Temporary debating chamber for MPs expected to cost about £500,000,000

[Mister M 1,609]

Simon Jenkins from the Guardian has revealed that the temporary debating chamber for Members of Parliament is going to cost about half a billion pounds.

 

The architects plans are lovingly detailed here:

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/parliament-refurb-ahmm-reveals-first-images-of-mps-temporary-home/10042396.article

 

This temporary move will only be for 5 years, while the Commons is refurbished at a further cost of of about £5 billion - which is iconic, so  many state that the money would be well spent. Apparently 1/14th of the housing budget for the entire country is being spent on this temporary home for MPs

 

But couldn't the MPs find something cheaper for the temporary move? Isn't there a principle of 'Best Value' that councils have had to adhere to for years, where they have make do with the cheapest services for the public? Jenkins points out, there are much cheaper options available, during WW2 MPs  used the House of Lords. However these cheaper options have not been made public - given the mood of the nation I wonder why....

 

Anyway, here's Jenkins article: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/10/mps-palace-parliament-temporary

 

 

[Robin-H 11]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

Simon Jenkins from the Guardian has revealed that the temporary debating chamber for Members of Parliament is going to cost about half a billion pounds.

 

The architects plans are lovingly detailed here:

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/parliament-refurb-ahmm-reveals-first-images-of-mps-temporary-home/10042396.article

 

This temporary move will only be for 5 years, while the Commons is refurbished at a further cost of of about £5 billion - which is iconic, so  many state that the money would be well spent. Apparently 1/14th of the housing budget for the entire country is being spent on this temporary home for MPs

 

But couldn't the MPs find something cheaper for the temporary move? Isn't there a principle of 'Best Value' that councils have had to adhere to for years, where they have make do with the cheapest services for the public? Jenkins points out, there are much cheaper options available, during WW2 MPs  used the House of Lords. However these cheaper options have not been made public - given the mood of the nation I wonder why....

 

Anyway, here's Jenkins article: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/10/mps-palace-parliament-temporary

 

 

Trying to frame it so it seems that it's 'just' a temporary debating chamber doesn't really take into account the scale of the works proposed. It includes work to large part of political Westminster, known as the 'nothern estate', which includes many listed buildings from the 17h, 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, all in desperate need refurbishment and repair. 

 

https://northernestate.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NEP.VisionDocument.Final_.StdSpreads.pdf

 

Currently 8,000 people work in the Palace of Westminster. All of the them will need to be placed somewhere else. We aren't just talking about 600 odd MPs. 

 

As a comparison - the new google HQ in London is costing over £1billion, and will be able to house only half the number of staff. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Robin-H

[Anna B 1,401]

It's still a ridiculous ammount - and will probably end up twice as much, if past estimates are anything to go by. 

 

When respect for politicians is at an all time low, talk about sense of entitlement. ...  when the 'little people' are still struggling with rampant austerity and vicious cuts to services. They just don't get it do they? 

 

Disgraceful. It won't be forgotten.

[Robin-H 11]

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

It's still a ridiculous ammount - and will probably end up twice as much, if past estimates are anything to go by. 

 

When respect for politicians is at an all time low, talk about sense of entitlement. ...  when the 'little people' are still struggling with rampant austerity and vicious cuts to services. They just don't get it do they? 

 

Disgraceful. It won't be forgotten.

Is it a ridiculous amount? Like I said, the Google HQ cost twice as much and can only house half as many people as this new office space needs to.. 

 

What is your realistic solution that would be just as efficient and wouldn't cost anywhere near this figure? 

[Mister M 1,609]

It's often been mooted to move politics out of Westminster to another city,  and now would've been a good opportunity. 

[Phanerothyme 12]

Yeah, but that decision has been made now, and won't be revisited as part of this renovation of the Palace of Westminster.
 

[Mister M 1,609]

23 minutes ago, Anna B said:

It's still a ridiculous ammount - and will probably end up twice as much, if past estimates are anything to go by. 

 

When respect for politicians is at an all time low, talk about sense of entitlement. ...  when the 'little people' are still struggling with rampant austerity and vicious cuts to services. They just don't get it do they? 

 

Disgraceful. It won't be forgotten.

It's that pesky magic money tree again Anna. It magically appears when the needs of MPs and Government have to be taken into account, and benefit claimants and the disabled can go and eat ****  

[Bash Street 10]

I'd make them all meet in a local park in all weathers until they get us out of the EU.

[ECCOnoob 1,020]

43 minutes ago, Mister M said:

It's that pesky magic money tree again Anna. It magically appears when the needs of MPs and Government have to be taken into account, and benefit claimants and the disabled can go and eat ****  

Absolute nonsense.

 

I know that the forum reactionaries have that great wet dream that politicians and their servants should be forced to work out of cardboard boxes and live on nothing but bread and dripping but thats not real life.

 

Outside of government this "outrage"  wouldnt exist.  Face facts, this is no different than any other massive organisation and thousands of staff having to relocate out of several different buildings into a new place.

 

Land, materials, construction workers, fixtures and fittings are all costs money.  It's money that comes out of the budget for such purposes.

 

Given the amount of money spent on   plenty of other government organizations I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

 

Whenever stories like this crop up it's always the same nonsense about how many nurses could that pay for, how many GP's, how many social workers etc...  Quite frankly it's irrelevant.  

 

Whether people like it or not the politicians and their thousands of staff members have to work somewhere.  Occasionally someone has to spend money on the less "worthy" things such as paper clips and fixing leaky roofs. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Robin-H 11]

59 minutes ago, Mister M said:

It's often been mooted to move politics out of Westminster to another city,  and now would've been a good opportunity. 

A good opportunity, but not very practical. 

 

https://www.citymetric.com/politics/no-parliament-should-not-move-out-london-while-they-rebuild-palace-westminster-3679

 

Also, parliament at Westminster works synergistically with Whitehall as governmental officials and ministers go back and forth, (often at very short notice), to appear before MPs in committees or in the case of ministers, answering urgent last-minute questions from MPs in the Commons chamber.  This would not be possible if ministers were still based in London but parliament was hundreds of miles away. 

 

83,500 civil servants are based in London. The government still to function as efficiently as it does now (however inefficient that may be..) the vast majority of those people would also have to be relocated. 

 

[geared 303]

So what you're saying is build them a little town somewhere to do everything in?

[Robin-H 11]

11 minutes ago, geared said:

So what you're saying is build them a little town somewhere to do everything in?

Yes.

 

It would have to be somewhere with excellent transport links so that when people from further afield are needed they can get their easily. It would also have to be an international transport hub for foreign visitors etc. 

 

It would also be good if it was somewhere where ordinary people lived, so that the tens of billions it would cost to build also benefited ordinary people (through facilities and improved transport etc) and wasn’t just for the benefit of civil servants.

 

We could name it London...