Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
We had a lot of economic growth in the 50s and 60s and living standards improved dramatically over that time.
What's your point?
They knocked down loads of beautiful buildings and replaced them with utter dogshit
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
I’d love to know the legislative basis for that, does anyone here have the details?
It's called a loan agreement, i.e. a contract.
Penalties in contracts are usually seen as unlawful unless there is a legitimate interest (geddit). Usually its purpose is to enforce the main terms but such penalties can be challenged if they fall outside the narrow definition of LI. See Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi.
Penalties are usually not allowable but liquidated damages covering losses due to breach most certainly are allowable.
They tend to be pre-agreed, added to the contract over and above the general terms, and capped.
The old automotive OEM wheeze of threatening £10,000 a minute if you stop the line leaps to mind.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
Parliament has been operating for centuries, yes. However that building was only first built many hundreds of years after our Parliament began.
Parliament (democracy, Magna Carta etc) and Parliament (building, Big Ben, etc) are not the same thing.
The former Parliament began centuries before the building Parliament was built and could cope being relocated, temporarily or permanently, into another building while the Houses of Parliament are properly refurbished for use while not in-use, or turned into a museum.
I rarely watch PMQ’s, been out in spite of the weather. But catching up on Twitter this response to Ed Davey from a clearly rattled Sturmer is a disgrace.
It was a crap answer to a very well constructed question from Davey (but I would say that wouldn’t I), but I don’t think it was particularly outrageous. Angry whataboutery is pretty normal PMQs fare.
Starmer should have channeled @taz and called him the hammer of the subpostmasters. That scandal would be a bit more on point given it’s about the question of proper ministerial due diligence, criminal establishment behaviour and being lied to.
That would have been better but, as I said upthread, his response was an utter disgrace to a fair question.
I rarely watch PMQ’s, been out in spite of the weather. But catching up on Twitter this response to Ed Davey from a clearly rattled Sturmer is a disgrace.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
I’d love to know the legislative basis for that, does anyone here have the details?
It's called a loan agreement, i.e. a contract.
Penalties in contracts are usually seen as unlawful unless there is a legitimate interest (geddit). Usually its purpose is to enforce the main terms but such penalties can be challenged if they fall outside the narrow definition of LI. See Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi.
Yes, I am aware as I am a commercial solicitor. The test is that they can’t be out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interests. Not really relevant here.
In contracts I’ve dealt with for capital liquidated damages tend to be a percentage of the contract. Same for components.
It is not reasonable, in my view, where you have a contract for £500K and expect LD’s of seven figures if it goes wrong and any seller accepting that is nuts or very well insured.
I rarely watch PMQ’s, been out in spite of the weather. But catching up on Twitter this response to Ed Davey from a clearly rattled Sturmer is a disgrace.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
We had a lot of economic growth in the 50s and 60s and living standards improved dramatically over that time.
What's your point?
They knocked down loads of beautiful buildings and replaced them with utter dogshit
And living standards improved. Lots of buildings needed replacing.
We could do with much more construction like we had then. Especially considering we have massively grown our population more than we have invested in construction.
If we did invest in construction like we did then, we might actually have some decent growth and improvements in living standards, like we had then.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
I’d love to know the legislative basis for that, does anyone here have the details?
It's called a loan agreement, i.e. a contract.
Penalties in contracts are usually seen as unlawful unless there is a legitimate interest (geddit). Usually its purpose is to enforce the main terms but such penalties can be challenged if they fall outside the narrow definition of LI. See Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi.
Yes, I am aware as I am a commercial solicitor. The test is that they can’t be out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interests. Not really relevant here.
In contracts I’ve dealt with for capital liquidated damages tend to be a percentage of the contract. Same for components.
It is not reasonable, in my view, where you have a contract for £500K and expect LD’s of seven figures if it goes wrong and any seller accepting that is nuts or very well insured.
Liquidated damages in construction can be capped but isn’t usually in my experience.
It’s difficult (although not impossible) to insure against liquidated damages as it’s a contractual liability
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
I'm with Leon on this. I cycle past the palace of Westminster regularly and I still get a thrill to see it. There's always a young Chinese couple getting their wedding photo taken in front of it too - it is absolutely a symbol of who we are and what we stand for. It is the beating heart of our body politic, the theatre where much of our island story has played out. It is completely irreplaceable.
This is a decade-old ten minute Newsnight report that does show some of the problems, including Laura Kuenssberg breaking bits off in her hands.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
Parliament has been operating for centuries, yes. However that building was only first built many hundreds of years after our Parliament began.
Parliament (democracy, Magna Carta etc) and Parliament (building, Big Ben, etc) are not the same thing.
The former Parliament began centuries before the building Parliament was built and could cope being relocated, temporarily or permanently, into another building while the Houses of Parliament are properly refurbished for use while not in-use, or turned into a museum.
Westminister Hall is from at least William the Conqueror's time iirc.
So basically there is 1000 year history of Palace of Westminster.
I rarely watch PMQ’s, been out in spite of the weather. But catching up on Twitter this response to Ed Davey from a clearly rattled Sturmer is a disgrace.
It was a crap answer to a very well constructed question from Davey (but I would say that wouldn’t I), but I don’t think it was particularly outrageous. Angry whataboutery is pretty normal PMQs fare.
"I'll take no lessons from XXX" usually means I'm bang to rights but your lot did it too/first.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
I’d love to know the legislative basis for that, does anyone here have the details?
It's called a loan agreement, i.e. a contract.
Penalties in contracts are usually seen as unlawful unless there is a legitimate interest (geddit). Usually its purpose is to enforce the main terms but such penalties can be challenged if they fall outside the narrow definition of LI. See Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi.
Yes, I am aware as I am a commercial solicitor. The test is that they can’t be out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interests. Not really relevant here.
Perhaps it is. The penalty appears to be levied due to non-contact with the SLC. It's rather one sided in that people may not be able to contact them due to circumstances beyond their control or if the SLC has lost the paperwork (Interpretation Act?)
It's academic though until someone e.g a law graduate, tries to take the issue on.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
I'm with Leon on this. I cycle past the palace of Westminster regularly and I still get a thrill to see it. There's always a young Chinese couple getting their wedding photo taken in front of it too - it is absolutely a symbol of who we are and what we stand for. It is the beating heart of our body politic, the theatre where much of our island story has played out. It is completely irreplaceable.
This is a decade-old ten minute Newsnight report that does show some of the problems, including Laura Kuenssberg breaking bits off in her hands.
