Good morning all. So, does Kemi go on Mandrlson, Doyle or something else for PMQs? A big hit just before recess or a Palmer from 2 yards miss ( ha ha gfy Chelsea)?
I think if she goes Epstein, Doyle, Mandy she basically switches off 90% of the electorate.
It's not so much factored in now as cemented in. Those who are going to consider it when voting will, those who won't orvwho are bored with it will ignore it.
Any event has a shelf life.
I hope she does go with it
I hope she repeats her lies that the Government is in paralysis, it clearly isnt
Big announcements each day, spending, policy, aspiration. A big update today from Bridget on SEND and an interim writing off if 5bn council debt allegedly.
Thats not doing nothing things happening daily
She's going to be increasing seen as a moaner a whine an agitate a glorified student debater
Very light on policy, very light on new ideas and at historic low opinion poll polling levels.
I'd suggest she'd be very well advised to optimise her next 8birv8 PMQ outings. Odds on they will be her last.
It must be very upsetting that all your anti Kemi posts is just making her stronger and now she is beating Starmer as best PM by 62% to 38%
This has only happened since your first post so keep going
Good morning all. So, does Kemi go on Mandrlson, Doyle or something else for PMQs? A big hit just before recess or a Palmer from 2 yards miss ( ha ha gfy Chelsea)?
I think if she goes Epstein, Doyle, Mandy she basically switches off 90% of the electorate.
It's not so much factored in now as cemented in. Those who are going to consider it when voting will, those who won't orvwho are bored with it will ignore it.
Any event has a shelf life.
I hope she does go with it
I hope she repeats her lies that the Government is in paralysis, it clearly isnt
Big announcements each day, spending, policy, aspiration. A big update today from Bridget on SEND and an interim writing off if 5bn council debt allegedly.
Thats not doing nothing things happening daily
She's going to be increasing seen as a moaner a whine an agitate a glorified student debater
Very light on policy, very light on new ideas and at historic low opinion poll polling levels.
I'd suggest she'd be very well advised to optimise her next 8birv8 PMQ outings. Odds on they will be her last.
She should go for a curveball and ask Starmer why he appointed someone who talks about murdering women and breaking people's legs as Health Secretary.
Good morning all. So, does Kemi go on Mandrlson, Doyle or something else for PMQs? A big hit just before recess or a Palmer from 2 yards miss ( ha ha gfy Chelsea)?
I think if she goes Epstein, Doyle, Mandy she basically switches off 90% of the electorate.
It's not so much factored in now as cemented in. Those who are going to consider it when voting will, those who won't orvwho are bored with it will ignore it.
Any event has a shelf life.
I hope she does go with it
I hope she repeats her lies that the Government is in paralysis, it clearly isnt
Big announcements each day, spending, policy, aspiration. A big update today from Bridget on SEND and an interim writing off if 5bn council debt allegedly.
Thats not doing nothing things happening daily
She's going to be increasing seen as a moaner a whine an agitate a glorified student debater
Very light on policy, very light on new ideas and at historic low opinion poll polling levels.
I'd suggest she'd be very well advised to optimise her next 8birv8 PMQ outings. Odds on they will be her last.
Ah yes, the biggest issue with PMQs today is definitely Kemi Badenoch’s reputation.
Sienna Rodgers' Politics Home piece that the tweet refers to has this sentence in it:
"Labour sources indicated they were increasingly confident of Labour holding the constituency because the party looked like it could be a "strong second" to the Greens and Reform respectively in different wards."
That says to me that Labour don't think they are winning in any ward. A somewhat shaky basis on which to express confidence in a hold.
No, second in every heptathlon event (or ward) to different competitors is exactly what a Labour victory in Gorton and Denton would likely look like if it occurred. I don't think they are saying anything too radical here.
The surprise is that Labour’s insurgents have learned nothing from Tory self-destruction. If they had any economic sense or understanding of global markets they would bide their time, ignore the noise, and wait for a cyclical recovery to lift the party’s fortunes.
Banking experts Alvarez & Marsal estimate that easier capital buffers for lenders should inject an extra £350bn into the British financial system. The stars are aligned for a powerful cycle of credit expansion. Productivity is soaring at the fastest rate in a generation as AI takes off.
Only utter fools would risk throwing this into jeopardy by precipitating a gilts and sterling crisis, and inflicting months of internecine Labour warfare on the country.
So the big Lib Dem news was they were sacking Thomas Frank?
The big LibDem news is that none of them read the papers which is why they thought this nothingburger would make the headlines. I wonder if Ed Davey will mention it at PMQs.
The surprise is that Labour’s insurgents have learned nothing from Tory self-destruction. If they had any economic sense or understanding of global markets they would bide their time, ignore the noise, and wait for a cyclical recovery to lift the party’s fortunes.
Banking experts Alvarez & Marsal estimate that easier capital buffers for lenders should inject an extra £350bn into the British financial system. The stars are aligned for a powerful cycle of credit expansion. Productivity is soaring at the fastest rate in a generation as AI takes off.
