Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where will Parliament relocate to during the Westminster resto
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where will Parliament relocate to during the Westminster restoration?
StarSports have a betting market up on where Parliament will decant to during the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, it is understandable why York is the favourite following reports and comments by the Prime Minister in recent days.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Yep, they do outside of York University's term time...
Trying to live/work in a building undergoing a massive rip/redo slows the work down massively. And raises the costs. The classic is domestic work - where it is often cheaper to rent a property for 6-12 months than try and live in during building work.
When you add in the security and the probable presence of hazardous material in the structure of the Palace (they will find asbestos in there for sure).....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8537475/Civil-servants-claim-not-feel-comfortable-Treasury-room-named-Winston-Churchill.html
The whole tip toeing around that it will be expensive, and therefore unpopular, and so delay delay delay, is a scandal. The question of permanently or temporarily moving out of London is just a distraction. But it is probably more convenient to remain in London given the options. I'm sure Boris would be ok with limiting how often parliament met.
I nominate
> Isle of Man - reasonably spacious; no local MP, thus no local constituents complaining
> Rockall - well-isolated, but ownership dispute with Ireland AND 40 million seagulls problematic
> Isle of Wight - fine climate (for Britain), excellent accommodations.
Certainly the old boy would like it MUCH better than the Graham Sutherland portrait!
And this is a Cold War we are losing. The West in in steep decline, on all fronts.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/xi-banks-on-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-west-kghxjzzxg
The conversion this weekend of Hagia Sophia (perhaps the pinnacle of western architecture?) from museum to mosque, is symbolic and telling.
https://twitter.com/RTErdogan/status/1284823203492356096?s=20
Brussels. Great rail connection with London.
Can we conceive of the Great Man "Muscles" Johnson making a rousing fight-them-on-the-beaches speech from a "functional workplace in the Midlands"?
But once again just a load of flapptery about selling it off as though such an asset can be so flogged so easily. I really don't get the hatred for the place. It's not about cost, since plenty of 'purpose built' new parliamentary buildings around the world can cost an arm and a leg, it's not about suitable location since people don't agree where that would be and even if it could indeed go somewhere else, it is certainly not outrageous that it be located in the largest city, it's not that it looks extravagant, as again that is not unusual, and I cannot seriously credit that the place has bars in it could be a reason, so what is really behind such hatred?
Has Morris Dancer been teaching you 'history'?
The original palace's origins hardly has bearing that the place as it stands now was for parliamentary usage more than royal. I'm all for historical pendantry, but that would be one hell of a stretch.
The Houses of Parliament were built by Barry & Pugin, for Parliament. It contains elements of earlier buildings, like Rufus' "Roaring Hall". But it is a purpose-built Parliament.
Ataturk did the wise thing when he forced a compromise, and made it a museum.
Erdogan's move is Islamic triumphalism, redux
Though TSE would apparently say Turkey is still Ottoman as that is what it originally was, never mind a major event rebuilt the state as it were
One of the people I visited, their office often had leaks of piss and shite from a nearby toilet.
They weren't the only one blighted by that problem.
I saw a rat or mouse on pretty much every occasion as well.
Don't even get me started how bad Downing Street is.
Once Larry and I saw a mouse, he laid on his back and kinda yawned, I screamed.
There's royal elements to it. It's history particularly prior to rebuilding was originally royal. But it was constructed to house the parliamentary chambers.
All that waste of money for Brenda to turn up and give a speech.
Get the PM or someone like the Lord Chancellor to deliver the speech.
Pleasant afternoon all.
It's also worth noting that Barry and Pugin's Parliament is also an absolute masterpiece. It was technologically cutting edge, with advanced engineering, yet also aesthetically complete and gorgeous: Pugin designed everything down to the candlesticks and doorknobs.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/cultural-collections/historic-furniture/the-collection/awn-pugin/
I have heard staff at the QEII centre talk about it.
The QEII wins the dynamite-the-place-ASAP poll, by a very large margin.
https://twitter.com/PippaN15/status/1284539474354069504
Key at end:
"If reg voters turnout, Biden wins."
