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

[Robin-H 11]

52 minutes ago, Anna B said:

But it's simply not fit for purpose. It's not big enough for a start. There aren't enough offices. And it's antiquated, heaven knows what state the wiring is in,  no desks, no terminals or modern communications systems in the debating chamber, compared with other countries it's just delapidated grandeur and ritual for the sake of it, and not at all conducive to serious debate or work in what should be a modern, fast moving country.  It's just a  slow, ponderous, show piece that exagerates a sense of entitlement rather than a place of work.

We have to move with the times.

That's why they're doing it up... 

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Move the parasites out of Westminster on a permanent basis. Build a new Government headquarters close to that London, but not smack in the center of it where prices are beyond ridiculous. Then do the much needed repairs over a larger number of years, spreading the costs, you never know we may even have sorted Brexit by then.

 

Angel1.

[geared 303]

On 11/05/2019 at 02:05, ECCOnoob said:

A vast majority of the Government Departments, Foreign Offices, Diplomatic Emabassies, Royal Households and Corporate Headquarters that parliament deals with in thieir day to day business is based in and around London.     Its the capital city for a reason - just like every other capital city around the world.

but several countries have separated their government departments from their main economic centres, which is really what is being suggested.

[Robin-H 11]

56 minutes ago, geared said:

but several countries have separated their government departments from their main economic centres, which is really what is being suggested.

I can't think of that many countries whose capital isn't also the seat of government. Amsterdam is the one the springs to mind (the Hague being where government sits), and Bolivia (Sucre the capital but government in La Paz). 

 

Not that a dearth of other countries doing it means it's necessarily a bad idea but I really don't see the benefit. It would be horrendously expensive to move governmental departments to somewhere else (which would have to be newly built to house the tens of thousands of people) and I don't see how that cost could be justified. 

[geared 303]

Not the seat of government not being in the capital, more the capital not being also the main economic centre.

 

So like Australia and the USA, where the seat of government and capital is mostly just that and not much else, the main economic centre and largest city is somewhere else.

[Robin-H 11]

3 hours ago, geared said:

Not the seat of government not being in the capital, more the capital not being also the main economic centre.

 

So like Australia and the USA, where the seat of government and capital is mostly just that and not much else, the main economic centre and largest city is somewhere else.

What would be the benefit of the UK doing that? 

[Anna B 1,401]

7 hours ago, Robin-H said:

What would be the benefit of the UK doing that? 

It would share things out a bit perhaps. At the moment everything is Londoncentric, nobody else gets a look in. And land / property prices might be less elsewhere. 

[alchresearch 214]

14 hours ago, Robin-H said:

What would be the benefit of the UK doing that? 

A good article here:

 

Parliament needs to leave London and reconnect with the people

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/brexit-britain-needs-mps-out-of-westminster-provinces-neglected

 

[Robin-H 11]

23 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

A good article here:

 

Parliament needs to leave London and reconnect with the people

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/brexit-britain-needs-mps-out-of-westminster-provinces-neglected

 

Jenkins doesn't seem to comprehend the scale of what would be involved in moving government out of London. We aren't just talking about 650MPs, over 8,000 people have offices in the Palace of Westminster. If you include people working in other areas of government in London the number swells to over 80,000. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

35 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Jenkins doesn't seem to comprehend the scale of what would be involved in moving government out of London. We aren't just talking about 650MPs, over 8,000 people have offices in the Palace of Westminster. If you include people working in other areas of government in London the number swells to over 80,000. 

We've moved other parts of government before - how many moved to Moorfoot back in late 70s early 80s?

[Robin-H 11]

4 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

We've moved other parts of government before - how many moved to Moorfoot back in late 70s early 80s?

I have absolutely no problem in having regional departmental government hubs, as we do now. That is different to moving the seat of government somewhere else for seemingly an arbitrary reason. There are over 400,000 civil servants in the UK, and only around 80,000 work in London, so the vast majority already live and work elsewhere..

 

I don't see what is gained by moving 80,000 people and their families.

 

 

[Robin-H 11]

10 hours ago, Anna B said:

It would share things out a bit perhaps. At the moment everything is Londoncentric, nobody else gets a look in. And land / property prices might be less elsewhere. 

I appreciate that the UK is unusual in that our largest city is so much larger than the next biggest, but I don't think the solution to that is moving the seat of government out of London. 

 

Firstly, it would be incredibly expensive. You'd essentially be having to build a new city. To move government out of London would require moving many tens of thousands of people. Also, that wouldn't solve the problem that started this whole debate. The Palace of Westminster and Northern Estate would still need billions spending on them to be restored. The massive conservation deficit means it would never be tackled without government funding, no business or private venture would take it on.