Only utter fools would risk throwing this into jeopardy by precipitating a gilts and sterling crisis, and inflicting months of internecine Labour warfare on the country.
I assume the betting odds are the best indication and labour are on about 10%
I expect the greens to win
I notice last night's result from Wales gave a shellacking to labour and the conservatives with Paid taking the seat from labour and reform underperforming
This follows Caerphilly where Plaid won with another failed reform challenge
It seems the gloss is coming off reform here in Wales, and Plaid are on course ro win the Senedd in May with labour trounced
Yes - there is a trend in Wales to Plaid over reform
I never like to over analyse any individual result but to dip into Fishguard last night, it wss a pretty 'on trend' result compared to Nowcasts (experimental) current ward by ward estimates from polling - both Plaid and Ref underperformed a bit but there were two indies added in to the mix and Lab and LD were on trend if you split the green estimated share between them (as the greens didnt stand) it has the Tories on 9.2% versus an actual.... 9.2%! As i said, ovrranalysis, but Fishguard went very much to plan versus current polling.
What? The Lib Dems coming second, with close to 20% of the vote, where they didn't stand last time, is "on trend"??
He is a fundamentally decent bloke doing a job where he is sadly out of his depth, and just doesn’t have the support of those around him. No. Not Keir Starmer. I’m talking about Thomas Frank, #COYS #sacked
Lib Dems would scrap Treasury in favour of Department for Growth
Thats it
Unless they also have a Department for balanced budgets looks a bit dangerously Liz Truss?
If that is the big announcement then I would be very embarrased if I were a Lib Dem and how Cooper thought that would get news coverage with the present news agenda is beyond me
The treasury is a blocker on growth because the green book virtually says if it’s not in London it’s not worth doing.
In reality Government spending breaks into 3 pots
Day to day spending Repairing existing infrastructure Investment in the future
I suspect if we looked at things this way we would see a lot better governing
Reduce the last two and increase Day to Day. Then you can point at falling waiting lists (or whatever) and win an election.
So the hospitals are always falling down. But they are always hiring more nurses.
Perhaps they didn’t get round to showing ‘Adolescence’ in that school ?
As somebody said once or twice....Fantastic Netflix Documentary.....
He's rumoured to be up for the job of running Dr Who.
I assumed it was dead following the collapse of the Disney deal.
Might not be a bad thing. I may start watching it again.
I don't think Disney and the money was the issue, it was, as ever, the tedious woke writing. Frankly I thought Dr Who better when the Doctor had no interest in sex/relationships. He's an alien, a timelord, who in theory might be essentially immortal. His ability to rise above the mundane tedium of human interaction was part of the joy. Frankly the last few series have become fan-boy and fan-girl fiction. And don't get me started on the miss-use of tremendous villains from the old show.
...plus RTD2's habit of rendering Seventies' villains which nobody but me remembers as CGI monstrosities led to extremely meh climaxes, one of which ("The Reality War") was so bad it retrospectively made the entire previous series bad, despite being fairly decent. Plus inserting an Israel/Palestine allegory into "The Interstellar Song Context" just didn't work, requiring the Doctor to act out of character ("never cruel nor cowardly") and pissed everybody off.
There is a wider problem that the usual kneejerk ITS-WOKE criticism overlooks, which is the show's structure is fucked. It started in the Sixties as a 26-episode-per-season show split into six or seven stories that were around four episodes long, and a lot of the show's characteristics - cliffhangers, running down corridors - were offshoots of that. Then the 2000's reboot copied the Buffy structure - ten to thirteen episodes a season, each self-contained with occasional two-parters - and it's kept to that ever since. Which is a problem because the audience for that structure barely exists in the UK anymore and doesn't exist worldwide. Nowadays a show has to be a self-contained season to be downloaded and binged at the viewer's convenience, and Doctor Who in general and RTD2 in particular can't get their head around
Formats don't last for ever. Witty Noel Coward plays died. Bedroom farces died. Variety shows died. Even reality TV and talent shows are on their way out. Will even televised drama survive in a world of YouTube, individual creators and AI slop? You tell me.
I assume the betting odds are the best indication and labour are on about 10%
I expect the greens to win
I notice last night's result from Wales gave a shellacking to labour and the conservatives with Paid taking the seat from labour and reform underperforming
This follows Caerphilly where Plaid won with another failed reform challenge
It seems the gloss is coming off reform here in Wales, and Plaid are on course ro win the Senedd in May with labour trounced
Yes - there is a trend in Wales to Plaid over reform
I never like to over analyse any individual result but to dip into Fishguard last night, it wss a pretty 'on trend' result compared to Nowcasts (experimental) current ward by ward estimates from polling - both Plaid and Ref underperformed a bit but there were two indies added in to the mix and Lab and LD were on trend if you split the green estimated share between them (as the greens didnt stand) it has the Tories on 9.2% versus an actual.... 9.2%! As i said, ovrranalysis, but Fishguard went very much to plan versus current polling.
What? The Lib Dems coming second, with close to 20% of the vote, where they didn't stand last time, is "on trend"??