Its possible that some of them don't even bother doing the course but take out the loan, get a job and then disappear into the black economy.
There’s definitely still plenty of fake colleges around, but I don’t know if the students there can get loans. It does appear to look an awful lot like the Quality Learing Center in Minneapolis.
There’s a lot of twentysomething Brits in my part of the world at the moment, and one of the reasons to emigrate for a few years as a new graduate is to get away from the student loan burden and save money for a house deposit.
Except you can’t get away from it and the SLC will chase you for the money when you return with fees and penalties.
I think it depends on the country. I don't think the SLC is able to dock payrolls in the Middle East like it can in Australia or the US.
They don’t dock payrolls but they still expect payment.
Link for “fees and penalties”?
Google it yourself. You get penalty arrears plus obviously compound interest on the whole amount.
It was your assertion not mine. What are the penalties?
I’d love to know the legislative basis for that, does anyone here have the details?
It's called a loan agreement, i.e. a contract.
Penalties in contracts are usually seen as unlawful unless there is a legitimate interest (geddit). Usually its purpose is to enforce the main terms but such penalties can be challenged if they fall outside the narrow definition of LI. See Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi.
Yes, I am aware as I am a commercial solicitor. The test is that they can’t be out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interests. Not really relevant here.
Perhaps it is. The penalty appears to be levied due to non-contact with the SLC. It's rather one sided in that people may not be able to contact them due to circumstances beyond their control or if the SLC has lost the paperwork (Interpretation Act?)
It's academic though until someone e.g a law graduate, tries to take the issue on.
As I understand it you have a duty to keep the SLC updated as to your circumstances. Especially if you move abroad for work.
Good luck litigating that one. I am not sure the judge would be sympathetic if you’re funding it out of your tax-free Dubai earnings while the plebs are paying what they should by PAYE.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
Where's this accessibility meme come from? Iis it just made up? In any case, it would would be insane for a 21st century parliament not to have wheelchair access. My local post office has it FFS.
I'd have thought most of the cost is associated with keeping the MPs in the building and stripping all sorts of shitty cladding , plumbing, asbestos, electrics out at the same time. Obviously not comparable but we massively reduced costs on a flat renovation by simply not being there.
Put a big gazebo out on some toxic wasteland in Middlesbrough and you'll find it's complete in no time at all.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
Where's this accessibility meme come from? Iis it just made up? In any case, it would would be insane for a 21st century parliament not to have wheelchair access. My local post office has it FFS.
I'd have thought most of the cost is associated with keeping the MPs in the building at the same time, and stripping all sorts of shitty cladding , plumbing, electrics out at the same time. Obviously not comparable but we massively reduced costs on a flat renovation by simply not being there.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
I agree - they risk Starmer getting some sympathy if they think he's being punished for others' crimes. Starmer had no connection with Epstein whatsoever, obviously, and more generally despite his errors it's absolutely clear that he has no truck with padeophiles or other sex offenders. But it's as if some on the right are encouraging the view that Starmer was himself a perpetrator.
I tend to agree too, and I am anything but a fan of Starmer now. For me, the attempts to equate what's happened with Doyle with the absolute horlicks Starmer made over appointing the notorious Mandelson given his role with Epstein were just over the top. There's no real evidence that Starmer had any great involvement in the former. I don't expect PMs to delve in detail over background checks to each and every appointment to the Lords.
Also, I don't mind Starmer showing a bit of passion in his responses to Davey, who would like us all to forget that he facilitated the start of Conservative austerity by spending 5 years allowing Cameron and Osborne to kick it all off for fear of the electoral consequences if the LDs pulled out of the coalition. An occasional reminder is not out of place. If the issue is that his response didn't answer the question, then next time maybe Davey might be reminded instead of his hypocrisy in asking such a question. Who was it that failed to see what he should have or more likely conveniently chose to ignore it as he let Vennalls get away with everything during the Post Office scandal? That ruined thousands of lives directly due to Davey, and it was very much within the remit of Davey's day job to expect him to have got a grasp of what was going on.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
We had a lot of economic growth in the 50s and 60s and living standards improved dramatically over that time.
What's your point?
They knocked down loads of beautiful buildings and replaced them with utter dogshit
OTOH, knocking those buildings down and replacing them is giving today's builders a lot of work. And when we knock those buildings down in 30 ish years the builders of 2055 will get a lot of work then...
Elon Musk told employees at xAI, his artificial intelligence company, on Tuesday that the company needed a factory on the moon to build A.I. satellites and a massive catapult to launch them into space.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
We had a lot of economic growth in the 50s and 60s and living standards improved dramatically over that time.
What's your point?
They knocked down loads of beautiful buildings and replaced them with utter dogshit
OTOH, knocking those buildings down and replacing them is giving today's builders a lot of work. And when we knock those buildings down in 30 ish years the builders of 2055 will get a lot of work then...
Aye but it doesn’t change the point.
Meanwhile, the Poles rebuilt Warsaw after the war as it was.
Solid number January 2026 (+130k). However, the change in total nonfarm employment for 2025 was revised from +584,000 to +181,000 (seasonally adjusted). So much weaker than initially estimated
So you can believe the good number, or the bad number, or both, or neither
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
I'm with Leon on this. I cycle past the palace of Westminster regularly and I still get a thrill to see it. There's always a young Chinese couple getting their wedding photo taken in front of it too - it is absolutely a symbol of who we are and what we stand for. It is the beating heart of our body politic, the theatre where much of our island story has played out. It is completely irreplaceable.
This is a decade-old ten minute Newsnight report that does show some of the problems, including Laura Kuenssberg breaking bits off in her hands.
Leon is right. As a unique building, we should forget about heating and access and just patch it up.
ETA and also check if the 10x inflation in estimated costs is genuine or due to gold-plating refurbishment.
Trying to keep it occupied while it is refurbished absolutely is gold-plating and completely unnecessary.
Maybe. It is easy to suggest we move Parliament to Manchester or Birmingham but how are we to move Downing Street as well, and all the other ministries? On the other hand, there is a great deal that could be closed temporarily while work is done, for instance bars and libraries, not to mention tourism.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
I'm with Leon on this. I cycle past the palace of Westminster regularly and I still get a thrill to see it. There's always a young Chinese couple getting their wedding photo taken in front of it too - it is absolutely a symbol of who we are and what we stand for. It is the beating heart of our body politic, the theatre where much of our island story has played out. It is completely irreplaceable.
This is a decade-old ten minute Newsnight report that does show some of the problems, including Laura Kuenssberg breaking bits off in her hands.
