mr. 1000, that does suppose that the cultural heritage of such buildings has a value of zero, and that the government has the right to abandon it at will.
Aside from Westminster Hall, it's mostly just a faux-medieval exterior tacked onto the 1850s equivalent of a office block (and a badly built one at that).
You don't see the French using the Louvre as a modern parliament building, and that's much older and more impressive in terms of architecture.
Leave's greatest asset is Angela Merkel. It had never occured to me that I might vote leave until she invited millions of migrants and said we had to take our share.
Yes, that was a...surprising, if inadvertent contribution to the debate on this issue. That she was feted as the only moral leader in Europe for doing so (basically anyway), when some people might have agreed the UK could take more than Cameron offered but that Merkel's plan was lunacy, only made it worse.
But we didn't take more. We I think rightly offered to take appropriate people straight from the camps. The episode does show how wrong headed Merkel was and of course it shows how wrong headed her liberal heart on sleeve supporters here in the UK were as well. Cameron and the govt were criticised for their 'lets not get carried away' views when that poor child washed up dead, but they were right. Merkel is displaying all the attributes of the 10 years a leader syndrome.
It simply doesn't cost the stated sums to fix the buildings at Westminster.
A minor 'national programme' to train people in the art of repairing old buildings would have the quotes tumble.
The alleged costs of repairing Westminster combine the absolute worst of the civil service with the absolute worst of business. We get a bit of a spin up from the 'heritage' lobby too.
Everyone involved should be shot, and probably twice-over. The very nicely maintained Tower-of-London could perhaps earn its keep in finding a very damp cellar or two for these idiots.
I was thinking of the nearby Westminster Abbey, which has stood since (from a quick check of Wiki) 1245. It's nearly 800 years old, and I'm fairly sure they don't spend billions renovating it. Millions, yes. Billions, no.
That's one of the reasons I think the problem is more the 1840s building. It's a sick building.
*If* RCS was going to get his way, then the bare minimum would be keeping Westminster Hall and the views across the river: that would mean keeping the stone frontage by the river and Elizabeth Tower. Just for the tourists.
Fortunately we've got very good at demolishing buildings whilst keeping their frontages; an example near me being the Cambridge John Lewis store, where the shop frontages (and I think in some cases the shops themselves) remained.
But I don't want that to happen.
If they did build a brand new building, I would hope they make it look historic at least. One reason I like the Palace of Westminster is they tried to make it with as modern as they could at the time, while giving it a very impressive, historic visage. It doesn't seem beyond the wit of man to update it now with modern tech such that it will last a long time and justify the cost. But as rcs says, everyone has a price, and for some that price has already been reached.
Allied to this, I must admit Pugin's interiors leave me cold. I love Gothic, but not Pugin. It's too over the top.
Waits to get lynched by a horde of architects and historians.
It's just bricks and mortar. It's just a place where people work.
Wouldr.
I disagree, especially as the building will have to be renovated anyway (unless you want it demolished?)
As for my previous post, I was partly wrong: it was not reclad in a different stone early on; although the problems with the original Anston stone were known early on. It was eventually reclad between the wars.
Well, at least this post was partially about politics.
I struggle to think of another country in the world which would knock down its parliamentary chamber (listed in this case) and replace it with a giant condominium. The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
Quite. The 'Westminster Bubble' comes from the people around the seat of government only speaking to each other rather then to outsiders. If anything that position would be made stronger by uprooting them all and moving them to a different physical place - not to mention all the travel to see those that don't move.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
I agree; it would not be just MPs but the entire civil service and the entire fabric of government. Can you imagine the Cobra committee meeting at presumably short notice with the PM/ FS/ DS based in Derbyshire and MI5 MI6 (and all their secret documents dossiers) still based in London? How does that work?
My god, if only someone could invent some way of talking to people when they weren't in the same room!
More secure face to face! Want to keep confidential information secure? Write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone, can't hack it then!
(Although on the point of working across multiple locations etc, yes, that is perfectly achievable and not much of a reason not to move)
I knew all the guff about teleconferencing would come up. Some people have been watching too many crap spy/special agent films.
Leave's greatest asset is Angela Merkel. It had never occured to me that I might vote leave until she invited millions of migrants and said we had to take our share.
Yes, that was a...surprising, if inadvertent contribution to the debate on this issue. That she was feted as the only moral leader in Europe for doing so (basically anyway), when some people might have agreed the UK could take more than Cameron offered but that Merkel's plan was lunacy, only made it worse.