Yes, it is compared to what sort of support is expected compared to how Fishguard voted in the 2024 GE. Maybe im being a bit harsh as they did outperform by a few %, i am assuming they absorbed some of the local Green vote as Greens didnt front up. Fishguard is on the Ceredigion fringe so its a traditional area of Liberal activity. But, yes, i concede they did better than many expected. Its a very small ward though which is why i was talking mainly demonstrably rather than a full read in to Welsh politics
I assume the betting odds are the best indication and labour are on about 10%
I expect the greens to win
I notice last night's result from Wales gave a shellacking to labour and the conservatives with Paid taking the seat from labour and reform underperforming
This follows Caerphilly where Plaid won with another failed reform challenge
It seems the gloss is coming off reform here in Wales, and Plaid are on course ro win the Senedd in May with labour trounced
Yes - there is a trend in Wales to Plaid over reform
I never like to over analyse any individual result but to dip into Fishguard last night, it wss a pretty 'on trend' result compared to Nowcasts (experimental) current ward by ward estimates from polling - both Plaid and Ref underperformed a bit but there were two indies added in to the mix and Lab and LD were on trend if you split the green estimated share between them (as the greens didnt stand) it has the Tories on 9.2% versus an actual.... 9.2%! As i said, ovrranalysis, but Fishguard went very much to plan versus current polling.
What? The Lib Dems coming second, with close to 20% of the vote, where they didn't stand last time, is "on trend"??
Current Nowcast for a GE in Fishguard NE for reference (experimental guide not a forecast, caveats etc etc) LAB:⠀ 5.5% ⠀ CON:⠀ 9.2% ⠀ RFM:⠀ 17.4% ⠀ PLC:⠀ 42.9% ⠀ LDM:⠀ 13.9% ⠀ GRN:⠀ 11.1
The surprise is that Labour’s insurgents have learned nothing from Tory self-destruction. If they had any economic sense or understanding of global markets they would bide their time, ignore the noise, and wait for a cyclical recovery to lift the party’s fortunes.
Banking experts Alvarez & Marsal estimate that easier capital buffers for lenders should inject an extra £350bn into the British financial system. The stars are aligned for a powerful cycle of credit expansion. Productivity is soaring at the fastest rate in a generation as AI takes off.
Only utter fools would risk throwing this into jeopardy by precipitating a gilts and sterling crisis, and inflicting months of internecine Labour warfare on the country.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
It would be ridiculous to not take this opportunity to remove asbestos and fix M&E. That would be completely shortsighted.
That’s what they should be doing, the absolute minimum scope to fix what’s broken.
Instead they’re rebuilding the whole building while everyone keeps working inside it.
They're not. The Restoration and Renewal Committee has agreed in two options to be put to a vote. One is a full decant which will cost somewhere around 10 billion. One is a partial decant with the Lords buggering off and the Commons moving into the Lords chamber. That is estimated to cost around 20 billion. The 40 billion option that was REJECTED by the Committee was for both Chambers to stay in while building work is done.
That everyone is fixated on this 40 billion figure is an example of click bate headlines and people not reading the detail.
Ooh okay.
The numbers still make no sense though, the Burj Khalifa cost just over £1bn to build and it’s half a mile high.
What should be done is the minimum required renovations, to remove asbestos and redo utilities, which would cost a few hundred million and be done in a couple of years if everyone moved out.
The problem is that restoring the current draughty pile of stone in line with current building regulations (which is the plan), without radical changes to the external structure (ie partial demolition) is going to be hideously expensive however you do it.
"Minimum required" is a very subjective term (though I agree with you).
Yes.
I’ve not dug into it too much, but I suspect that there’s only so much renovation you can do before every room needs to be ‘accessible’ by law, which means putting in new lifts and stairs, corridor and door widths and clearances etc to modern building codes, inside the existing structure. All of which basically means they keep the facade and build a totally new building behind it.
Would be a fun research project for a PBer with some time on their hands to make into a header.
Surely the biggest expense is the bloody MPs not wanting to decamp somewhere else for the duration. They should be held up as the selfish shitbags they are if the "stay put" option is followed. Parliament can meet anywhere.
So has Starmer admitted he's eating meat because he has been and doesn't want to get called out for answering with yet another terminological inexactitude?
The Islamic Republic stated that Starlink's operation in Iran is an "illegal operation" and "unauthorized military use of a commercial satellite mega-constellation" that violates the nation's sovereignty.
Russia suggested that SpaceX's network could be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and is demanding international negotiations to limit the number of new satellites and clarify the military use of satellite frequencies.
Have the Ld's announced anything sensational yet... or ever ?
Daisy announced a stadium tour. Ticketmaster crashed 10 seconds later!
It was that they plan to scrap the Treasury in favour of Dept for Growth
....that's actually a good idea. If it's done properly and doesn't just involve a rebrand.
Awkward to do though - which is why I said earlier you need to split things into 3 bits (day to day, maintenance and investment) and leave the Treasury doing day to day / maintenance stuff only).
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
It would be ridiculous to not take this opportunity to remove asbestos and fix M&E. That would be completely shortsighted.
That’s what they should be doing, the absolute minimum scope to fix what’s broken.