So (my point) voter suppression will be key for Trump.
Despite its enormous size, the historic Blue Mosque opposite the Hagia Sophia was pretty empty at Friday prayers.
I'm sure one or two PMs would be delighted if their Chancellor didn't live so close.
I find republicans and monarchists are much like Brexiteers and Remainiacs, as I have observed, in that they are frequently very bad at putting forth their own case, usually as a result of their passion leading them to go over the top, or making arguments which actually apply well beyond the narrow point they are trying to make.
But have you read Samuel Huntington’s seminal work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arunachal_Pradesh
So overall it costs the tax payer around a million quid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsham_Towers
Monarchy = Personality cult!
ergo:
Monarchy = Socialism!
Arguably the best option would be to build a completely new Parliament and redevelop the Palace of Westminster as a vast new museum. It was pointed out when the BLM protests first got going that we've no such major institution devoted either to the study of the history of England in general or to that of the British Empire specifically, and what used to be the Imperial Parliament would be an ideal place for the latter. It could present and cover a range of very interesting and interconnected topics, not least the development of the slave trade during the early modern period, colonialism, and how racist theories were developed to help to justify them - as well as the Age of Discovery, the settlement and development of many new nations, and the migration of people both out into the colonies and later the Commonwealth, and back from them (and one thinks not only of post-WW2 immigration but also the history of ethnic minorities in Britain before 1948, which is very largely ignored or forgotten.)
A modern chamber and suite of offices would certainly represent an opportunity to build on the technological advances that were forced by Covid, and it might even be worth considering a move to Birmingham, which is much more central and will be connected to central London by HS2 (because it looks very much as if the first section of the project will be completed in full, even if there are question marks hanging over the branches further to the North.) But it won't happen, of course.
Another way of saying what you just said is: if everyone pays the taxes they are due to pay then the burden is shared more equally and the state can provide high quality services. I can understand that a Tory finds that concept incomprehensible.
Talk about "la-la-la-la I'm not listening...."
Pangolins are mammals!
ergo:
Sunil is a pangolin!
One of the most egregious examples, from the opposite side, is the hideously inappropriate church deliberately wedged in the middle of the sublime mosque of Cordoba.
An act of Christian triumphalism to match Erdogan's in Istanbul
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/spain/articles/the-history-of-the-mosque-cathedral-of-cordoba-in-1-minute-2/
It is far, far, far better to impose a universal service obligation on banks than it is to impose an obligation on every single small shop, large shop, restaurant, bar, hairdresser, boutique or anything else in the entire country that they must accept cash.
Banks are structurally important and integral to the entire economy, a universal service obligation is something they can withstand without jeopardising their business and as part of their regulations (which must exist). Ensuring everyone has access to banking is far better because it puts the choice into people's hands, they can access all parts of the economy (many online retailers won't accept cash for instance and I doubt even you're suggesting they must are you?). There is a requirement to ensure everyone has access to basic banking.
Putting the onus on eg small businesses that don't want the security or other risks involved with accepting cash is an entirely different matter. Cash is not required and can lead to armed robberies and stabbings so there is a very valid justification not to want to accept it. If everyone has access to banking there is absolutely zero justification to compel people to literally put their lives at risk accepting cash when they don't want to do so . . . I don't know if you've ever been subject to an armed robbery by people looking for cash but it is not a pleasant experience.
As TSE says, some very fine hotels. I'd put The Principal right up there with the best. I've also heard good things about The Judges' Lodgings.
Decent rail service from most parts of the country as well - should be the capital.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521
Libertarians believe that defence is one the people of the country is one of the key things for a governement. Defence doesn't just mean from invasion it is also a defence of freedom. In this case the freedom not to have a bank account, not to have every penny spent tracked, not to have their data given to governments and big business
You should give up being a libertarian you really do fail at it
Do we want our Parliamentarians to end up having Brummie accents?
The working class revolt going well I see.