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

[ECCOnoob 1,030]

6 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

This thread is a classic example of people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about give an opinion thinking they do.

 

Someone actually recommended Skype?  Really?

I know.  Its laughable.

 

We use Skype quite a bit at work -   god help if you have to connect to a video meeting room or a cross country audio call with a crowd bigger than 5 people.  With all the interference from background noise, clinking of cups, coughing, chair moving and keystokes you are lucky if you can hear more than 1/10 words.   As for video quality on live feeds.   Its like going back to AOL days. 

 

650 person debate over skype.    Dont think so.

[Mister M 1,624]

21 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

This thread is a classic example of people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about give an opinion thinking they do.

 

Someone actually recommended Skype?  Really?

I suggested Skype in the context of a civil servant and a minister having a conversation. I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't suggesting that select committees use Skype for their investigations, or PMQs

Incidentally you're right I'm not an expert on the subject, anymore than you are; but the man who wrote the article to which I referred does know a thing or two about both politics and architecture.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Mister M

[Mister Gee 822]

8 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

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. 

Think about the money that Chris Grayling for example has wasted? Do you think it's irrelevant? The nurses, GP's and social workers etc and the benefits to society as a whole that could have had. 

[Robin-H 11]

55 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

So you keep saying but like where?     What is your solution?     You claim that this proposed amount is outrageous but what would you deem to be a reasonable amount. 

 

Remember, we are not just talking about the 650 MPs here.    There are 2000+ people working there just in staff members alone.   Then we add on the MPs themselves, the Lords, their party officers, advisors, freelancers, contractors and hundreds of journalists and crews in that building every day.

 

I know how much my company's new build office is going to cost and we only need to fit in 250 people.    What do you think is a fair rate to build/rent and furnish a place to accomodate over 3000.    £1m  £10m  £100m?   

 

By way of example, HSBC's shiny new building in Sheffield had a reported cost of £90m and that was just for an simple office block in a Second Tier  Northern City.   Even that building is nowhere near big enough to accommodate the numbers needed for new parliament nor does it come with London costs.  

 

This "tempoary fix" is potentially going to be going on for several years.   This is not some simplistic case of renting out a couple of conference rooms at the Holiday Inn.

 

A one off £500m for the purposes of enabling a mass repair to one of most prominent and important government sites is a snip compared to the £100m estate and maintenence costs just one single hospital trust racks up every year every year.  Times that by the other 150 hospital trusts and then apply the same logic to Schools, Colleges, Local Council Buildings and it really starts to look like a load of fuss about nothing.

 

Said before and said again, people have a hatred of monies being spent on what they deem unworthy - regardless of how irrational it is.   You could put politicians in a damp tent with a single bulb and people would still kick off about money being wasted on lightbulbs when sunlight is free.

It’s way more than that. 8000 people work in the Palace of Westminster. Over 10,000 have day passes. 

 

Ill say it again. The google HQ in London cost £1b. This is costing half the amount for half the office space, 

 

why.? 

33 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I suggested Skype in the context of a civil servant and a minister having a conversation. I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't suggesting that select committees use Skype for their investigations, or PMQs

Incidentally you're right I'm not an expert on the subject, anymore than you are; but the man who wrote the article to which I referred does know a thing or two about both politics and architecture.

The man who wrote the article doesn’t know as much as the independent inequiry who looked into exactly this matter. 

 

Unless you think he does? Why is that? 

[Mister Gee 822]

8 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

It’s way more than that. 8000 people work in the Palace of Westminster. Over 10,000 have day passes. 

 

Ill say it again. The google HQ in London cost £1b. This is costing half the amount for half the office space, 

 

why.? 

The man who wrote the article doesn’t know as much as the independent inequiry who looked into exactly this matter. 

 

Unless you think he does? Why is that? 

I take it Chris Grayling isn't involved then?

[Robin-H 11]

2 minutes ago, Mister Gee said:

I take it Chris Grayling isn't involved then?

It was an independent inequiry, so no.. 

[Mister Gee 822]

1 minute ago, Robin-H said:

It was an independent inequiry, so no.. 

I bet you're relieved aren't you?

[Robin-H 11]

Just now, Mister Gee said:

I bet you're relieved aren't you?

What? 

 

What would be a cheaper solution that would be as efficient as that proposed? 

 

Do you think the independent research was compromised so that the answer was whatever the ‘establishment’ wanted? 

 

I hope you've taken your evidence to the police.. If the tendering process was illegal they would surely want to know? 

[Guest makapaka]

12 hours ago, Robin-H said:

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? 

Mothball it as it is - make it safe for tourists.

 

build a new building out of central London  with accommodation for mps next door.

[ECCOnoob 1,030]

17 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Mothball it as it is - make it safe for tourists.

 

build a new building out of central London  with accommodation for mps next door.

All well and good but you are forgetting two very important things.

 

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.

 

Hardly conducive to efficient running of the country to have MPs and their staff spending hours a week travelling around from city to city.  Some parlimentary business can involve crossing between office building to office building, chamber to chamber dozens of time a day.     Its one thing to do a short walk or drive within a couple of square miles of  Whitehall or Westminster.    Bit different to be expected to be nipping down from some new Parliament campus in Leeds or Manchester to the Home Office or Department of Health or the Privvy Council Offices in London.

 

Secondly, you seem to misunderstand the prime purpose of that "accommodation" allowance.     Its not about living close to Parliament.   Most MPs already own houses in London as their work is obviously majority based there.   The Second Home expenses allowance (which has recently been limited to single person rented flats only) is for those MPs who have constituances spread all over the place.   

 

No point putting them into some glorified hostel next to the debating chamber because that would not solve any issue.     They would still need other accommodation elsewhere no matter where you choose to site a new Parliament Building.   

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Robin-H 11]

8 hours ago, makapaka said:

Mothball it as it is - make it safe for tourists.

 

build a new building out of central London  with accommodation for mps next door.

What would that solve? 

 

In order for the building to be safeguarded for the future it needs a full work of renovation. Even minimal work to stop the imminent risks to the building would need to be extensive and expensive. You'd then be left with a building that still wasn't in a good enough state to actually be used for anything, and would require continual preventative maintenance as each issue that had not been resolved became critical. It is way more cost effective in the long run to do a full work of renovation in one go, fix everything and reduce the ongoing maintenance and running costs. 

 

Also, I don't really understand why people think an empty Palace of Westminster would be a bigger tourist draw than it is now. The vast majority of the building is made up of boring small office rooms. The public can already go on tours of all the interesting parts. The most interesting thing about it is that it is a living building and the heart of government. 

[Anna B 1,412]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

What would that solve? 

 

In order for the building to be safeguarded for the future it needs a full work of renovation. Even minimal work to stop the imminent risks to the building would need to be extensive and expensive. You'd then be left with a building that still wasn't in a good enough state to actually be used for anything, and would require continual preventative maintenance as each issue that had not been resolved became critical. It is way more cost effective in the long run to do a full work of renovation in one go, fix everything and reduce the ongoing maintenance and running costs. 

 

Also, I don't really understand why people think an empty Palace of Westminster would be a bigger tourist draw than it is now. The vast majority of the building is made up of boring small office rooms. The public can already go on tours of all the interesting parts. The most interesting thing about it is that it is a living building and the heart of government. 

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.