Instead they’re rebuilding the whole building while everyone keeps working inside it.
They're not. The Restoration and Renewal Committee has agreed in two options to be put to a vote. One is a full decant which will cost somewhere around 10 billion. One is a partial decant with the Lords buggering off and the Commons moving into the Lords chamber. That is estimated to cost around 20 billion. The 40 billion option that was REJECTED by the Committee was for both Chambers to stay in while building work is done.
That everyone is fixated on this 40 billion figure is an example of click bate headlines and people not reading the detail.
Ooh okay.
The numbers still make no sense though, the Burj Khalifa cost just over £1bn to build and it’s half a mile high.
What should be done is the minimum required renovations, to remove asbestos and redo utilities, which would cost a few hundred million and be done in a couple of years if everyone moved out.
The problem is that restoring the current draughty pile of stone in line with current building regulations (which is the plan), without radical changes to the external structure (ie partial demolition) is going to be hideously expensive however you do it.
"Minimum required" is a very subjective term (though I agree with you).
Yes.
I’ve not dug into it too much, but I suspect that there’s only so much renovation you can do before every room needs to be ‘accessible’ by law, which means putting in new lifts and stairs, corridor and door widths and clearances etc to modern building codes, inside the existing structure. All of which basically means they keep the facade and build a totally new building behind it.
Would be a fun research project for a PBer with some time on their hands to make into a header.
Surely the biggest expense is the bloody MPs not wanting to decamp somewhere else for the duration. They should be held up as the selfish shitbags they are if the "stay put" option is followed. Parliament can meet anywhere.
Hire one of the film sets, and shift it to Birmingham NEC for a few years.
Yo could also block book the hotels for when Parliament is seating
So has Starmer admitted he's eating meat because he has been and doesn't want to get called out for answering with yet another terminological inexactitude?
The anonymous man behind the widely shared AI-generated music videos under the name Crewkerne Gazette has been unmasked by Channel 4 News.
Joshua Bonehill-Paine is a notorious far-right figure who's spent five years in jail for a series of hate crimes against Jewish people, including inciting racial hatred and racially aggravated harassment against the Labour peer Baroness Berger.
Bonehill-Paine posted a statement on his social media after our revelations denouncing anti-semitism and saying he had been "brainwashed" at the time.
He said he regretted his past and the mistakes that he had made.
I would be shocked if it is just him. They get videos out so quickly. When I first saw it, I actually wondered if it was some sort of Russian operation.
This is another 'popular' character on the Right (he was heavily featured in the Sun two days ago *) who turns out to have a fairly standard extremist trajectory. I don't know enough about AI videos to judge the speed of production. It is commercial volume so some musicians he used may be interested.
Temporary Tory around 2010, BNP and other extremist links (that I think is where he perhaps learnt social media tactics; BNP were good at it) plus he looks in photos like a mini-me Nick Griffin), claimed to be a 'proud Nazi and Antisemite'. Now he has been unmasked it's "Not my view, Gov." **
Internet history of fake stories, hoaxes, targeting individuals by claiming that they are paedophiles or 'homosexuals', serious abuse of Luciana Berger, and multiple resulting prison sentences. Quite similar to Yaxley-Lennon, with a lesser amount of violent crime, and no extensive fraud.
And now he is a Farage Fluffer, and wants to make money from social media.
** He claims to be a satirist and journalist, and to have engaged in extensive anti-extremism programmes in schools etc. Whether that is material to my potential view of him. The common pattern afaics is that "we detest Muslims" has replaced "we detest Jews" across the Right.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
It would be ridiculous to not take this opportunity to remove asbestos and fix M&E. That would be completely shortsighted.
That’s what they should be doing, the absolute minimum scope to fix what’s broken.
Instead they’re rebuilding the whole building while everyone keeps working inside it.
They're not. The Restoration and Renewal Committee has agreed in two options to be put to a vote. One is a full decant which will cost somewhere around 10 billion. One is a partial decant with the Lords buggering off and the Commons moving into the Lords chamber. That is estimated to cost around 20 billion. The 40 billion option that was REJECTED by the Committee was for both Chambers to stay in while building work is done.
That everyone is fixated on this 40 billion figure is an example of click bate headlines and people not reading the detail.
Ooh okay.
The numbers still make no sense though, the Burj Khalifa cost just over £1bn to build and it’s half a mile high.
What should be done is the minimum required renovations, to remove asbestos and redo utilities, which would cost a few hundred million and be done in a couple of years if everyone moved out.
The problem is that restoring the current draughty pile of stone in line with current building regulations (which is the plan), without radical changes to the external structure (ie partial demolition) is going to be hideously expensive however you do it.
"Minimum required" is a very subjective term (though I agree with you).
Yes.
I’ve not dug into it too much, but I suspect that there’s only so much renovation you can do before every room needs to be ‘accessible’ by law, which means putting in new lifts and stairs, corridor and door widths and clearances etc to modern building codes, inside the existing structure. All of which basically means they keep the facade and build a totally new building behind it.
Would be a fun research project for a PBer with some time on their hands to make into a header.