But we didn't take more. We I think rightly offered to take appropriate people straight from the camps.
I know - I think that policy approach was correct, I just think the upper number could be higher, even though Merkel's approach was stupid.
So Tories up 3% since last May, Labour down 1%, the LDs down 1%, UKIP up 3% and the Greens down 1% (they are actually on 3%). Overall that gives a swing of 2% from Labour to the Tories since the general election
When it come to rigging the system to stay in power, the Govt. should employ Mr Corbyn as an advisor....
As was pointed out in that discussion, the Tories got more votes, many more votes. and a larger share of the vote but fewer seats than Blair in 2005. Corbyn is no different from any other socialist - he is just making it all up.
Labour won most votes across the UK in 2005, the Tories were fractionally ahead in England. The LDs would have done a deal with Labour rather than the Tories had there been a hung parliament, probably with the requirement Brown replaced Blair. The party which won most votes has lost twice since the war, Labour in 1951 and the Tories in February 1974
No - I suppose I must apologise for the slip but I was referring to the comments in the link. The tories in 2015 got more votes and a greater vote share than Labour did in 2005 but got fewer seats than Labour did in 2005. So it is absurd of Corbyn to talk about a 'narrow' win - or pretend it is somehow an illegitimate win when compared to Labours win in 2005. Furthermore to spell it out further, if Labour in 2005 can consider the electoral system fair then the tories surely can in 2015 since they 'benefited' from it far less than Labour did in 2005.
Perhaps going on like this was why I made an attempt at brevity. Tories gained millions of votes over 10 years. Labour lost millions. Seeking power without the votes is the mark of the political harlot down the centuries.
It's absurd to argue that the Conservative government is somehow illegitimate due to winning 38%.
If we moved to PR, we'd have c. 80 UKIP MP's and 250 Conservatives. They'd either go into coalition, or UKIP would give supply and confidence to the Conservatives.
80 UKIP MPs is a good number, it would probably equal their combined IQ and is a good reason to drop PR into the dustbin.
I love you too.
Even when a member of UKIP agrees with you, you can't resist a cheap shot.
Flightpath clearly has some obsession/hatred issues.
I wonder, more generally, how much effect the internet has had on the mental health of obsessives. In a way its safer that they're arguing on the internet rather than in a pub but on the other hand it gives them the opportunity to become ever angrier so if the do crack up the results will be more extreme.
Mr. 1000, that does suppose that the cultural heritage of such buildings has a value of zero, and that the government has the right to abandon it at will.
Aside from Westminster Hall, it's mostly just a faux-medieval exterior tacked onto the 1850s equivalent of a office block (and a badly built one at that).
You don't see the French using the Louvre as a modern parliament building, and that's much older and more impressive in terms of architecture.
The French use the louvre as a modern shipping centre - well the basement anyway. It was a Palace, so I suppose some sort of place of government.
Comments
Just think how many people would fancy living on the Thames.
Also, the Corbynistas would go crazy about the prices the resultant flats would sell for.
Seems as good as justification as any....
The Westminster bubble argument I regard as nonsensical. Why are other areas better 'centres'? Many nations have dedicated administrative or economic centres which are not their political capitals, but the UK is dominated by London in a way most are not. I personally am not a fan of London, and there is certainly a case to be made about more being done to help places outside it, but it has for a very long time dominated this island as a Primate City, not all places require discrete economic/political centres, and taking the political centre out of London would be nothing but a silly gesture.
I am not against change. I am sentimental about some symbols, but sometimes it is best to change them however sentimental one is. But appeals to move the parliament for what I feel are rather spurious reasons (gets them out of the bubble, symbolic, etc), is the opposite problem, making a change which will not solve any of the 'problems' it is supposed to fix, because the thing that causes the problem (a political class for instance) are not caused by the thing being fixed, or are not, I would argue in some instances, really a problem at all (eg getting rid of some antiquated and quaint procedures, which might well be fine purely on the basis they are antiquated, but presented as though doing so will stop the problem of parliament being distant to most people - Carswell presented preventing Periscoping as some blow against reform - can be just needless).
Finance is the only reason I would support such a change, and given the amount that has to be spend on maintaining the place, as it is a World Heritage Site, and the cost of any new building, which without question would be estimated at one thing and then cost many times more, the case is not overwhelming. Given that, I allow my sentimentality to be at the forefront, in the absence of other factors.