Leon is right. As a unique building, we should forget about heating and access and just patch it up.
ETA and also check if the 10x inflation in estimated costs is genuine or due to gold-plating refurbishment.
Employ permanent stonemasons and replace those failing blocks on a rolling basis. Put them in the corner Victoria Tower Gardens and make them a tourist attraction. The best time to start this would have been decades ago; the second best time would be today.
There's a group of YouTubers who use science-fiction concepts to explore politics. I don't bother you with them often because it's an essentially dumb concept. But one of them (Damien Walter) is pretty smart and in a recent note he made the following points.
The Left has a major, intractable strategic problem. Which is this. The Left believed it was winning at modernity. But modernity...is done.
By the late decades of the 20th century the Left had a broad dominance over the Right. It was more powerful in government. It controlled the media, academia and other institutions. It was even imposing action on global issues like climate change. It had the modern world going in something like the direction it wanted. And then the modern world itself started falling apart. And now is in full collapse.
That doesn't mean we're going back to the past. Quite the opposite we're accelerating into an unknowable future. And the Left is stuck in a state of denial about this.
At the beginning of the 20th century the Left was focussed on the future. Socialism. Communism. Social democracy. [These] Were speculative futures. By the end of the 20th century many of these dreams were reality. Universal education. Public healthcare. Progressive taxation.These were big wins. [But] That are now collapsing as the modern world they were built upon is ending.
This leaves the Left today as backward looking, even conservative. The idea that dominates the Left today is trying to get back to New Deal social democracy. A century old compromise with capitalism that was never all that in the first place.
Meanwhile, the Right, who never much liked modernity anyway, have realised they are happy to embrace the future...IF they can remake it in their own image. Hence we are crashing towards technofeudalism. And all the Left has to offer is some two hundred year old reheated Marxism to chew on. And a hysterical response to AI, as though if we just close our eyes the future will go away....
...We need a better future. A better story. An actual viable story that inspires the Left to stop mourning modernity, and get back in the fight for what the future will be.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
Support the Northern City bid for the olympics - then build athlete accommodation which could be switched to MPs immediately afterwards.
I actual wonder if we could use the New Town proposed where the ECML meets East West Rail would be a good place - it's not built on yet and is just fields
Or we could override Universal and build Parliament 2 in Bedford.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
Doesn't the EU have a spare parliament? Nigel would be comfortable as he's been there many times before.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
The MPs could grab a maccies after work like the rest of us
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
I agree - they risk Starmer getting some sympathy if they think he's being punished for others' crimes. Starmer had no connection with Epstein whatsoever, obviously, and more generally despite his errors it's absolutely clear that he has no truck with padeophiles or other sex offenders. But it's as if some on the right are encouraging the view that Starmer was himself a perpetrator.
I tend to agree too, and I am anything but a fan of Starmer now. For me, the attempts to equate what's happened with Doyle with the absolute horlicks Starmer made over appointing the notorious Mandelson given his role with Epstein were just over the top. There's no real evidence that Starmer had any great involvement in the former. I don't expect PMs to delve in detail over background checks to each and every appointment to the Lords.
Also, I don't mind Starmer showing a bit of passion in his responses to Davey, who would like us all to forget that he facilitated the start of Conservative austerity by spending 5 years allowing Cameron and Osborne to kick it all off for fear of the electoral consequences if the LDs pulled out of the coalition. An occasional reminder is not out of place. If the issue is that his response didn't answer the question, then next time maybe Davey might be reminded instead of his hypocrisy in asking such a question. Who was it that failed to see what he should have or more likely conveniently chose to ignore it as he let Vennalls get away with everything during the Post Office scandal? That ruined thousands of lives directly due to Davey, and it was very much within the remit of Davey's day job to expect him to have got a grasp of what was going on.
Spot on.
But we must remember the Right can be bitchy spiteful, downright abusive, shot, bellow, Hector, rant, verbally offensive and it's all OK
The minute the left ie centre left give just a little bit back its simply not done, unparliamentary.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
The MPs could grab a maccies after work like the rest of us
There's a group of YouTubers who use science-fiction concepts to explore politics. I don't bother you with them often because it's an essentially dumb concept. But one of them (Damien Walter) is pretty smart and in a recent note he made the following points.
The Left has a major, intractable strategic problem. Which is this. The Left believed it was winning at modernity. But modernity...is done.
By the late decades of the 20th century the Left had a broad dominance over the Right. It was more powerful in government. It controlled the media, academia and other institutions. It was even imposing action on global issues like climate change. It had the modern world going in something like the direction it wanted. And then the modern world itself started falling apart. And now is in full collapse.
That doesn't mean we're going back to the past. Quite the opposite we're accelerating into an unknowable future. And the Left is stuck in a state of denial about this.
At the beginning of the 20th century the Left was focussed on the future. Socialism. Communism. Social democracy. [These] Were speculative futures. By the end of the 20th century many of these dreams were reality. Universal education. Public healthcare. Progressive taxation.These were big wins. [But] That are now collapsing as the modern world they were built upon is ending.
This leaves the Left today as backward looking, even conservative. The idea that dominates the Left today is trying to get back to New Deal social democracy. A century old compromise with capitalism that was never all that in the first place.
Meanwhile, the Right, who never much liked modernity anyway, have realised they are happy to embrace the future...IF they can remake it in their own image. Hence we are crashing towards technofeudalism. And all the Left has to offer is some two hundred year old reheated Marxism to chew on. And a hysterical response to AI, as though if we just close our eyes the future will go away....
...We need a better future. A better story. An actual viable story that inspires the Left to stop mourning modernity, and get back in the fight for what the future will be.
One of the left's biggest problems IMHO is that it tends to think teleologically. Both Marxism and Liberalism tend to think of history as a march to a preordained future, hence the meaningless cliche "wrong side of history. That one really boils my piss. The Vandals were on the "wrong side of history", given they've literally become associated with meaningless destruction, but I don't think that being told that would have cut much ice while they were sacking Rome.
Elon Musk told employees at xAI, his artificial intelligence company, on Tuesday that the company needed a factory on the moon to build A.I. satellites and a massive catapult to launch them into space.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
We had a lot of economic growth in the 50s and 60s and living standards improved dramatically over that time.
What's your point?
They knocked down loads of beautiful buildings and replaced them with utter dogshit
You could build a new 6-lane motorway down the embankment instead to boost economic growth. A cloverleaf in St James's Park, Buckingham Palace could be replaced with a massive multistorey car park. All this additional traffic would cause lots of congestion though, so pave over the Thames and plough more motorway through Soho. St Paul's would make a great location for the world's most powerful telecoms mast (though it might knock a few planes down out of City). You can get additional 50,000 cars into Regent's Park.