Under Truman the White House was gutted and rebuilt totally, leaving just the facade. There are gaps between the inside rooms and the outside walls. It's a plot point in "Olympus Has Fallen"
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
It would be ridiculous to not take this opportunity to remove asbestos and fix M&E. That would be completely shortsighted.
That’s what they should be doing, the absolute minimum scope to fix what’s broken.
Instead they’re rebuilding the whole building while everyone keeps working inside it.
They're not. The Restoration and Renewal Committee has agreed in two options to be put to a vote. One is a full decant which will cost somewhere around 10 billion. One is a partial decant with the Lords buggering off and the Commons moving into the Lords chamber. That is estimated to cost around 20 billion. The 40 billion option that was REJECTED by the Committee was for both Chambers to stay in while building work is done.
That everyone is fixated on this 40 billion figure is an example of click bate headlines and people not reading the detail.
Ooh okay.
The numbers still make no sense though, the Burj Khalifa cost just over £1bn to build and it’s half a mile high.
What should be done is the minimum required renovations, to remove asbestos and redo utilities, which would cost a few hundred million and be done in a couple of years if everyone moved out.
The problem is that restoring the current draughty pile of stone in line with current building regulations (which is the plan), without radical changes to the external structure (ie partial demolition) is going to be hideously expensive however you do it.
"Minimum required" is a very subjective term (though I agree with you).
Yes.
I’ve not dug into it too much, but I suspect that there’s only so much renovation you can do before every room needs to be ‘accessible’ by law, which means putting in new lifts and stairs, corridor and door widths and clearances etc to modern building codes, inside the existing structure. All of which basically means they keep the facade and build a totally new building behind it.
Would be a fun research project for a PBer with some time on their hands to make into a header.
Surely the biggest expense is the bloody MPs not wanting to decamp somewhere else for the duration. They should be held up as the selfish shitbags they are if the "stay put" option is followed. Parliament can meet anywhere.
Yes. They’re a lot more worried about their own property portfolios than saving billions in public money.
Even if they didn’t decamp to another city, there’s still plenty of places in London that could be made to work on a temporary basis.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
Thank-you.
As a rough comparator, I tried to make a comparison with all conservation and restoration expenditure on all 42 English CofE Cathedrals over the last 30-50 years, but the data is not easy to find. It would be more if development and facilities expenditure is included.
Somewhere like major Medieval Cathedrals such as Canterbury or Durham is likely to be of the order of £80-100+m over the period. Somewhere less prominent, smaller, or post-Medieval (eg Southwell or Carlisle) would perhaps be more like £30-60m of that.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
LOL good luck to anyone who tries docking payrolls in Dubai. You’d need to turn up in court for each case.
With no local income tax, a lot of people (Americans mostly, but also people in sales jobs) earn a nominal salary and a bonus paid in actual cash.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
LOL good luck to anyone who tries docking payrolls in Dubai. You’d need to turn up in court for each case.
With no local income tax, a lot of people (Americans mostly, but also people in sales jobs) earn a nominal salary and a bonus paid in actual cash.
It's not very funny for the Treasury though, is it? The only reason these jobs are viable is because expats expect to able to flee back to the UK when the beheadings start or they need 20+ years of NHS care and a juicy state pension.
It's classic socialise the costs, privatise that the profits. Should be dealt with one way or the other.
Australia captain Mitchell Marsh was ruled out of their opening T20 World Cup game against Ireland after suffering "testicular bleeding", with Steve Smith called up as cover.
The 34-year-old was struck in the groin area while receiving throw downs during a training session in Colombo on Sunday.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
Thank-you.
As a rough comparator, I tried to make a comparison with all conservation and restoration expenditure on all 42 English CofE Cathedrals over the last 30-50 years, but the data is not easy to find. It would be more if development and facilities expenditure is included.
Somewhere like major Medieval Cathedrals such as Canterbury or Durham is likely to be of the order of £80-100+m over the period. Somewhere less prominent, smaller, or post-Medieval (eg Southwell or Carlisle) would perhaps be more like £30-60m of that.
Cathedral and precinct upkeep for York Minster were just under £4m for 2023 - down on the year before. A crude 30 year calculation on that number would give you £120M in costs.
He is a fundamentally decent bloke doing a job where he is sadly out of his depth, and just doesn’t have the support of those around him. No. Not Keir Starmer. I’m talking about Thomas Frank, #COYS #sacked
The most shocking Thomas football news today is not Frank it's Wagner.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
Thank-you.
As a rough comparator, I tried to make a comparison with all conservation and restoration expenditure on all 42 English CofE Cathedrals over the last 30-50 years, but the data is not easy to find. It would be more if development and facilities expenditure is included.
Somewhere like major Medieval Cathedrals such as Canterbury or Durham is likely to be of the order of £80-100+m over the period. Somewhere less prominent, smaller, or post-Medieval (eg Southwell or Carlisle) would perhaps be more like £30-60m of that.
Cathedral and precinct upkeep for York Minster were just under £4m for 2023 - down on the year before. A crude 30 year calculation on that number would give you £120M in costs.
