Three billion minimum to repair the Houses of Parliament

[elster]

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that all Government departments are in London as well.

So it is not just moving the 650 MPs.

It is the 650MPs + 1500 MPs staffers + 200,000 Civil Servants.

The logistics of moving all those people, and buildings would be far far far greater than £3 Bilion

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Elroy Blue said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

And watch how fast parliament declines. It's a st job anyway. basing it in Brum would turn off the few decent people MPs, leaving us with 100% losers.

Perhaps we'd get people who want to actually do a decent job rather then ones who are in it for the perks

We'd get people who think themselves fortunate to be on £65K a year. And are happy to be in Birmingham. The latter being the very definition of low aspirations.

[jmorgan]

elster said:

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that all Government departments are in London as well.

So it is not just moving the 650 MPs.

It is the 650MPs + 1500 MPs staffers + 200,000 Civil Servants.

The logistics of moving all those people, and buildings would be far far far greater than £3 Bilion

My first thoughts as well. We see our elected parading on TV, the staffing behind the scenes is huge. I would like to see it repaired but 3 billion will never be the end figure. That sum hurts, there must be some payback for getting the repairs done.

[Randy Winkman]

elster said:

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that all Government departments are in London as well.

So it is not just moving the 650 MPs.

It is the 650MPs + 1500 MPs staffers + 200,000 Civil Servants.

The logistics of moving all those people, and buildings would be far far far greater than £3 Bilion

The vast majority of those civil servants (and I am one, working about 200 yards from the H of P) don't need to be anywhere near that place and the current change to "flexible working" in the last 2 years has made that even more obvious. Many of the historic Whitehall buildings, such as those that house HMT, Cabinet Office and MoD also either need doing up or could be sold off with even less of a problem than Parliament. And, in my opinion, the civil service is soon going to move away from the idea that departments need one big HQ where all of there staff are located around. It's a win all round if we get rid of the current H of P.

[Leithen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This touches at the heart of the problem IMO. The building can't come close to housing all the MP's seated, so of course it's only full a few days a year. The fact that there is every chance that the MP representing any one of us, cannot physically take part in an important debate is nuts. When it comes to an important vote, magically every MP appears, but they haven't begun to listen to any arguments, instead they do what they are told to do.

Standing on a train doesn't equate to work space. MPs can carry out a lot of their work in offices, but at the heart of any democracy ought to be the right to take part in every debate. It might not mean making a speech, but it ought to mean listening to them. This is why I'd give every one of them a seat and desk. I'd quickly be able to see whether my MP was in attendance, and with a mixed seating arrangement, I'd hope to get rid of the ridiculous schoolboy ya-boo antics that go on at the moment.

Over the years parliament has been diminished with spin doctors and PR advisers controlling the release of information away from the Commons. This ought to end and be brought back to the chamber itself.

The internet age means that the civil service can be distributed to where jobs are needed. If people really believe in the Union, then placing the seat of government closer to the centre of that Union ought to be a priority. I don't think London would notice it's removal to be honest.

Just because we have an old democracy, it doesn't mean it's necessarily functional. It can be improved, and moving out of the restrictive current buildings would be an excellent start.

[waterwonder]

Just me that thinks it should stay where it is then?

The building and history contained within it are part of it in my opinion are part of the institution that has been our democracy for centuries. People come and go but I like that the building has remained.

The cost is absolutely outrageous i agree, however for once I'd actually admire a decision to protect one of our British institutions and hang the consequences instead of letting it be eroded into another homogeneous pile of ste purely on the basis of 'cost'.

In a hundred years time i can't imagine anyone looking back and thinking i'm glad those sensible people in 2015 moved parliament to an industrial estate in Milton Keynes and sold Westminster to investors from Dubai

[superlightr]

If a company had this as their HQ and was running this they would relocate to a more cost effective building. The fact that the building and land is owned/used by HMG. Queeny.

Clearly as a historic building it needs to be maintained but by whom and for what purpose is the question or for what future purpose.

I would imagine the tourist attraction as a historic building would be large to go and visit and walk around. Im sure a large part of the building could be sold off and developed for offices/accommodation as well.

So you could have the benefit of retaining the main historic parts - debating chambers, entrance halls as a museum/attraction and the rest sold off for accommodation/offices and would generate a large sum.

Quite how much I would not guess but it would be good if it bought in enough to build a new modern parliament building - perhaps on the millennium stadium (thought that only had a life span of 8 years?)