You seem obsessed with this. Have you some evidence you need to share with the police? Do you not subscribe to innocent until proven guilty? Are you in receipt of payment to bang out endless rubbish on PB? Most of us do it for free...
"History is women following behind with the bucket."
So Morgan McSweeney has been replaced by Jill Cuthbertson and Vidhya Alakeson. Antonia Romeo is about to take over from Chris Wormald. Steph Driver may return to fill Tim Allan's vacancy.
Sense that now there's a mess to mop up, get the women in
Hearing similar things about the Labour leadership - that it has to be Rayner or Powell or Mahmood, because we just can't have another clever boy at the helm with his clever boys club.
Which is great. But it would be nice if women could get the top jobs that weren't just about clearing up the mess
The one thing the past shows us is that whenever women are put in the top/senior political positions they do an amazing job that makes the country wealthy, respected, organised, well run and they do lots of nice things that make them very popular, stop wars and ensure equality for all.
Generally speaking Britain's/England's female monarchs have been better regarded than the blokes - Victoria, Elizabeth's I & II - but for Prime Ministers I wouldn't say it has quite worked out that way yet.
Maybe a female Labour PM will be more successful than the last two female PMs and less divisive than the first one?
That would be a very good thing. But given the current options, it's about as likely that they'd be both divisive and unsuccessful.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
I suspect if Parliament moved to Manchester the resulting boost to the local economy would certainly see more Michelin ranked restaurants among other businesses.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Obviously my personal view is that Manchester is far better than Birmingham as a place to be, but I am absolutely not bothered whether it's Manchester or Birmingham - just get them out of London. Get them to see what the rest of the country is like.
Actually, my preferred place to send them would be Bradford. Somewhere which needs the boost a bit more. Somewhere which will open their eyes to life outside the core cities.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
We had a lot of economic growth in the 50s and 60s and living standards improved dramatically over that time.
What's your point?
They knocked down loads of beautiful buildings and replaced them with utter dogshit
You could build a new 6-lane motorway down the embankment instead to boost economic growth. A cloverleaf in St James's Park, Buckingham Palace could be replaced with a massive multistorey car park. All this additional traffic would cause lots of congestion though, so pave over the Thames and plough more motorway through Soho. St Paul's would make a great location for the world's most powerful telecoms mast (though it might knock a few planes down out of City). You can get additional 50,000 cars into Regent's Park.
At least the GDP wankers will be happy.
As it is currently the degrowth loons and NIMBYs are happy.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Also several Michelin stars in the area, even if Glynn Purnell shut his.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
I agree - they risk Starmer getting some sympathy if they think he's being punished for others' crimes. Starmer had no connection with Epstein whatsoever, obviously, and more generally despite his errors it's absolutely clear that he has no truck with padeophiles or other sex offenders. But it's as if some on the right are encouraging the view that Starmer was himself a perpetrator.
I tend to agree too, and I am anything but a fan of Starmer now. For me, the attempts to equate what's happened with Doyle with the absolute horlicks Starmer made over appointing the notorious Mandelson given his role with Epstein were just over the top. There's no real evidence that Starmer had any great involvement in the former. I don't expect PMs to delve in detail over background checks to each and every appointment to the Lords.
Also, I don't mind Starmer showing a bit of passion in his responses to Davey, who would like us all to forget that he facilitated the start of Conservative austerity by spending 5 years allowing Cameron and Osborne to kick it all off for fear of the electoral consequences if the LDs pulled out of the coalition. An occasional reminder is not out of place. If the issue is that his response didn't answer the question, then next time maybe Davey might be reminded instead of his hypocrisy in asking such a question. Who was it that failed to see what he should have or more likely conveniently chose to ignore it as he let Vennalls get away with everything during the Post Office scandal? That ruined thousands of lives directly due to Davey, and it was very much within the remit of Davey's day job to expect him to have got a grasp of what was going on.
Spot on.
But we must remember the Right can be bitchy spiteful, downright abusive, shot, bellow, Hector, rant, verbally offensive and it's all OK
The minute the left ie centre left give just a little bit back its simply not done, unparliamentary.
They don't like it uppem
More More More
Starmer's going to get a lot more.. how many.e mails are there about Mandleson. Enough to keep.the media happy for eons.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
I agree - they risk Starmer getting some sympathy if they think he's being punished for others' crimes. Starmer had no connection with Epstein whatsoever, obviously, and more generally despite his errors it's absolutely clear that he has no truck with padeophiles or other sex offenders. But it's as if some on the right are encouraging the view that Starmer was himself a perpetrator.
I tend to agree too, and I am anything but a fan of Starmer now. For me, the attempts to equate what's happened with Doyle with the absolute horlicks Starmer made over appointing the notorious Mandelson given his role with Epstein were just over the top. There's no real evidence that Starmer had any great involvement in the former. I don't expect PMs to delve in detail over background checks to each and every appointment to the Lords.
Also, I don't mind Starmer showing a bit of passion in his responses to Davey, who would like us all to forget that he facilitated the start of Conservative austerity by spending 5 years allowing Cameron and Osborne to kick it all off for fear of the electoral consequences if the LDs pulled out of the coalition. An occasional reminder is not out of place. If the issue is that his response didn't answer the question, then next time maybe Davey might be reminded instead of his hypocrisy in asking such a question. Who was it that failed to see what he should have or more likely conveniently chose to ignore it as he let Vennalls get away with everything during the Post Office scandal? That ruined thousands of lives directly due to Davey, and it was very much within the remit of Davey's day job to expect him to have got a grasp of what was going on.
Spot on.
But we must remember the Right can be bitchy spiteful, downright abusive, shot, bellow, Hector, rant, verbally offensive and it's all OK
The minute the left ie centre left give just a little bit back its simply not done, unparliamentary.
They don't like it uppem
More More More
Starmer's going to get a lot more.. how many.e mails are there about Mandleson. Enough to keep.the media happy for eons.
The public will tire of it and want real life politics to be discussed.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Also several Michelin stars in the area, even if Glynn Purnell shut his.
3 in the City Centre still I think
4 or 5 within 20 miles Lichfield, Kenilworth etc
Shame about Purnell
Very precarious business for many big names Chefs for many years.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Obviously my personal view is that Manchester is far better than Birmingham as a place to be, but I am absolutely not bothered whether it's Manchester or Birmingham - just get them out of London. Get them to see what the rest of the country is like.