Apart from Westminster Hall most of the Palace of Westminster is 19th century after the earlier palace burnt down. Whereas at least half of cathedrals are medieval
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
The 2001-7 refurbishment of St Pancras cost ~£800 million, compared to an initial estimate of £310 million. If that's in 2007 money, it would be £1.4bn now. The Palace of Westminster is, I believe, much bigger?
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
Thank-you.
As a rough comparator, I tried to make a comparison with all conservation and restoration expenditure on all 42 English CofE Cathedrals over the last 30-50 years, but the data is not easy to find. It would be more if development and facilities expenditure is included.
Somewhere like major Medieval Cathedrals such as Canterbury or Durham is likely to be of the order of £80-100+m over the period. Somewhere less prominent, smaller, or post-Medieval (eg Southwell or Carlisle) would perhaps be more like £30-60m of that.
In a related manner, we have the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world. And not because they are better than anyone else's.
This is the third legal challenge trying to stop Sizewell C.
Britain makes it too easy to delay infrastructure projects with lawfare.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
LOL good luck to anyone who tries docking payrolls in Dubai. You’d need to turn up in court for each case.
With no local income tax, a lot of people (Americans mostly, but also people in sales jobs) earn a nominal salary and a bonus paid in actual cash.
It's not very funny for the Treasury though, is it? The only reason these jobs are viable is because expats expect to able to flee back to the UK when the beheadings start or they need 20+ years of NHS care and a juicy state pension.
It's classic socialise the costs, privatise that the profits. Should be dealt with one way or the other.
Well maybe the Treasury should try and understand that the market for skilled high earners is now very much international?
The state pension requires NI payments, so people who have lived their life abroad can’t come back and get a pension.
However young graduates emigrating is a massive problem, it’s not only a brain drain, not only a student loan liability, but many of them will then stay abroad for various reasons, perhaps they’ll find their calling in life to be somewhere else?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
Thank-you.
As a rough comparator, I tried to make a comparison with all conservation and restoration expenditure on all 42 English CofE Cathedrals over the last 30-50 years, but the data is not easy to find. It would be more if development and facilities expenditure is included.
Somewhere like major Medieval Cathedrals such as Canterbury or Durham is likely to be of the order of £80-100+m over the period. Somewhere less prominent, smaller, or post-Medieval (eg Southwell or Carlisle) would perhaps be more like £30-60m of that.
Cathedral and precinct upkeep for York Minster were just under £4m for 2023 - down on the year before. A crude 30 year calculation on that number would give you £120M in costs.
Apart from Westminster Hall most of the Palace of Westminster is 19th century after the earlier palace burnt down. Whereas at least half of cathedrals are medieval
For York Minster? Yes and no; there were major rebuilds after fires in 1829, 1840, and 1984. The Minster's biggest win is that they've accepted that they need permanent stonemasons and a gradual rotating scaffolding presence to perform continuous external and internal maintenance - something I don't believe Westminster has.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
AIUI the cost is because they want to rebuild the entire building while leaving only the facade in place, but everyone working there stays in place working there during the works.
It could be done in less than a decade for something like £5bn if everyone moved out. It could be done in even less time and for even less money if they reduced the scope to what’s actually required in terms of asbestos removal and redoing utilities.
Thank-you.
As a rough comparator, I tried to make a comparison with all conservation and restoration expenditure on all 42 English CofE Cathedrals over the last 30-50 years, but the data is not easy to find. It would be more if development and facilities expenditure is included.
Somewhere like major Medieval Cathedrals such as Canterbury or Durham is likely to be of the order of £80-100+m over the period. Somewhere less prominent, smaller, or post-Medieval (eg Southwell or Carlisle) would perhaps be more like £30-60m of that.
Cathedral and precinct upkeep for York Minster were just under £4m for 2023 - down on the year before. A crude 30 year calculation on that number would give you £120M in costs.
Thank-you.
That's a useful number - as another the Durham Cathedral "we need this much money to run the cathedral" is of the order of £60k per week aiui at present. Southwell Minster is around £20k to £25k per week.
In categories we have routine maintenance, restoration & conservation of fabric, development (eg new restaurant, silver gallery), enhancement (eg new art or devotional work, stained glass windows). And the comparison with the Westminster project would only cover some of those categories. But these are all very ballpark.
That's quite disturbing when you consider it doesn't include Poland. Post-Wall Poland has locked itself to USA more strongly than Post-Suez UK did. If they haven't got a positive opinion of a US President, something has gone wrong.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
Over 150 years? Isn't it 929 years (for Westminster Hall).
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
My reaction to that story was that the "40 billion and 60 years" estimate looked like the option you put in the list to get the person making the decision to pick the other, saner choice...
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
Over 150 years? Isn't it 929 years (for Westminster Hall).
Yes bits of it for sure, but the Pugin work is much more recent.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
On the whole, yes
Really? Tell that to Arsenal fans, about to win the league, or Everton fans in their new home. New grounds have improved the experience for fans no end.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
Over 150 years? Isn't it 929 years (for Westminster Hall).