After all the W.H and Congress are much older buildings so even more unsuited for the 21st century.
Are you working for an architect with a vision for the future ect ect?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD0pqDOAtk
The Palace of Westminster (excluding Westminster Hall and other minor parts) were built after the fire in 1834. The construction stretched from 1840 to the 1860s, and problems with the Anston stonework were known very early on.
There appears to have been some significant running renovations in the early 1900s.
It was then rebuilt in Clipsham stone from the 1930s to 1950s, interrupted by the war and war damage.
There was then more work on the stonework between 1980 and the mid 1990s.
So it appears there is a really bad (and expensive) recurring problem with the building. If we are to spend billions on renovating it, we should try to ensure that the work will last at least a hundred years, and not thirty.
2001
Lab: 10,724,923
Con: 8,357,615
Labour Magoraty of 176 MPs
2010
Con: 10,703,654
Lab: 8,606,517
Conservatives 16 MPs short of a Majoraty.
The currant arangments i.e. not requiring equal size constituancys, masivly favers the Labour party.
P.S. sorry about speling cant make the Spell checker work today, b*****y 'windows 10' wish I had never updated it!!!!!
Refusing to accept rising value of state owned property in the capital is modern Luddism.
In any case, do you really believe mock 19th century mock gothic is something we should spend taxpayer's money trying to save?
Edit - I know this sort of sarcastic example suggestion is sort of proving the point about us treating a building used for politics as a symbol (and yes, I know the difference between state owned and not, it's a point about eliminating things not fit for purpose, not a direct comparison to the exact example), but I don't even see why that is a problem, personally. Symbols are important, they can be more important than the reality sometimes. There will always been major costs associated with the business of government, and that will always be regarded as too much. That doesn't mean we should pump endless monies into specific sites, that there is no line to be crossed when a place is not able to be made functional in a cost appropriate fashion, but you move to somewhere else, it'll cost more than people think it should, and over time it will cost more to maintain, newer technologies will make it harder to upgrade, and then what? You move it again 20 years from now? 50?
The building should be renovated in as economical way as possible which means a complete temporary move.
If anyone thinks building a completely new government complex inside some remote 'beltway' will improve anything then they are nuts and merely demonstrate they are fed up with the phrase 'Westminster bubble' and want to replace it with err... 'beltway'.
1. It's a nice looking building.
2. I'd only have respect for parliament if it's on expensive real estate.
and
3. We've always done it this way so we should keep doing it this way.
Those are three incredibly weak arguments and those propounding them should be ashamed of themselves.
Speaking of, an acquaintance of mine working directly with a police commissioner was saying it looks like Independent Commissioners will probably do poorly this time around, which I hope is not the case. If we have have this ridiculous system I'd like some Independents to hold on.
See the BBC move to Salford as a recent example of what happens when these things are forced on people.
The tories in 2015 got more votes and a greater vote share than Labour did in 2005 but got fewer seats than Labour did in 2005.
So it is absurd of Corbyn to talk about a 'narrow' win - or pretend it is somehow an illegitimate win when compared to Labours win in 2005. Furthermore to spell it out further, if Labour in 2005 can consider the electoral system fair then the tories surely can in 2015 since they 'benefited' from it far less than Labour did in 2005.
Perhaps going on like this was why I made an attempt at brevity. Tories gained millions of votes over 10 years. Labour lost millions. Seeking power without the votes is the mark of the political harlot down the centuries.
And given the person making the suggestion not to use the site is not as far as I'm aware suggesting demolition, and so there will still be massive associated costs with the site and any replacement, your only argument of any substance, the financial case, stands up to even less scrutiny than those arguments you dismiss above!
And in the land of competing arguments, multiple ones which may be weak but also have emotional weight trumps weak arguments with shaky benefits.
(This was, of course, a topic much debated on Yes Minister.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2820626/Leaking-roofs-crumbling-walls-MPs-trapped-creaking-lifts-asbestos-Houses-Parliament-urgent-need-repair.html
Iron roofs?
Of course it will rust, so replace it with a material that is not rust prone.
Limestone?
Of course it will corrode with the London smog, no problem, cover it with this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121204145922.htm
"Buildings and statues constructed of limestone can be protected from pollution by applying a thin, single layer of a water-resistant coating, according to new research. Researchers developed a new way to minimize chemical reactions that cause limestone buildings to deteriorate."
(The Hall is where the Scottish Parliament sat until their own disastrous boondoggle was complete).
