£4bn to refit Parliament
Comments
-
Chances are that the ongoing repairs would have been as unpopular as this one is but it just can't be left any longer.Weegie Addick said: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**
For example it might have been £3.5b in 2005 or £2.5b in 1985 and successive Governments shied-away from spending the money as they feared the backlash.1 -
Too right Lincs I can't stand heights, I could make a detour on Saturday I suppose, might the lesser of two evilsLincsaddick said:
BUT .. I'll bet ... you've never played your ukulele whilst sitting on the top of Blackpool towerRedChaser 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
.
. 1 -
Reference Pedro and civil servants. If they laid off 40k civil servants it would bankrupt the country (redundancy and pension packets are some of the most generous in existence). The NHS moved north in the 1990s. And 4,000 civil servants were relocated all on the public purse. Then Tony got in and ordered them all back to London...again all paid for by the taxpayer.0
-
1 Canada Square cost about £600m - even allowing for inflation I doubt it would be much more than that today.Rothko said:
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.razil said:City hall cost 43m to build
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2129199.stm
Much more recently the Shard cost £600m.
Both buildings, I would suggest, would be big enough!! £4bill is just ridiculous.1 -
£4bn spread out over 6 years, considering the annual budget of the UK government is £611bn a year, is the sum total of fuck all to protect a bit of history2
-
£4bn?cafcinse6 said: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.
They can fuck right off.1 -
I know that a completely new building would also cost a lot in addition to making the Houses of Parliament a museum but my thinking would be the long term benefits (which politicians often ignore):
- The most popular tourist destination (British museum) currently gets 6.8 million annual visitors. You would say that a HoP museum should therefore get 7 million as it is a very well known building. Charge 7 million visitors £20 each (over running costs) and you are pulling in £140 million per year. Keep it in public hands and keep it as a source of government income for the next 50 years. This would pay for the revamp and new building costs.
- Move all government up North and there would be a more equal distribution of wealth among the country, it would improve the North and have benefits for Londoners as well. In London we are at breaking point, every time a new infrastructure project is completed its first day begins at full capacity. There is never any spare room.
- There would be a great deal of new jobs and opportunities created by a new building and a revamped museum. Although I didn't support leaving the EU, now that we have left we can make real efforts to make sure that these jobs go to local people to benefit our communities.0 -
But why would anyone pay in excess of £20 (much in excess if it's £20 above running costs you're looking for) when they can go to the British Museum for free?cafcinse6 said:I know that a completely new building would also cost a lot in addition to making the Houses of Parliament a museum but my thinking would be the long term benefits (which politicians often ignore):
- The most popular tourist destination (British museum) currently gets 6.8 million annual visitors. You would say that a HoP museum should therefore get 7 million as it is a very well known building. Charge 7 million visitors £20 each (over running costs) and you are pulling in £140 million per year. Keep it in public hands and keep it as a source of government income for the next 50 years. This would pay for the revamp and new building costs.
- Move all government up North and there would be a more equal distribution of wealth among the country, it would improve the North and have benefits for Londoners as well. In London we are at breaking point, every time a new infrastructure project is completed its first day begins at full capacity. There is never any spare room.
- There would be a great deal of new jobs and opportunities created by a new building and a revamped museum. Although I didn't support leaving the EU, now that we have left we can make real efforts to make sure that these jobs go to local people to benefit our communities.2 -
One of the reasons the British Museum gets 6.8 million visitors is because it's free. Charge £20pp and you'll instantly deter around 90% of those visitors.cafcinse6 said:I know that a completely new building would also cost a lot in addition to making the Houses of Parliament a museum but my thinking would be the long term benefits (which politicians often ignore):
- The most popular tourist destination (British museum) currently gets 6.8 million annual visitors. You would say that a HoP museum should therefore get 7 million as it is a very well known building. Charge 7 million visitors £20 each (over running costs) and you are pulling in £140 million per year. Keep it in public hands and keep it as a source of government income for the next 50 years. This would pay for the revamp and new building costs.
- Move all government up North and there would be a more equal distribution of wealth among the country, it would improve the North and have benefits for Londoners as well. In London we are at breaking point, every time a new infrastructure project is completed its first day begins at full capacity. There is never any spare room.
- There would be a great deal of new jobs and opportunities created by a new building and a revamped museum. Although I didn't support leaving the EU, now that we have left we can make real efforts to make sure that these jobs go to local people to benefit our communities.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
same cost as the Charlton Athletic Museum which is much better than the British Museum*bobmunro said:
But why would anyone pay in excess of £20 (much in excess if it's £20 above running costs you're looking for) when they can go to the British Museum for free?cafcinse6 said:I know that a completely new building would also cost a lot in addition to making the Houses of Parliament a museum but my thinking would be the long term benefits (which politicians often ignore):
- The most popular tourist destination (British museum) currently gets 6.8 million annual visitors. You would say that a HoP museum should therefore get 7 million as it is a very well known building. Charge 7 million visitors £20 each (over running costs) and you are pulling in £140 million per year. Keep it in public hands and keep it as a source of government income for the next 50 years. This would pay for the revamp and new building costs.
- Move all government up North and there would be a more equal distribution of wealth among the country, it would improve the North and have benefits for Londoners as well. In London we are at breaking point, every time a new infrastructure project is completed its first day begins at full capacity. There is never any spare room.
- There would be a great deal of new jobs and opportunities created by a new building and a revamped museum. Although I didn't support leaving the EU, now that we have left we can make real efforts to make sure that these jobs go to local people to benefit our communities.