I think that is roughly the time at which Victorian architecture gets damned expensive to maintain. Experience of all those bloody neo-Gothic churches built by the Victorians, or grafted onto anything Medieval still standing back then, would bear this out. This is one reason why if your new house has not had it's roof done since the Victorians, you should go for a 1920s terrace, not an 1880s terrace.
I spot a collective desire to avoid addressing hard decisions.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
My reaction to that story was that the "40 billion and 60 years" estimate looked like the option you put in the list to get the person making the decision to pick the other, saner choice...
£40 billion and 60 years! They must have got Enzo who's supposed to be doing my bathroom in France
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
On the whole, yes
Really? Tell that to Arsenal fans, about to win the league, or Everton fans in their new home. New grounds have improved the experience for fans no end.
I think that football fans on the whole think that Highbury and Goodison Park were better than their replacements. Winning the league has nothing to do with it.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
On the whole, yes
Really? Tell that to Arsenal fans, about to win the league, or Everton fans in their new home. New grounds have improved the experience for fans no end.
I think that football fans on the whole think that Highbury and Goodison Park were better than their replacements. Winning the league has nothing to do with it.
Do they think that? Really? Is there a survey somewhere?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
“Westminster” is the same as the “Elysee Palace”, the “Kremlin” or the “White House” as a synonym for our Government. It has been a symbol of British power for centuries.
Yes but not specifically the current building, which was completed in the mid Victorian era. Government has been based in the area for a lot longer, but that doesn't mean it must remain.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
On the whole, yes
Really? Tell that to Arsenal fans, about to win the league, or Everton fans in their new home. New grounds have improved the experience for fans no end.
I think that football fans on the whole think that Highbury and Goodison Park were better than their replacements. Winning the league has nothing to do with it.
More historic. More memories. More emotion tied up. All yes. But better? Goodison Park wasn't better by any other criteria. Not least to the 13000+ extra who can now actually attend. And see the penalty area as well.
Comments
This has only happened since your first post so keep going
https://x.com/i/status/2021311990392852903
And hello.
The surprise is that Labour’s insurgents have learned nothing from Tory self-destruction. If they had any economic sense or understanding of global markets they would bide their time, ignore the noise, and wait for a cyclical recovery to lift the party’s fortunes.
Banking experts Alvarez & Marsal estimate that easier capital buffers for lenders should inject an extra £350bn into the British financial system. The stars are aligned for a powerful cycle of credit expansion. Productivity is soaring at the fastest rate in a generation as AI takes off.
Only utter fools would risk throwing this into jeopardy by precipitating a gilts and sterling crisis, and inflicting months of internecine Labour warfare on the country.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/10/the-starmer-palace-coup-is-a-national-disgrace/
It was that they plan to scrap the Treasury in favour of Dept for Growth
Fishguard North East (Pembrokeshire) Council By-Election Result:
🌼 PLC: 33.8% (New)
🔶 LDM: 18.0% (New)
➡️ RFM: 12.7% (New)
🌹 LAB: 11.1% (-47.9)
🙋 Ind: 10.5% (New)
🌳 CON: 9.2% (-31.9)
🙋 Ind: 4.7% (New)
Plaid Cymru GAIN from Labour.
First to 4th in a By Election losing 80% of previous vote but on the upside he got a 38 sec standing ovation from the PLP
He is a fundamentally decent bloke doing a job where he is sadly out of his depth, and just doesn’t have the support of those around him.
No. Not Keir Starmer.
I’m talking about Thomas Frank,
#COYS #sacked
So the hospitals are always falling down. But they are always hiring more nurses.
There is a wider problem that the usual kneejerk ITS-WOKE criticism overlooks, which is the show's structure is fucked. It started in the Sixties as a 26-episode-per-season show split into six or seven stories that were around four episodes long, and a lot of the show's characteristics - cliffhangers, running down corridors - were offshoots of that. Then the 2000's reboot copied the Buffy structure - ten to thirteen episodes a season, each self-contained with occasional two-parters - and it's kept to that ever since. Which is a problem because the audience for that structure barely exists in the UK anymore and doesn't exist worldwide. Nowadays a show has to be a self-contained season to be downloaded and binged at the viewer's convenience, and Doctor Who in general and RTD2 in particular can't get their head around
Formats don't last for ever. Witty Noel Coward plays died. Bedroom farces died. Variety shows died. Even reality TV and talent shows are on their way out. Will even televised drama survive in a world of YouTube, individual creators and AI slop? You tell me.
Maybe im being a bit harsh as they did outperform by a few %, i am assuming they absorbed some of the local Green vote as Greens didnt front up. Fishguard is on the Ceredigion fringe so its a traditional area of Liberal activity.
But, yes, i concede they did better than many expected. Its a very small ward though which is why i was talking mainly demonstrably rather than a full read in to Welsh politics
Huh. Also NOTAM issued for New Orleans for five days. Same Special Security Reasons.
And Santa Teresa, New Mexico.
