3 Billion to revamp Parliament

[boohoo]

We don't want 'em!

Perhaps we can build them a garden city in the middle of the country then.

 

[boohoo]

It is a recognisable image of the uk and its old really old and knackered.
Replacement isnt on the cards could you imagine the outcry.
But ouch thats a hidious price tag

It's an amazing building -the Westminster Hall is beautiful. It can stay - just why should the MPs benefit from being in such a grand building to operate. They can go to a modern structure which offers modern facilities and protection and the building can be opened up as a heritage site.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

It's an amazing building -the Westminster Hall is beautiful. It can stay - just why should the MPs benefit from being in such a grand building to operate. They can go to a modern structure which offers modern facilities and protection and the building can be opened up as a heritage site.

This is my view too. It is such an iconic building that it can be repaired but put to a more sensible use, and MPs and their hangers on can be moved to a decent building that is fit for purpose as a parliament. £3 billion is an absurd price tag to spend on one single building - and impossible to justify given everything else that is going on. They could be moved to a brand new building for a fraction of that, and the long-term savings of being in a modern building would be huge.

Interestingly, the 'centroid' point where a cardboard cut out of Great Britain and NI would balance on the tip of a pencil is 1.5 miles out into Morecambe Bay. That would be handy, as we could put them all on a ship, and at the next inevitable scandal, we could simply scuttle it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_points_of_the_United_Kingdom

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They could try camping in Parliament Square.

 

[DotCommunist]

its an icon of 500+ years o lording it over the rest of us. Burn it down and replace it with a maggot farm

 

[Andrew Hertford]

This is my view too. It is such an iconic building that it can be repaired but put to a more sensible use, and MPs and their hangers on can be moved to a decent building that is fit for purpose as a parliament. £3 billion is an absurd price tag to spend on one single building - and impossible to justify given everything else that is going on. They could be moved to a brand new building for a fraction of that, and the long-term savings of being in a modern building would be huge.

But presumably it would still cost several billion to repair or convert for public use wouldn't it? I don't see how building a new Parliament would save money.

 

[Dogsauce]

As if they'd be able to build a replacement (even a temporary replacement) for less than 3 billion. That's not how these cunts operate. How much did the Edinburgh one cost for a much smaller institution? 'Consultancy' will happen, big, extensive, messy consultancy.

A temporary move to another city would also be justification for MPs to own third homes at our expense.

I'd stick them in a warehouse in Goole Docks, commuting from Hull on a pacer DMU. There's a big static caravan industry in Hull that could provide the accommodation camp.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

But presumably it would still cost several billion to repair or convert for public use wouldn't it? I don't see how building a new Parliament would save money.

Ultimately, it is only a building, and if it proves simply too expensive to repair to be usable for any purpose, then it should be demolished. No building, no matter how iconic, can be allowed to be unlimited money pit, at least where public money is concerned. There are far better ways of spending billions than repairing one building full of twats.

The sensible way to build a parliament is to identify what the actually require - debating chambers, committee rooms, offices, etc., and just give them that. No fancy frills or 'architectural statements' - just a building fit for purposes and utilitarian.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Ultimately, it is only a building, and if it proves simply too expensive to repair to be usable for any purpose, then it should be demolished. No building, no matter how iconic, can be allowed to be unlimited money pit, at least where public money is concerned. There are far better ways of spending billions than repairing one building full of twats.

The sensible way to build a parliament is to identify what the actually require - debating chambers, committee rooms, offices, etc., and just give them that. No fancy frills or 'architectural statements' - just a building fit for purposes and utilitarian.

£3 billion is what we spend on Trident annually, personally I'd rather do without that for a year than lose one of the most beautiful, historic and iconic building complexes in the world.

I suppose we could sell it and let someone turn it into luxury housing, but how much do you think building a new 'fit for purpose' Parliament would cost?

 

[8ball]

How much do you think building a new 'fit for purpose' Parliament would cost?

We discussed the costs of burning it down on page 1. Petrol prices are pretty low at the moment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

We give aid to both India and Pakistan. Both of whom have standing armies the size of NATO, and are nuclear tipped. In need of aid, or in need of a better distribution of their resources?

I generally direct people who bang on about aid to India etc to have a look at where the money goes. Some of it is export credit guarantees; some is for technical projects; a little of it is for "humanitarian" projects. Interestingly, the export credit guarantees (usually on technical equipment) and technical funding usually pay for themselves, insofar as they generate income for UK companies - i.e. they're effectively an indirect subsidy of British industry. That India and Pakistan may have the money to fund such projects themselves (I'd quibble and say that Pakistan has functioned on a constant deficit for at least 3 decades, and that their military spending is killing them) misses the point that this "aid" is actually about subsidising and promoting British industry, it's just that we're not as blatant about it as the Yanks are with their system of "tied" aid, where you're given credits, to be spent in the donor country. Aid is realpolitik, it's not a gift or donation.

 

[SpookyFrank]

There must be some Qataris we can sell the place off to.