Actually, my preferred place to send them would be Bradford. Somewhere which needs the boost a bit more. Somewhere which will open their eyes to life outside the core cities.
Just watched PMQs, for the first time in ages. Kemi didn't really lay a glove on Starmer - she's not very good at coming back when he doesn't directly answer her question. Given the week he's had, Starmer was pretty confident and assured, as well as showing a bit of fight.
I thought her comeback on Doyle - "it was on the front page of the Sunday Times" - was pretty good, but her questions were literally, "isn't he ashamed?" when normally PMQs only imply that very heavily.
She needs to have more substantive questions along the lines of, "when did the Prime Minister find out he had appointed a friend of a paedophile to the Lords?" Something specific on detail related to the issue that she can hope to catch him in a lie on, or show that he had a chance to prevent the appointment.
Starmer's answers were shockingly poor, though.
They need to be careful not to overpush and provoke sympathy - the 'others let him down, hes not a monster himself' reaction
I agree - they risk Starmer getting some sympathy if they think he's being punished for others' crimes. Starmer had no connection with Epstein whatsoever, obviously, and more generally despite his errors it's absolutely clear that he has no truck with padeophiles or other sex offenders. But it's as if some on the right are encouraging the view that Starmer was himself a perpetrator.
I tend to agree too, and I am anything but a fan of Starmer now. For me, the attempts to equate what's happened with Doyle with the absolute horlicks Starmer made over appointing the notorious Mandelson given his role with Epstein were just over the top. There's no real evidence that Starmer had any great involvement in the former. I don't expect PMs to delve in detail over background checks to each and every appointment to the Lords.
Also, I don't mind Starmer showing a bit of passion in his responses to Davey, who would like us all to forget that he facilitated the start of Conservative austerity by spending 5 years allowing Cameron and Osborne to kick it all off for fear of the electoral consequences if the LDs pulled out of the coalition. An occasional reminder is not out of place. If the issue is that his response didn't answer the question, then next time maybe Davey might be reminded instead of his hypocrisy in asking such a question. Who was it that failed to see what he should have or more likely conveniently chose to ignore it as he let Vennalls get away with everything during the Post Office scandal? That ruined thousands of lives directly due to Davey, and it was very much within the remit of Davey's day job to expect him to have got a grasp of what was going on.
Spot on.
But we must remember the Right can be bitchy spiteful, downright abusive, shot, bellow, Hector, rant, verbally offensive and it's all OK
The minute the left ie centre left give just a little bit back its simply not done, unparliamentary.
They don't like it uppem
More More More
Starmer's going to get a lot more.. how many.e mails are there about Mandleson. Enough to keep.the media happy for eons.
The public will tire of it and want real life politics to be discussed.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
If Parliament wants us to believe they live in the same real world that the rest of us do, then they must realise that spending that amount of money on what is essentially accommodation for them is completely absurd.
If they want to make the case for the HoC as a national monument, then do so. Conserving it on those terms would cost a fraction of what they are proposing to spend. Don't pretend they need it as their workplace; they don't.
You’re the kind of person who thinks it saves money to do things “on the cheap” multiple times rather than properly once, aren’t you?
No. I am the kind of person who believe we should build things for a particular purpose.
The Houses of Parliament simply don't work in the modern world, and trying to make them conform to current building standards in terms of safety, access, and energy efficiency is a fool's task. And attempting to do so while they are occupied is utter madness.
That’s the same arguments the planners in the 50s and 60s used and look how that turned out
We had a lot of economic growth in the 50s and 60s and living standards improved dramatically over that time.
What's your point?
They knocked down loads of beautiful buildings and replaced them with utter dogshit
Not dogshit. Dogshit starts brown and then goes white-grey over time. The buildings started white-grey and then went brown as the rebar got exposed and started rusting.
Australia: Former deputy leader of the Liberals (LIB, Centre-right) and Hume MP, Angus Taylor, has resigned from the shadow cabinet. It is widely expected that Taylor will challenge Sussan Ley for leadership following the resignation."
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Obviously my personal view is that Manchester is far better than Birmingham as a place to be, but I am absolutely not bothered whether it's Manchester or Birmingham - just get them out of London. Get them to see what the rest of the country is like.
Actually, my preferred place to send them would be Bradford. Somewhere which needs the boost a bit more. Somewhere which will open their eyes to life outside the core cities.
Historically I'd quite like York.
It's gods own county after all
York really doesn’t have the space.
Bradford has always been my choice simply to see how quickly NPR and HS2 would be built in its entirety - but to be honest I don’t actually care, you just need a new building somewhere
The thing is now would be the perfect time to do something dramatic and move Parliament elsewhere as part of a plan to rebuild 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.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Obviously my personal view is that Manchester is far better than Birmingham as a place to be, but I am absolutely not bothered whether it's Manchester or Birmingham - just get them out of London. Get them to see what the rest of the country is like.
Actually, my preferred place to send them would be Bradford. Somewhere which needs the boost a bit more. Somewhere which will open their eyes to life outside the core cities.
Historically I'd quite like York.
It's gods own county after all
York really doesn’t have the space.
Bradford has always been my choice simply to see how quickly NPR and HS2 would be built in its entirety - but to be honest I don’t actually care, you just need a new building somewhere
The thing is now would be the perfect time to do something dramatic and move Parliament elsewhere as part of a plan to rebuild the country.
Still looking for it, as everyone else is, I guess
I found it
Idea 1 - replacement the treasury with something focused on growth - hmm may work Idea 2 - locate the new department in Birmingham - nope that’s a mistake.
As I said you split the treasury - move the day to day bits out of London so what’s left is the growth building department in London
* were Parliament to be outside London the opposite is true, leave the treasury there but move the other bits to where Parliament is moved to
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Also several Michelin stars in the area, even if Glynn Purnell shut his.
3 in the City Centre still I think
4 or 5 within 20 miles Lichfield, Kenilworth etc
Shame about Purnell
Very precarious business for many big names Chefs for many years.
Purnell is still plying his trade. He just shut his flagship restaurant, Purnell’s, he has a couple of others. He has a new place coming soon.
Akhtar Islam has said he makes more with his mail order curries than from Opheem, which is 2 star.
The guy from Lichfield came to a food event locally, 20 top chefs turn up and cook a small plate and it’s a tenner a pop for charity.
His cow pie was superb. My wife and I both reckoned it was our favourite of the day.
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
Lord Longford famously believed that you should hate the sin and love the sinner, which is why he spent many years visiting Myra Hindley in prison.