Reminiscent of how some want to carve England into regions...
PS - I find people who use the term “we could build something significantly better suited to the 21st Century” a tad crass with no appreciation for historical context.
That it would in some real sense end the 'Westminster Bubble' phenomenon in any significant way is preposterous, for the reasons Sandpit argues. That is just tacking on a reason to the proposal to give it more emotional weight when it won't actually have any impact, like a planning application refusal adding reasons which more symbolic than anything else, to back up the solid main reason.
Can you imagine the Cobra committee meeting at presumably short notice with the PM/ FS/ DS based in Derbyshire and MI5 MI6 (and all their secret documents dossiers) still based in London? How does that work?
If we moved to PR, we'd have c. 80 UKIP MP's and 250 Conservatives. They'd either go into coalition, or UKIP would give supply and confidence to the Conservatives.
A minor 'national programme' to train people in the art of repairing old buildings would have the quotes tumble.
The alleged costs of repairing Westminster combine the absolute worst of the civil service with the absolute worst of business. We get a bit of a spin up from the 'heritage' lobby too.
Everyone involved should be shot, and probably twice-over. The very nicely maintained Tower-of-London could perhaps earn its keep in finding a very damp cellar or two for these idiots.
If you were moving everything out of London who would want to live in the vacated government real estate anyway?
Are we being trolled by Mr 1000? He is a jolly decent chap and all round good egg, but he has lost the plot big time if he is not.
(hopefully this tentative but balanced dichotomy allows me be to remain unbanned)
Having respect for the electorate and the tax payer, my price is simply lower than your.
There is a lesson to learn from the fiasco of closing down the BBC TV centre, trying to move to Saflord for political reasons, the failure and the slow move back to London at the more crammed Broadcasting House.
https://twitter.com/JaxAlemany/status/688435249831870465
I myself have been known to hold some silly opinions. Hard to accept, I know.
And Westminster Hall should never be altered, if only because of that hammerbeam roof. RCS shoudl stand underneath its glory and really ask himself if it should be demolished.
Although care needs to be taken: lots of historic repairs to stonework involved putting iron bars into the stone to help hold it together. In the long term that's often been disastrous as the iron rusts and swells.
They might as well book private trains from Virgin, the number of people they have moving between the two cities, not to mention the number of interviews they're now doing on video link from those who can't be arsed to spend 6 hours travelling door to door and back again for a few minutes on air.
It is important to look someone in the eye, observe the body language of those around you, get a sense of the room.
You can't do that as effectively over Skype!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/13/poll-views-of-trump-carson-and-bush-dim-as-christie-and-cruz-rise/
(Although on the point of working across multiple locations etc, yes, that is perfectly achievable and not much of a reason not to move)
Even when a member of UKIP agrees with you, you can't resist a cheap shot.
That's one of the reasons I think the problem is more the 1840s building. It's a sick building.
*If* RCS was going to get his way, then the bare minimum would be keeping Westminster Hall and the views across the river: that would mean keeping the stone frontage by the river and Elizabeth Tower. Just for the tourists.
Fortunately we've got very good at demolishing buildings whilst keeping their frontages; an example near me being the Cambridge John Lewis store, where the shop frontages (and I think in some cases the shops themselves) remained.
But I don't want that to happen.
New Thread New Thread
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12103359/German-finance-minister-proposes-EU-wide-petrol-tax-to-pay-for-refugee-costs.html
If the Remain team want to win the referendum, they will need to get a whole bunch of EU politicians and bureaucrats to shut up for the duration of the campaign. Every time one of them opens their mouth another few voters move into the Leave camp.
Aside from Westminster Hall, it's mostly just a faux-medieval exterior tacked onto the 1850s equivalent of a office block (and a badly built one at that).
You don't see the French using the Louvre as a modern parliament building, and that's much older and more impressive in terms of architecture.
The episode does show how wrong headed Merkel was and of course it shows how wrong headed her liberal heart on sleeve supporters here in the UK were as well. Cameron and the govt were criticised for their 'lets not get carried away' views when that poor child washed up dead, but they were right.
Merkel is displaying all the attributes of the 10 years a leader syndrome.
Waits to get lynched by a horde of architects and historians.
I wonder, more generally, how much effect the internet has had on the mental health of obsessives. In a way its safer that they're arguing on the internet rather than in a pub but on the other hand it gives them the opportunity to become ever angrier so if the do crack up the results will be more extreme.
https://twitter.com/britainelects?lang=en-gb