 

[Quartz]

Move the MPs out to a new parliament located in Birmingham

I'd suggest Leeds as it is nearer the centre of Great Britain. Or Preston if you want to be near the centre of the UK. After all, wasn't one of the complaints behind Scottish Independence the distance to London?

 

[Quartz]

I wonder if the buildings could be demolished and rebuilt as was more cheaply and quickly than restored?

Ultimately, it is only a building

I'm not sure that's the case. It is, in part, a symbol. A symbol of democracy and our democratic history. And I'm not sure you can put a price on that. However, if you look at the history of the place, it does seem to get rebuilt about every 200 years anyway, and there have been continual improvements.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

I wonder if the buildings could be demolished and rebuilt as was more cheaply and quickly than restored?

Rebuilt as a replica? I wonder if there's enough stone-masons around to do that?

 

[Pickman's model]

Rebuilt as a replica? I wonder if there's enough stone-masons around to do that?

get some freemasons to do it. they'll be cheaper.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'd suggest Leeds as it is nearer the centre of Great Britain. Or Preston if you want to be near the centre of the UK. After all, wasn't one of the complaints behind Scottish Independence the distance to London?

if you want it nearer the centre of the uk then somewhere like workington or dumfries would do the trick. unless you're not including the northern isles, and rockall, in the uk.

 

[Quartz]

Rebuilt as a replica? I wonder if there's enough stone-masons around to do that?

No, just rebuilt. I see no point in retaining old stone just because it's old. After all, much of the construction is less than 200 years old. Stone is generally millions or billions of years old anyway. Now, the art is a different matter.

if you want it nearer the centre of the uk then somewhere like fort william would do the trick. unless you're not including the northern isles, and rockall, in the uk.

According to the BBC the actual centre is Haitwistle in Northumberland.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

£3 billion is what we spend on Trident annually, personally I'd rather do without that for a year than lose one of the most beautiful, historic and iconic building complexes in the world.

I suppose we could sell it and let someone turn it into luxury housing, but how much do you think building a new 'fit for purpose' Parliament would cost?

At least Trident is potentially useful, unlike the pack of bastards at Westminster...

 

[Pickman's model]

No, just rebuilt. I see no point in retaining old stone just because it's old. After all, much of the construction is less than 200 years old. Stone is generally millions or billions of years old anyway. Now, the art is a different matter.



According to the BBC the actual centre is Haitwistle in Northumberland.

the difference between great britain and the united kingdom is that the united kingdom includes the six counties plus the islands off scotland, while great britain is the island containing wales, england and scotland.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

According to the BBC the actual centre is Haitwistle in Northumberland.

It depends on how you measure it - I posted a link to a wiki page earlier which several different centres, depending on what you're measuring.

 

[Pickman's model]

At least Trident is potentially useful, unlike the pack of bastards at Westminster...

but we don't have 650 rockets. we'd have to leash more than one mp to each trident. not to mention lords and councillors, royal family etc. i think it's doubtful that with the extra weight any of the rockets would manage to take off.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

At least Trident is potentially useful, unlike the pack of bastards at Westminster...

I don't see that Trident has any usefulness whatsoever.

No point in blaming the building for what's gone on inside it. A new Parliament would be no different in that respect.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't see that Trident has any usefulness whatsoever.

No point in blaming the building for what's gone on inside it. A new Parliament would be no different in that respect.

i don't think farmerbarleymow was commenting on the palace of westminster when he mentioned the pack of bastards at westminster.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

but we don't have 650 rockets. we'd have to leash more than one mp to each trident. not to mention lords and councillors, royal family etc. i think it's doubtful that with the extra weight any of the rockets would manage to take off.

Strap them all to Rockall and then nuke it. 1 missile should suffice, with minimal collateral damage.

 

[Pickman's model]

Strap them all to Rockall and then nuke it. 1 missile should suffice, with minimal collateral damage.

it's that sort of lateral thinking the country so sorely needs

 

[Andrew Hertford]

i don't think farmerbarleymow was commenting on the palace of westminster when he mentioned the pack of bastards at westminster.

He/she said it should be demolished if repairing it was too expensive. It's one of the world's most iconic buildings, it's worth far more to us than the cost of servicing Trident for one year.

 

[Pickman's model]

He/she said it should be demolished if repairing it was too expensive. It's one of the world's most iconic buildings, it's worth far more to us than the cost of servicing Trident for one year.

i dunno, the americans seem to have done alright without those tall towers in new york

 

[farmerbarleymow]

He/she said it should be demolished if repairing it was too expensive. It's one of the world's most iconic buildings, it's worth far more to us than the cost of servicing Trident for one year.

It may be iconic, but the silly money being quoted is unjustifiable in the current climate - given that it is only a building. Nothing lasts forever, and you can't preserve things whatever the cost.

 

[Pickman's model]

It may be iconic, but the silly money being quoted is unjustifiable in the current climate - given that it is only a building. Nothing lasts forever, and you can't preserve things whatever the cost.

changing it would also attract tourists who had previously visited london to return to look at the new building.