*in terms of Charlton items2 -
Someone on the radio this morning mentioned a good point about the current commons setup. If they built a new parliament building, like in Wales or Edinburgh it could stop this stupid arguing or shouting at one another. I think its about time they stopped this and for me, this was a good reason to build a modern, new and cheaper parliament building, with cheaper running costs.
0 -
They should rotate Parliament each year between Goole and Bamber Bridge.4
-
Given the quoted figures for 1 Canada Square and The Shard (£600m each), let's say £1bn for a brand, spanking new, custom-built, all mod-cons building. Another billion for restoration of the ancient parts of the HoP and conversion into a tourist attraction. I've just saved us 2 billion quid!1
-
All the government departments are based in London, so parliament needs to be in London as well
I imagine the cost of restoration is due to the unique structure of the place. Personally I think it should be restored, as it's an important part of our fabric and culture0 -
They can still be in London. They don't need to be in the HoP and we don't need to spend £4b on it!0
-
So spend £40billion turning the HoP into a museum exhibiting as yet unspecified stuff, spend another £600m knocking together a new parliament building somewhere central, like Northampton? Great if you are coming from Birmingham or London, not so easy to get to from Newcastle or Ipswich. Give the job of plastering the ceiling to an unemployed car spares store manager from Corby, and laying the bricks to a former BHS window dresser from Kettering. Move 40'000 London based civil servants (all expenses paid) to Rushden, into a massive new build estate doubling the population overnight. Plus of course building the new Whitehall and other government buildings to accommodate them (Wellingborough, maybe?).cafcinse6 said:I know that a completely new building would also cost a lot in addition to making the Houses of Parliament a museum but my thinking would be the long term benefits (which politicians often ignore):
- The most popular tourist destination (British museum) currently gets 6.8 million annual visitors. You would say that a HoP museum should therefore get 7 million as it is a very well known building. Charge 7 million visitors £20 each (over running costs) and you are pulling in £140 million per year. Keep it in public hands and keep it as a source of government income for the next 50 years. This would pay for the revamp and new building costs.
- Move all government up North and there would be a more equal distribution of wealth among the country, it would improve the North and have benefits for Londoners as well. In London we are at breaking point, every time a new infrastructure project is completed its first day begins at full capacity. There is never any spare room.
- There would be a great deal of new jobs and opportunities created by a new building and a revamped museum. Although I didn't support leaving the EU, now that we have left we can make real efforts to make sure that these jobs go to local people to benefit our communities.
I'd leave things as they are to be honest...0 -
So doubling the population of a central town is off-limits but we're okay with the massive overcrowding of London and the South-east?0
-
They have a hissy fit when 20 Poles turn up to pick spuds Riz, imagine their despair at all those people from "that London" turning up...Rizzo said:So doubling the population of a central town is off-limits but we're okay with the massive overcrowding of London and the South-east?
0 -
I'd rather they took the V for Vendetta approach. MPs can debate via Skype. Civil servants can go rent office space like everyone else has to.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Get a local guy to do it.0
-
They should build a new HoP out of town and give the old one to West Ham to use as a museum and indoor training centre. Of course the tax payer would have to pick up the operating costs for that to be feasible.5
-
Possibly the worst idea I have ever seen.0
-
Move it to Brussels, imagine the synergies and savings if we merged our Civil Service with that of the EU, London or Brussels, it's all the same to anyone in the UK who lives outside of our capital city.0
-
Where do they get these figures from? Absolutely outrageous amount of money, are they replacing all the bricks with gold bars?!
The Shard cost £435m, The London Bridge Station redevelopment costs £500m and is part of the £6bn Thameslink programme. Thought these were expensive, but turns out they're a bit of a bargain.
They've been trying to close Lewisham A & E ever since they got into power, there are doctors and nurses and other emergency services staff being paid scandalously low wages, lengthy waiting lists for operations across the country due to a lack of funding and resources, and they're paying £4bn to have their meeting rooms refurbished!
Disgraceful. Even Katrien Miere would struggle to negotiate a deal representing such poor value for money.3 -
The Houses of Parliament need to be fitted out at almost exactly the same time the work at Sparrows Lane slows down? Coincidence? I think not.
Katrien has obviously sorted out a six-year loan deal. "650 highly-paid, inefficient old 'uns available? We'll have them".1 -
Washington? Canberra? Brasilia?ShootersHillGuru said: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.
0 -
I think it's funny when I hear that we should send the HoP around the country. But where do you think the MPs constituencies are?
I work in central government and don't give two hoots about where the MPs centralise for their pow wows, especially in this day of e-communications but the Palace of Westminster is something to preserve. And it's a fraction of the cost of Trident.1 -
Good idea moving it around the country, even better excuse for claiming those expenses. I think the whole amount has to be put into perspective as usual with these things. It's a relatively small amount compared to government spending over a number of years. Ideally it would be nice to have a purpose built cheaper building to finance but I'd imagine the HoP are easily in the top 5 of tourist attractions so they are possibly more important than the functional necessity.0
-
colthe3rd said:
Good idea moving it around the country, even better excuse for claiming those expenses. I think the whole amount has to be put into perspective as usual with these things. It's a relatively small amount compared to government spending over a number of years. Ideally it would be nice to have a purpose built cheaper building to finance but I'd imagine the HoP are easily in the top 5 of tourist attractions so they are possibly more important than the functional necessity.
Actually, HoP ranks 36th visitor attraction in the UK, but at least it beats the Horniman Museum (39th). It's not even in the London top 20.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uks-top-50-visitor-attractions-7509660
So much for the "we need to spend £4 billion on it because it brings in so many tourist dollars" excuse.3
