£4bn to refit Parliament

cafcinse6

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/08/mps-should-leave-parliament-for-4bn-refit-says-official-report

MPs and peers should abandon the crumbling Houses of Parliament for six years so that a radical refit costing up to £4bn can be carried out, an influential committee is expected to recommend on Thursday.

In my opinion the Houses of Parliament should be turned into a museum and all government departments should be relocated somewhere up North like Manchester, Leeds or Birmingham. If you relocate everything there my thinking is that the whole sector and jobs will move with it, adding prosperity to the North, and it might help to ease property prices and overcrowding somewhat in London.

Fumbluff

Bloody target 20k, look what they've started now.....

MountsfieldPark

Let's see... 600+ MPs, let's call it 800 peers... a refit costing at least £2.7 million for each and every sorry one of them. And that's before the usual project overspend.

I'd rather have a fleet of new hospitals and let the bastards burn/drown/eff off and die anyway they like.

(You can quibble about the number of peers, etc, but the gist of the above is right.)

Pedro45

I'm not sure that 40,000 civil servants in London would agree with you. Where would they find work if all the jobs went up north? The London property prices would tumble, sure, because nobody could afford to live here anymore! And the property boom and overcrowding in wherever the jobs went would be just as bad.

As for turning the HoP into a museum, that sounds fine, but the building would still need a massive refit, costing pretty much the same as this report estimates, so how would a museum fund that cost?

Having had to go into the HoP for work purposes, I've been able to see the background, away from the usual camera angles, and the fabric is crumbling in many places. The building needs massive restoration if it is to survive.

Now I agree that £4bn is a huge amount for tax payers to pay, and I for one would be happy to scrap Trident to help pay for it, but that ain't gonna happen. Could we knock a large part of it down and start again? Yes, but that would cost a lot too, and we don't normally knock down 500 year old buildings (Westminster Hall) or even 150 year old buildings (the two chambers) very often these days without someone whingeing...

It's a problem that needs dealing with, so let's just get on with it. The interesting part is where do the Govt sit while the restoration takes place? That will take some sorting!

Henry Irving

Pedro45 said:

I'm not sure that 40,000 civil servants in London would agree with you. Where would they find work if all the jobs went up north? The London property prices would tumble, sure, because nobody could afford to live here anymore! And the property boom and overcrowding in wherever the jobs went would be just as bad.

As for turning the HoP into a museum, that sounds fine, but the building would still need a massive refit, costing pretty much the same as this report estimates, so how would a museum fund that cost?

Having had to go into the HoP for work purposes, I've been able to see the background, away from the usual camera angles, and the fabric is crumbling in many places. The building needs massive restoration if it is to survive.

Now I agree that £4bn is a huge amount for tax payers to pay, and I for one would be happy to scrap Trident to help pay for it, but that ain't gonna happen. Could we knock a large part of it down and start again? Yes, but that would cost a lot too, and we don't normally knock down 500 year old buildings (Westminster Hall) or even 150 year old buildings (the two chambers) very often these days without someone whingeing...

It's a problem that needs dealing with, so let's just get on with it. The interesting part is where do the Govt sit while the restoration takes place? That will take some sorting!

Agree with you. it's an important part of our history and should be restored.

In the meantime send parliament on tour of the country as it was in the middle ages.

People complain about politicians being out of touch and London based so take the mountain to Mohammed.

A year in Sheffield, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Sunderland and Ipswich will do the local economies good and maybe give MPs a different view of the country.

CafcWest

Henry Irving said:

A year in Sheffield, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Sunderland and Ipswich will do the local economies good and maybe give MPs a different view of the country.

Should probably add Belfast and Cardiff to that list (amongst many others)....

ShootersHillGuru

Parliament has to be in London. London is where the financial institutions are and where the UK does it's business. Of course the HoP should be restored and refitted. In its current condition it's not capable of providing our elected representatives with the facilities they require. Sooner the better.