LAB:⠀
5.5%
⠀
CON:⠀
9.2%
⠀
RFM:⠀
17.4%
⠀
PLC:⠀
42.9%
⠀
LDM:⠀
13.9%
⠀
GRN:⠀
11.1
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/2021340188069519755
The Islamic Republic stated that Starlink's operation in Iran is an "illegal operation" and "unauthorized military use of a commercial satellite mega-constellation" that violates the nation's sovereignty.
Russia suggested that SpaceX's network could be in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and is demanding international negotiations to limit the number of new satellites and clarify the military use of satellite frequencies.
Sinn Féin against independence for other people.
Yo could also block book the hotels for when Parliament is seating
Temporary Tory around 2010, BNP and other extremist links (that I think is where he perhaps learnt social media tactics; BNP were good at it) plus he looks in photos like a mini-me Nick Griffin), claimed to be a 'proud Nazi and Antisemite'. Now he has been unmasked it's "Not my view, Gov." **
Internet history of fake stories, hoaxes, targeting individuals by claiming that they are paedophiles or 'homosexuals', serious abuse of Luciana Berger, and multiple resulting prison sentences. Quite similar to Yaxley-Lennon, with a lesser amount of violent crime, and no extensive fraud.
And now he is a Farage Fluffer, and wants to make money from social media.
** He claims to be a satirist and journalist, and to have engaged in extensive anti-extremism programmes in schools etc. Whether that is material to my potential view of him. The common pattern afaics is that "we detest Muslims" has replaced "we detest Jews" across the Right.
* https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/38162888/keir-starmer-morgan-mcsweeney-trolled-ai-video/
Under Truman the White House was gutted and rebuilt totally, leaving just the facade. There are gaps between the inside rooms and the outside walls. It's a plot point in "Olympus Has Fallen"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Reconstruction
Even if they didn’t decamp to another city, there’s still plenty of places in London that could be made to work on a temporary basis.
As a rough comparator, I tried to make a comparison with all conservation and restoration expenditure on all 42 English CofE Cathedrals over the last 30-50 years, but the data is not easy to find. It would be more if development and facilities expenditure is included.
Somewhere like major Medieval Cathedrals such as Canterbury or Durham is likely to be of the order of £80-100+m over the period. Somewhere less prominent, smaller, or post-Medieval (eg Southwell or Carlisle) would perhaps be more like £30-60m of that.
With no local income tax, a lot of people (Americans mostly, but also people in sales jobs) earn a nominal salary and a bonus paid in actual cash.
It's classic socialise the costs, privatise that the profits. Should be dealt with one way or the other.
Australia's Marsh out with 'testicular bleeding'
Australia captain Mitchell Marsh was ruled out of their opening T20 World Cup game against Ireland after suffering "testicular bleeding", with Steve Smith called up as cover.
The 34-year-old was struck in the groin area while receiving throw downs during a training session in Colombo on Sunday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c4gjlgpgny0o
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Rep. Ro Khanna says the files Trump ordered the FBI to redact in March were SURVIVOR TESTIMONY.
Not names. Not contact info. The 302 reports where they gave details of horrific abuse and identified men responsible.
They didn’t redact survivors. They silenced them:
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/2021409142980948156
Get Well soon Tom
And not because they are better than anyone else's.
This is the third legal challenge trying to stop Sizewell C.
Britain makes it too easy to delay infrastructure projects with lawfare.
We need to make sure that organisations like Together Against Sizewell C bear the costs of their actions.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/2021521383386497313
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The state pension requires NI payments, so people who have lived their life abroad can’t come back and get a pension.
However young graduates emigrating is a massive problem, it’s not only a brain drain, not only a student loan liability, but many of them will then stay abroad for various reasons, perhaps they’ll find their calling in life to be somewhere else?
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
https://x.com/rshereme/status/2021199537570779252?s=20
And move parliament elsewhere.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
That's a useful number - as another the Durham Cathedral "we need this much money to run the cathedral" is of the order of £60k per week aiui at present. Southwell Minster is around £20k to £25k per week.
In categories we have routine maintenance, restoration & conservation of fabric, development (eg new restaurant, silver gallery), enhancement (eg new art or devotional work, stained glass windows). And the comparison with the Westminster project would only cover some of those categories. But these are all very ballpark.
https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/2021499663363551310
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend.
Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
Are all the football clubs who have moved to magnificent new stadia diminished because of it?
Kemi Badenoch stands up and and attacks Labour about rapists and dangers to womensat next to ker is the dishonourable MP for Rayleigh and Wickford.
Good god
Starmer needs to point it out.
She refers to paedophiles and rapists and apologists.
Look who is sitting next to you Kemi
I spot a collective desire to avoid addressing hard decisions.
Pushing it down the road is far easier.
I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task.
And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
So predictable Kemi
Tory benches very quiet
That faux pa'x will haunt her
Something along these lines?
No way for a PM to react
Well done Ed
More
More
More
It is not a good look
Time his mps found an alternative
More of angry Starmer is not a good look
'Im actually awesome' when your approval is -50, lol
Eviscerated
Very weak
Kemi neutered
All yes.
But better?
Goodison Park wasn't better by any other criteria.
Not least to the 13000+ extra who can now actually attend.
And see the penalty area as well.