That is certainly the Christian approach, which has much to admire about it. Hindley, though. That really is taking it to extremes.
A head-shrinker friend tried some prison visiting. She said that several of the prison reforms types seemed to regard the prisoners as the wronged parties, and the courts, victims etc as the problem.
Apparently reading the case files rather than just taking the prisoners word for what they did was “unpleasant”.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Also several Michelin stars in the area, even if Glynn Purnell shut his.
3 in the City Centre still I think
4 or 5 within 20 miles Lichfield, Kenilworth etc
Shame about Purnell
Very precarious business for many big names Chefs for many years.
Purnell is still plying his trade. He just shut his flagship restaurant, Purnell’s, he has a couple of others. He has a new place coming soon.
Akhtar Islam has said he makes more with his mail order curries than from Opheem, which is 2 star.
The guy from Lichfield came to a food event locally, 20 top chefs turn up and cook a small plate and it’s a tenner a pop for charity.
His cow pie was superb. My wife and I both reckoned it was our favourite of the day.
Been a long time since I worked and ate in Brum
I'll age myself by saying Shimla Pinks was the height of fine cuisine
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
Lord Longford famously believed that you should hate the sin and love the sinner, which is why he spent many years visiting Myra Hindley in prison.
That is certainly the Christian approach, which has much to admire about it. Hindley, though. That really is taking it to extremes.
A head-shrinker friend tried some prison visiting. She said that several of the prison reforms types seemed to regard the prisoners as the wronged parties, and the courts, victims etc as the problem.
Apparently reading the case files rather than just taking the prisoners word for what they did was “unpleasant”.
I once heard a talk from a prison vicar who was very much of that opinion: 'When people say to me "What about the victims?" I reply: "It's the people in the cells who are the victims."'
Still looking for it, as everyone else is, I guess
I found it
Idea 1 - replacement the treasury with something focused on growth - hmm may work Idea 2 - locate the new department in Birmingham - nope that’s a mistake.
As I said you split the treasury - move the day to day bits out of London so what’s left is the growth building department in London
* were Parliament to be outside London the opposite is true, leave the treasury there but move the other bits to where Parliament is moved to
The Royal Mint has a branch in Birmingham once upon a time Icknield St in the vicinity of the Jewellery Quarter. Very much Peaky Blinders territory.
None of which matches up with your last couple of weeks of posts.
Here, we value genuine insight over polemic.
We have a decent quota of armchair generals, who at best offer a dispassionate perspective away from the front line, and at worst display their ignorance of how contemporary politics plays out. Then we have the retired generals, such as myself and a good number of others, who have served our time on the front line and bring to the site the benefit of our experience, qualified by the particular circumstances under which we played the game. Then there are those who suddenly join the site, unware of our traditions and unwritten rules, who are quickly uncovered as either Russian teenagers sitting in a Petersburg basement, or people actively engaged in contemporary politics, naively expecting to hide their axe under a bunch of camouflage. Don’t be that latter person.
Some MPs need to smell some coffee. Does anyone know the detail on this to write a header?
This is ticking towards £500k per square metre of space. (40 billion, 110k sqm of space).
That is, around one hundred times the cost of building top quality office space in London.
To be fair the level of skill required to refurbish the Palace of Westminster (as opposed to bolting together steel and laying breeze blocks is probably 100 times more.
That’s not even starting on having everyone involved security cleared, etc. No Lithuanian builders here.
I have three reactions there.
Firstly I am skeptical, because we need comparators like restoration to comparable buildings, which would be things varying from St Pancras Station and the Natural History Museum to large National Trust properties, full blown neo-Gothic churches, and others. I think the budget will end up 4 or 5 times as high as strictly necessary, and there is a risk that it is a blank cheque.
Secondly project cost comparisons are essential or it will be triply gold plated. If it is a proposed long term project, then it should follow the model of NT or Cathedrals and employ their own career staff, rather than consultants or contractors. It's taking so long to do the f*cking paperwork, that they could be recruiting them at birth.
Thirdly, there is an immensely strong argument that the Palace of Westminster, can be replaced or simplified, or simply to move elsewhere, as it is a building past it's end-of-life date. They are Parliament and are supreme, and they can revise the Grade I listing. At £40 billion it may be worth it.
Much as I love that the HoP have been in use for over 150 years and there is the long, historic legacy, I think we should seriously consider moving parliament out to a new, purpose built, site, with associated accommodation and offices. It it happened to be say near Birmingham (perhaps just of the HS2 line) so much the better. Then with an empty building renovate and conserve the historic centre of government and turn it into a tourist attraction.
We invest too much in the conservation of old buildings. Yes we should preserve some iconic ones, but we ought to be less sentimental. The Romans would have used double glazing if it had been around at the time - update old buildings to modern standards.
The Palace of Westminster isn’t just “some old building”. It is THE old building.
If we can’t conserve that then we may as well just give up.
Why is it THE old building? Is it any more important than any other? Show your working.
And I am NOT proposing knocking down - just the creation of a new, modern chamber/chambers with associated infrastructure and the conservation of the HoP.
It is THE old building that represents Britain around the world - and in a good way. Parliament, democracy, civilisation, Magna Carta, Old England, Rufus’ Roaring Hall, the place where Charlies 1 was tried, on and on. It is arguably the most densely, importantly historic building ON EARTH
It is the building everyone shows when they want to say London! Britain! UK! - and it does this, as I say, in a very positive way
There is no equivalent in the world. The Eiffel Tower represents Paris and France, and is sexy, but even so I am not sure it is a majestically symbolic as Big Ben. London Calling
You guys are all geeky nerds. Accept that you don’t get this
That said, the costs suggested are fucking insane. I just don’t believe them, and I am sure half of it is Woke shit about accessibility and the other half is HS2 style scopeflation as the architects and designers and wankers see a chance to take a slice
Tell them all to fuck off. It’s unique. It’s like Notre Dame. Move MPs and Lords out for five years and get the essential safety done for 3bn, but there won’t be wheelchair access. Sorted
With Leon on this one.
(Also, I bet we could get 90% of the accessibility improvements for 10% of the cost. It’s the insistence on 100% equivalence to new build requirements that’s wildly inflating costs.)
I'm very much in the 'move the capital to somewhere more central' lobby. But one argument in favour of the 'keep parliament in the PoW' camp is that if we were to have a new parliament building, it would inevitably be a disappointing embarrassment. Like the Scottish parliament, only more expensive. (That said, IIRC, the Welsh parliament building is actually rather good...)