Lincsaddick

A spanking new modern and fit for purpose building could be built for well under 4 billion ... pull the place down, except for the Big Ben tower, sell off bits to gullible Americans and historians and let's carry on bringing this country into the 21st century. Any cash left over should be spent on building important structures, houses for example.
As to the 'ancient' building, the present 'palace' was built between 1840-1870 and was designed to look ancient and historic. We won't get fooled again (some chance of that)

Henry Irving

cafc-west said:

Henry Irving said:

A year in Sheffield, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Sunderland and Ipswich will do the local economies good and maybe give MPs a different view of the country.

Should probably add Belfast and Cardiff to that list (amongst many others)....

They have their own parliaments already although the Westminster parliament covers those cities and Scotland

Norman_Smith

Henry Irving said:

Pedro45 said:

I'm not sure that 40,000 civil servants in London would agree with you. Where would they find work if all the jobs went up north? The London property prices would tumble, sure, because nobody could afford to live here anymore! And the property boom and overcrowding in wherever the jobs went would be just as bad.

As for turning the HoP into a museum, that sounds fine, but the building would still need a massive refit, costing pretty much the same as this report estimates, so how would a museum fund that cost?

Having had to go into the HoP for work purposes, I've been able to see the background, away from the usual camera angles, and the fabric is crumbling in many places. The building needs massive restoration if it is to survive.

Now I agree that £4bn is a huge amount for tax payers to pay, and I for one would be happy to scrap Trident to help pay for it, but that ain't gonna happen. Could we knock a large part of it down and start again? Yes, but that would cost a lot too, and we don't normally knock down 500 year old buildings (Westminster Hall) or even 150 year old buildings (the two chambers) very often these days without someone whingeing...

It's a problem that needs dealing with, so let's just get on with it. The interesting part is where do the Govt sit while the restoration takes place? That will take some sorting!

Agree with you. it's an important part of our history and should be restored.

In the meantime send parliament on tour of the country as it was in the middle ages.

People complain about politicians being out of touch and London based so take the mountain to Mohammed.

A year in Sheffield, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Sunderland and Ipswich will do the local economies good and maybe give MPs a different view of the country.

Not a bad idea but all the other government officials are based in London we can't move them around the country every year for six years. Plus MPS would want six 2nd homes each paid for by us.

Henry Irving

Lincsaddick said:

As to the 'ancient' building, the present 'palace' was built between 1840-1870 and was designed to look ancient and historic. We won't get fooled again (some chance of that)

Apart from the bit built in 1097.

The refit should give us all the benefits of a modern building and retain the iconic Pugin design from the 1800s and the much older Westminster Hall

ShootersHillGuru

Lincsaddick said:

A spanking new modern and fit for purpose building could be built for well under 4 billion ... pull the place down, except for the Big Ben tower, sell off bits to gullible Americans and historians and let's carry on bringing this country into the 21st century. Any cash left over should be spent on building important structures, houses for example.
As to the 'ancient' building, the present 'palace' was built between 1840-1870 and was designed to look ancient and historic. We won't get fooled again (some chance of that)

The oldest existing part of The Palace was built in 1097

Westminster Hall - Worth not pulling down I think

Henry Irving

Norman_Smith said:

Henry Irving said:

Pedro45 said:

I'm not sure that 40,000 civil servants in London would agree with you. Where would they find work if all the jobs went up north? The London property prices would tumble, sure, because nobody could afford to live here anymore! And the property boom and overcrowding in wherever the jobs went would be just as bad.

As for turning the HoP into a museum, that sounds fine, but the building would still need a massive refit, costing pretty much the same as this report estimates, so how would a museum fund that cost?

Having had to go into the HoP for work purposes, I've been able to see the background, away from the usual camera angles, and the fabric is crumbling in many places. The building needs massive restoration if it is to survive.