So is that not a win/win for all? Its retained as a historic building and open to the public the main chambers/wow parts and the rest sold to pay for a new building. Im sure for special one day events the historic parts could be used for the show and then everyone heads off to the new building.

[FourWheelDrift]

waterwonder said:

Just me that thinks it should stay where it is then?

The building and history contained within it are part of it in my opinion are part of the institution that has been our democracy for centuries. People come and go but I like that the building has remained.

The current building was built 1840–70 after a fire in 1834 destroyed the one that had been there for centuries.

[irocfan]

Leithen said:

It's not fit for purpose - The Commons can only seat 427 of the 650 MPs.

If we are going to spend 3 Billion, turn the existing pile into a tourist attraction that can help pay for it's upkeep.

Build a new circular chamber, geographically central to the UK, close to rail links etc. Design a seating programme so that MPs cannot sit beside more than one of their colleagues in each parliament. The chamber can be alternate use for Commons/Lords.

Then we might get some oratory/debate worth listening to.

Build Offices next door designed to allow constituents to see their MP.

Pay travelodge to put up a 650 bed hotel next door.

this ^^^ no question

[ralphrj]

FourWheelDrift said:

The current building was built 1840–70 after a fire in 1834 destroyed the one that had been there for centuries.

Not all of it was destroyed. Westminster Hall still exists and dates back to 1097.

The whole site including both the Old Palace and the New Palace is a UNESCO World Heritage site.

[FourWheelDrift]

Yes I know.

[MarshPhantom]

Elroy Blue said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

And watch how fast parliament declines. It's a st job anyway. basing it in Brum would turn off the few decent people MPs, leaving us with 100% losers.

Perhaps we'd get people who want to actually do a decent job rather then ones who are in it for the perks

London has so much to learn from the Brummies.

[tangerine_sedge]

waterwonder said:

Just me that thinks it should stay where it is then?

The building and history contained within it are part of it in my opinion are part of the institution that has been our democracy for centuries. People come and go but I like that the building has remained.

The cost is absolutely outrageous i agree, however for once I'd actually admire a decision to protect one of our British institutions and hang the consequences instead of letting it be eroded into another homogeneous pile of ste purely on the basis of 'cost'.

In a hundred years time i can't imagine anyone looking back and thinking i'm glad those sensible people in 2015 moved parliament to an industrial estate in Milton Keynes and sold Westminster to investors from Dubai

This. Some things just need to be maintained regardless of cost, and I think the 'Mother of all Parliaments' is one of them.

[superlightr]

tangerine_sedge said:

This. Some things just need to be maintained regardless of cost, and I think the 'Mother of all Parliaments' is one of them.

but the Mother of all parliaments would be maintained as a historic building etc just not used as the current parliament building.

Times move on, fit for purpose, cost effective has to be considered etc. Everything has a price and cannot be regardless of cost as we are all paying for it. Buildings usage changes over time, evolve and adapt.

[Mojooo]

New building but in London.

People who think it should be more central can dream on.

[MarshPhantom]

Somewhere new south of the river I reckon. Not sure where you'd find the land on the north side.

[RYH64E]

MarshPhantom said:

Somewhere new south of the river I reckon. Not sure where you'd find the land on the north side.

Milton Keynes? It's only 50 miles north of the river...

[FourWheelDrift]

MarshPhantom said:

Somewhere new south of the river I reckon. Not sure where you'd find the land on the north side.

Go West? Somerset levels.

[longshot]

tangerine_sedge said:

waterwonder said:

Just me that thinks it should stay where it is then?

The building and history contained within it are part of it in my opinion are part of the institution that has been our democracy for centuries. People come and go but I like that the building has remained.

The cost is absolutely outrageous i agree, however for once I'd actually admire a decision to protect one of our British institutions and hang the consequences instead of letting it be eroded into another homogeneous pile of ste purely on the basis of 'cost'.

In a hundred years time i can't imagine anyone looking back and thinking i'm glad those sensible people in 2015 moved parliament to an industrial estate in Milton Keynes and sold Westminster to investors from Dubai

This. Some things just need to be maintained regardless of cost, and I think the 'Mother of all Parliaments' is one of them.

Your Mother Of All Parliaments has become a we.

It's too expensive to maintain and no longer fit for purpose and the people who reside in it don't deserve it.

[z4RRSchris99]

chuck it on old oak common.....

(i think it should stay put, and be refurbed at any cost, the income it generates from tourism will far outweigh any saving)