We should move Parliament to (say) Manchester during the refurbishment too.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
Isn’t the problem with moving it to another city, inevitably smaller than London, even temporarily that you need to find accommodation for hundreds if not thousands of MPs, Spads, staff, officials etc which will exacerbate housing shortages or inflation. Does Manchester have tha available houses and flats on the market to rent for the period?
How many Michelin Star Restaurant in Manchester
It's a cultural desert.
If the issue is a lack of Michelin stars then it's a gastronomic desert - a lack of theatres / opera would be a cultural desert - and Manchester isn't that bad for culture...
Birmingham far superior on all counts.
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there . Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
Also several Michelin stars in the area, even if Glynn Purnell shut his.
3 in the City Centre still I think
4 or 5 within 20 miles Lichfield, Kenilworth etc
Shame about Purnell
Very precarious business for many big names Chefs for many years.
Purnell is still plying his trade. He just shut his flagship restaurant, Purnell’s, he has a couple of others. He has a new place coming soon.
Akhtar Islam has said he makes more with his mail order curries than from Opheem, which is 2 star.
The guy from Lichfield came to a food event locally, 20 top chefs turn up and cook a small plate and it’s a tenner a pop for charity.
His cow pie was superb. My wife and I both reckoned it was our favourite of the day.
Been a long time since I worked and ate in Brum
I'll age myself by saying Shimla Pinks was the height of fine cuisine
Same.
On Broad Street.
Didn’t Bill Clinton eat there when in town for a shindig. He had a drink by the canals.
I was told Lee Dixon had a financial interest in it. Not sure if that was true or a joke.
One question that arises from the Mandelson and Doyle controversies for me is, is it always morally indefensible to remain friends with a convicted sex offender? Luckily this is not a situation I have ever faced, I should add. But say it was a family member, not a friend, I'm not sure I would say that the only decent course of action would be to abandon the person completely. In fact, I might think worse of somebody who didn't stand by their son or brother to some extent in this sort of situation. You don't choose your family but you do choose your friends, of course. But still, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders don't they need a network of friends for that to happen? Is dropping somebody to protect your own career really a morally superior course of action? Not to excuse anything in the current scandals, and the focus should always be on the victims primarily, but I'm not sure it is as completely black and white as some would make out.
Lord Longford famously believed that you should hate the sin and love the sinner, which is why he spent many years visiting Myra Hindley in prison.
That is certainly the Christian approach, which has much to admire about it. Hindley, though. That really is taking it to extremes.
A head-shrinker friend tried some prison visiting. She said that several of the prison reforms types seemed to regard the prisoners as the wronged parties, and the courts, victims etc as the problem.
Apparently reading the case files rather than just taking the prisoners word for what they did was “unpleasant”.
Friend of mine was employed for some years in prisoner rehabilitation, and release preparation. She had no illusions about the people with whom she was dealing, but she was quite sorry for some of them.
Comments
They tend to be pre-agreed, added to the contract over and above the general terms, and capped.
The old automotive OEM wheeze of threatening £10,000 a minute if you stop the line leaps to mind.
Watch the back 2 benches of Tory MPs... Stony silence
Parliament (democracy, Magna Carta etc) and Parliament (building, Big Ben, etc) are not the same thing.
The former Parliament began centuries before the building Parliament was built and could cope being relocated, temporarily or permanently, into another building while the Houses of Parliament are properly refurbished for use while not in-use, or turned into a museum.
NEW: Lords clerks say there was nothing to stop No10 cancelling Doyle peerage post press release, pre Gazette - Tories
I'm a bit disappointed Starmer didn't mention PO Horizon
Flood
It is not reasonable, in my view, where you have a contract for £500K and expect LD’s of seven figures if it goes wrong and any seller accepting that is nuts or very well insured.
We could do with much more construction like we had then. Especially considering we have massively grown our population more than we have invested in construction.
If we did invest in construction like we did then, we might actually have some decent growth and improvements in living standards, like we had then.
Completely right
You can all thank me later
It’s difficult (although not impossible) to insure against liquidated damages as it’s a contractual liability
Keir Starmer: "My legacy is changing my party and winning an election."
What happened to "country before party"?
Inside Westminster: The crumbling building & its £3 billion problem - Newsnight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i9xGG0RUoA
Leon is right. As a unique building, we should forget about heating and access and just patch it up.
ETA and also check if the 10x inflation in estimated costs is genuine or due to gold-plating refurbishment.
So basically there is 1000 year history of Palace of Westminster.
It's academic though until someone e.g a law graduate, tries to take the issue on.
Insisting on running Parliament in the House whilst it’s being refurbished is one of the things that’s driving up costs beyond all possible sense & also it would be good for the country to get all the MPs out of London for once.
"We don't know what my legacy is going to be because I have years in office left"
Some economic news from either side of the pond ?
Good luck litigating that one. I am not sure the judge would be sympathetic if you’re funding it out of your tax-free Dubai earnings while the plebs are paying what they should by PAYE.
And winning an election should be a means to enact the changes you want, not an end in itself.
I'd have thought most of the cost is associated with keeping the MPs in the building and stripping all sorts of shitty cladding , plumbing, asbestos, electrics out at the same time. Obviously not comparable but we massively reduced costs on a flat renovation by simply not being there.
Put a big gazebo out on some toxic wasteland in Middlesbrough and you'll find it's complete in no time at all.
Also, I don't mind Starmer showing a bit of passion in his responses to Davey, who would like us all to forget that he facilitated the start of Conservative austerity by spending 5 years allowing Cameron and Osborne to kick it all off for fear of the electoral consequences if the LDs pulled out of the coalition. An occasional reminder is not out of place. If the issue is that his response didn't answer the question, then next time maybe Davey might be reminded instead of his hypocrisy in asking such a question. Who was it that failed to see what he should have or more likely conveniently chose to ignore it as he let Vennalls get away with everything during the Post Office scandal? That ruined thousands of lives directly due to Davey, and it was very much within the remit of Davey's day job to expect him to have got a grasp of what was going on.
@nytimes.com
Elon Musk told employees at xAI, his artificial intelligence company, on Tuesday that the company needed a factory on the moon to build A.I. satellites and a massive catapult to launch them into space.
Meanwhile, the Poles rebuilt Warsaw after the war as it was.
Solid number January 2026 (+130k). However, the change in total nonfarm employment for 2025 was revised from +584,000 to +181,000 (seasonally adjusted). So much weaker than initially estimated
So you can believe the good number, or the bad number, or both, or neither
- The Left has a major, intractable strategic problem. Which is this. The Left believed it was winning at modernity. But modernity...is done.