Now I agree that £4bn is a huge amount for tax payers to pay, and I for one would be happy to scrap Trident to help pay for it, but that ain't gonna happen. Could we knock a large part of it down and start again? Yes, but that would cost a lot too, and we don't normally knock down 500 year old buildings (Westminster Hall) or even 150 year old buildings (the two chambers) very often these days without someone whingeing...

It's a problem that needs dealing with, so let's just get on with it. The interesting part is where do the Govt sit while the restoration takes place? That will take some sorting!

Agree with you. it's an important part of our history and should be restored.

In the meantime send parliament on tour of the country as it was in the middle ages.

People complain about politicians being out of touch and London based so take the mountain to Mohammed.

A year in Sheffield, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Sunderland and Ipswich will do the local economies good and maybe give MPs a different view of the country.

Not a bad idea but all the other government officials are based in London we can't move them around the country every year for six years. Plus MPS would want six 2nd homes each paid for by us.

Make the MPs live on the local sink estate. We'd soon see some improvement in facilities and budgets then.

Govt officials can communicate v email etc. Even the Euro parliament manages to move twice a year and most multi-site companies cope.

Or Parliament could move to the Guildhall : - )

Rothko

How much do you think a new building with no history would cost? Probably about the same. Restore it, do it properly, and have the Palace of Westminster protected as a jewel in the nations tainted crown.

CAFCBourne

£4 billion what a ridiculous sum to need to revamp then again the same local councils that refuse to budge on specifications in schools which is costing them treble and moan on lack of funding. The system needs revamping and millions possibly billions of wasted outlay could be saved

soapy_jones

Going to cost whatever they do.

Like the idea of new facilities in the South, Midlands and North and then rotate as mentioned above.

People are so blasé on here about the structures in place today that do need our care and restoration. The buildings themselves are probably on the list of places to visit of every new visitor to this country. If we were smart, and I admit, fat chance of that, we could refurbish the whole pile over a period of time to take advantage of it's place in world history and its tourism draw.

Build the assembly's elsewhere, rotate parliament between them and also look after one of this countries iconic structures. Also anyone saying "just keep Big Ben and the tower it is in" have never taken a walk around the whole of it.

Lincsaddick

ShootersHillGuru said:

Lincsaddick said:

A spanking new modern and fit for purpose building could be built for well under 4 billion ... pull the place down, except for the Big Ben tower, sell off bits to gullible Americans and historians and let's carry on bringing this country into the 21st century. Any cash left over should be spent on building important structures, houses for example.
As to the 'ancient' building, the present 'palace' was built between 1840-1870 and was designed to look ancient and historic. We won't get fooled again (some chance of that)

The oldest existing part of The Palace was built in 1097

Westminster Hall - Worth not pulling down I think

The 19 century buildings were added onto and around the existing Westminster Hall. There's no reason why, if required, the newer gothic reproduction buildings couldn't be pulled down whilst leaving Westminster Hall intact and in place.
AND do you really believe that Westminster Hall retains all of it's 11th century features ? It's more like the 'same broom' that gets a new handle and brush part every five years

Stu_of_Kunming

I think the main problem is, there's been no new handles or brushes!

How many people would go to visit a new build parliament? I know loads go to see the current building.

razil

City hall cost 43m to build

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2129199.stm

Lincsaddick

I was referring to Westminster Hall, not the 'palace' that got the 'broom treatment' .. acid rain, shoddy materials and lack of proper upkeep has done for the 'palace' .. as to visitors, the same argument as to keeping the Windsors and cousins in the lap of luxury, i.e. tourism .. I'd forgo tourism for the sake of a much more modern society where the 'majesties' and 'honourable gentlemen' were a quaint reminder of Britain's comic opera past

cafcfan

Get on with the work a bargain compared with HS2 which will be £50bn and a complete waste of money.

Cardinal Sin

£4,000,000,000. Room for oodles of back-handers and palm-greasing there. Suspect they are already carving up the contracts amongst themselves and oiling the wheels. However you look at it, it's hard to fathom how you could gold-plate a building to that extent.

RedChaser

I've been to the top of Big Ben, not that I can remember anything about it, my mother was expecting me at the time. Probably gives rise to the fact that I've always had my head in the clouds. Sorry I digress .

seth plum

Sovereignty and democracy is demanded by the people, wrapped up in an edifice befitting great people like Boris Johnson and Keith Vaz and Baroness Brady.

soapy_jones

cafcfan said:

Get on with the work a bargain compared with HS2 which will be £50bn and a complete waste of money.

"Get on with it" is not in our national psyche anymore is it really? Too many vested interests, can you imagine the absolute pie fight over where the new/temporary(?) facilities will be situated?

This will run and run and run and run and run and run...

Lincsaddick

RedChaser said:

I've been to the top of Big Ben, not that I can remember anything about it, my mother was expecting me at the time. Probably gives rise to the fact that I've always had my head in the clouds. Sorry I digress .

BUT .. I'll bet ... you've never played your ukulele whilst sitting on the top of Blackpool tower

McBobbin

Parliament should definitely be more central. Not uncommon for government to be in a separate place to the largest city/main financial area. I'm thinking USA, Australia, Germany, Brazil... Er... Nigeria.

It makes a lot of sense.

seth plum

They could move the lot to the Olympic Stadium, at least the fascists Tories will feel at home there.

kings hill addick

Henry Irving said:

Pedro45 said:

I'm not sure that 40,000 civil servants in London would agree with you. Where would they find work if all the jobs went up north? The London property prices would tumble, sure, because nobody could afford to live here anymore! And the property boom and overcrowding in wherever the jobs went would be just as bad.

As for turning the HoP into a museum, that sounds fine, but the building would still need a massive refit, costing pretty much the same as this report estimates, so how would a museum fund that cost?

Having had to go into the HoP for work purposes, I've been able to see the background, away from the usual camera angles, and the fabric is crumbling in many places. The building needs massive restoration if it is to survive.

Now I agree that £4bn is a huge amount for tax payers to pay, and I for one would be happy to scrap Trident to help pay for it, but that ain't gonna happen. Could we knock a large part of it down and start again? Yes, but that would cost a lot too, and we don't normally knock down 500 year old buildings (Westminster Hall) or even 150 year old buildings (the two chambers) very often these days without someone whingeing...

It's a problem that needs dealing with, so let's just get on with it. The interesting part is where do the Govt sit while the restoration takes place? That will take some sorting!

Agree with you. it's an important part of our history and should be restored.

In the meantime send parliament on tour of the country as it was in the middle ages.

People complain about politicians being out of touch and London based so take the mountain to Mohammed.

A year in Sheffield, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Sunderland and Ipswich will do the local economies good and maybe give MPs a different view of the country.

Yes and then the MPs can all buy a house in each of these places on expenses as they will need to have one that is walking distance to the new, temporary, HoP.

I agree with others, though, that this restoration needs to be done. Chances are that it has been needed for decades and all the while we have been stalling the cost has gone uo.

I also agree with Cardinal Sin, a lot of people are going to get very, very rich off the back of this. I can't see how that can be stopped but I do find it most frustrating that public money ends up in the pockets of dishonest, greedy individuals. It has always gone on and I suspect it always will.

Two years ago I took my son in to have a look and we sat in on a session in the House of Commons. I'd never been before and it was awesome - the sense of history and significance. I know that, in reality, the path to being an MP is very restricted but to be there where it all happens, and to be able to introduce it to your children is wonderful.

Weegie Addick

Ludicrous amount of money - why have there not been proper ongoing repairs to the building's fabric? Smacks of incompetence and elitism so no surprise there.

Perhaps they could decamp to Brussels for a few years to facilitate EU negotiations?

**ducks**

Rothko

razil said:

City hall cost 43m to build

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2129199.stm

City Hall is tiny, there are only 25 AMs, and huge amounts of the GLA work is done off site in offices that TfL, LFB, and the Met use.