- By the late decades of the 20th century the Left had a broad dominance over the Right. It was more powerful in government. It controlled the media, academia and other institutions. It was even imposing action on global issues like climate change. It had the modern world going in something like the direction it wanted. And then the modern world itself started falling apart. And now is in full collapse.
- That doesn't mean we're going back to the past. Quite the opposite we're accelerating into an unknowable future. And the Left is stuck in a state of denial about this.
- At the beginning of the 20th century the Left was focussed on the future. Socialism. Communism. Social democracy. [These] Were speculative futures. By the end of the 20th century many of these dreams were reality. Universal education. Public healthcare. Progressive taxation.These were big wins. [But] That are now collapsing as the modern world they were built upon is ending.
- This leaves the Left today as backward looking, even conservative. The idea that dominates the Left today is trying to get back to New Deal social democracy. A century old compromise with capitalism that was never all that in the first place.
- Meanwhile, the Right, who never much liked modernity anyway, have realised they are happy to embrace the future...IF they can remake it in their own image. Hence we are crashing towards technofeudalism. And all the Left has to offer is some two hundred year old reheated Marxism to chew on. And a hysterical response to AI, as though if we just close our eyes the future will go away....
- ...We need a better future. A better story. An actual viable story that inspires the Left to stop mourning modernity, and get back in the fight for what the future will be.
Thoughts? https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxJBDnZkA0AaNeioRI15MO4e4ASsykkRjlI actual wonder if we could use the New Town proposed where the ECML meets East West Rail would be a good place - it's not built on yet and is just fields
Or we could override Universal and build Parliament 2 in Bedford.
It's a cultural desert.
But we must remember the Right can be bitchy spiteful, downright abusive, shot, bellow, Hector, rant, verbally offensive and it's all OK
The minute the left ie centre left give just a little bit back its simply not done, unparliamentary.
They don't like it uppem
More
More
More
HE KNEW.
@KevinASchofield
NEW: No10 sources admit Keir Starmer found out that Matthew Doyle campaigned for Sean Morton when the Sunday Times reported it on December 27.
Unclear why it took the PM until yesterday to remove the Labour whip from him.
Whuh???
One shouldn’t laugh but still. Hahahaha
Jeez. Just get rid
Boom boom
Starmer then: I've made the disciplinary procedure completely independent from me as leader
Starmer now: I kicked Jeremy Corbyn out of the party
Large chunk of NEC could be commander Ed and rented
Parliament and media set up there
. Excellent links
God they could even get there in an hour on hs2
https://www.thecaterer.com/news/2026-michelin-stars-revealed-all-the-new-stars-so-far
At least the GDP wankers will be happy.
U.S. FAA : THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF AIRSPACE OVER EL PASO HAS BEEN LIFTED.
But given the current options, it's about as likely that they'd be both divisive and unsuccessful.
@Leon
https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/2021256989876109403?s=61
I suspect if Parliament moved to Manchester the resulting boost to the local economy would certainly see more Michelin ranked restaurants among other businesses.
Actually, my preferred place to send them would be Bradford. Somewhere which needs the boost a bit more. Somewhere which will open their eyes to life outside the core cities.
Can’t please everyone.
‘ MP at women's PLP meeting says PM arrived 10 minutes late.
"He's not been asked anything yet - he’s still mansplaining."
https://x.com/alexrogerssky/status/2021575717813694843?s=61
4 or 5 within 20 miles Lichfield, Kenilworth etc
Shame about Purnell
Very precarious business for many big names Chefs for many years.
It's gods own county after all
Still looking for it, as everyone else is, I guess
Australia: Former deputy leader of the Liberals (LIB, Centre-right) and Hume MP, Angus Taylor, has resigned from the shadow cabinet. It is widely expected that Taylor will challenge Sussan Ley for leadership following the resignation."
https://x.com/OceaniaElects/status/2021554405384790053
Bradford has always been my choice simply to see how quickly NPR and HS2 would be built in its entirety - but to be honest I don’t actually care, you just need a new building somewhere
The thing is now would be the perfect time to do something dramatic and move Parliament elsewhere as part of a plan to rebuild the country.
Sadly our politicians have no imagination
I'm a lapsed Labour Member
I'm not active any more in politics at local level.
I've read this site with some interest for 5 years. I'm now retired.
I think the few left of centre contributors on here deserve an extra body.
I'm passionate in my views, some of my views are quite right wing. I say what I think. I hate bullies.
Thats it really.
I am a keen bettir and odds analyst. I bet most on horses via some good contacts, occasionally formula 1 and occasionally politics.
No hidden agenda.
Englands original second city
Idea 1 - replacement the treasury with something focused on growth - hmm may work
Idea 2 - locate the new department in Birmingham - nope that’s a mistake.
As I said you split the treasury - move the day to day bits out of London so what’s left is the growth building department in London
* were Parliament to be outside London the opposite is true, leave the treasury there but move the other bits to where Parliament is moved to
Akhtar Islam has said he makes more with his mail order curries than from Opheem, which is 2 star.
The guy from Lichfield came to a food event locally, 20 top chefs turn up and cook a small plate and it’s a tenner a pop for charity.
His cow pie was superb. My wife and I both reckoned it was our favourite of the day.
Apparently reading the case files rather than just taking the prisoners word for what they did was “unpleasant”.
I'll age myself by saying Shimla Pinks was the height of fine cuisine
And I did not flag this but can understand why someone has
It would be mildly humorous to understand what kind of agent I'm supposed to be.
Here, we value genuine insight over polemic.
We have a decent quota of armchair generals, who at best offer a dispassionate perspective away from the front line, and at worst display their ignorance of how contemporary politics plays out. Then we have the retired generals, such as myself and a good number of others, who have served our time on the front line and bring to the site the benefit of our experience, qualified by the particular circumstances under which we played the game. Then there are those who suddenly join the site, unware of our traditions and unwritten rules, who are quickly uncovered as either Russian teenagers sitting in a Petersburg basement, or people actively engaged in contemporary politics, naively expecting to hide their axe under a bunch of camouflage. Don’t be that latter person.
On Broad Street.
Didn’t Bill Clinton eat there when in town for a shindig. He had a drink by the canals.
I was told Lee Dixon had a financial interest in it. Not sure if that was true or a joke.
Not me
He has a woman problem and his angry responses to Kemi, Ed and the SNP have not gone down well
Ihttps://x.com/i/status/2021575717813694843