[Closed] Houses of Parliament £4bn repair bill

Would the sensible thing to do be relocate permanantly? Sell the property for enough cash to build the new place in say [s]Nottingham[/s]an industrial estate in Runcorn and a grammar school education for all?

As they say round these parts FTFY.

and a grammar school education for all?

That's defeats the whole point of grammar schools!

Happy with Runcorn, is HS2 going there? It is now!

and a grammar school education for all?
That's defeats the whole point of grammar schools!

Indeed.

Permanent relocation to Blackpool should be the ticket! 😆

They could repair the House Of Commons and convert it into affordable homes to sell/rent, or move the whole building to another location and start afresh.

Aren't there already a couple of other parliament buildings in the UK they could "borrow" for a bit. Okay, the locals speak with strange accents but you don't have to go far from Westminster to find the local accent a bit hard to understand for people outside London

Last time I checked Edinburgh had more English accents than England, so it'd be grand (just dont look at how well that parliament building went)

Not only would moving out of London save a fortune on the premises cost, imagine the savings from not having to pay all the civil servants the extra london weighting allowance they get.

They could use a recently closed Military base - plenty of onsite accommodation, built-in security.

Someone on the radio this morning had an utterly inspired idea, and suggested putting them all on a boat, and sending them out to sea. They would sail around the country, and occasionally be allowed to dock in various ports. 😀

Everyone who made fun of the cost of Holyrood can get in the [s]sea[/s] Thames

Are rent boys cheaper in Runcorn?

A virtual parliament with all the MPs staying in their constituencies. What could go wrong.

A virtual parliament with all the MPs staying in their constituencies. What could go wrong

Not sure our MP would be able to find it

A virtual parliament with all the MPs staying in their constituencies. What could go wrong.

But the poor MPs would need counselling, when they realise how silly they feel when heckling alone from their study at PM's Question Time, while using a web cam! 😉

For [s]4 billion[/s] 12 Billion, I'm pretty sure we could build a moonbase and relocate the ****s off world.

there're a lot of costs savings to be made on a B-Ark.

Given that the cost [b][u]will[/u][/b] escalate far and beyond the estimate I think that is pretty unjustifiable. Bulldoze and build afresh.

Qataris would pay a fortune for it.

On today's news:
£4 [u]Billion[/u] to overhaul The Palace of Westminster.
£12 [u]Million[/u] for mobile flood defences for the UK.

They should have run the articles back to back.

They could raise money through selling naming rights

The Sport Direct Palace of Tat
The Philip Green Home of Democracy
The Keith Vaz Love Palace

Outrageous! Never mind strictly & the great british bake off is back on, so I'm guessing not many will notice.

aren't they shutting it down because they've decided that all the drinking and drug abuse in there poses a risk to life?

They could have used the Olympic village accommodation for all as well .This would cut the greedy sods expenses

Full of short term tenants and spongers, it was never going to be that well looked after.

£4 billion repair bill and 6 years away from it. Shall we do a sweepstake? I reckon double both estimates.

It's the same tender process that got us a £350million swimming pool

And £125million bill to convert a stadium for London's fifth club

Did anyone mention "Barnett Consequentials"?

I assumed the idea was to give it away to a Ukrainian oligarch to convert to luxury houses.

Or has Tory housing policy changed?

I think Yunki has a point. Maybe they're going to relocate to Fabric.

Can't see the problem, one of them will probably put it on expenses.

It is a large historical building, but the cost seems pretty insane, isn't that about £1 million per person who works there? I'd love to see the BoQ for this job to see how it all adds up.

There's a bit of detail here:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/08/what-do-they-actually-need-to-repair-in-the-houses-of-parliament-6117391/

I think we need to put the (often justified) anti-MP rhetoric aside and remember that this is a massively important building from a cultural, historical and architectural perspective. It must be one of the most famous buildings in the world.

We, as a nation*, have let it get into a state where it is literally nearly falling down. That's pretty crap. It costs so much because we* have let it get into such a state, but it would be appalling not to do what needs to be done.

*I say 'we', because every politician has always known that the general public will always get sidelined/distracted by the 'bloody politicians feathering their own nest' debate whenever any mention of doing improvement works at the Palace of Westminster. So, it's always been bodged in, done on the margin or just ignored.

but it would be appalling not to do what needs to be done.

It would be appalling to spend 4 billion on a building that is not fit for purpose. History cannot and should not be preserved at any cost, and certainly not at the cost of damaging the present and the future.

And it would be politically good for the country as a whole to move the seat of power away from London.

But the 4 Billion would make it fit for purpose. And to build a new one would cost, I'd imagine, about 4 billion.

Moving the seat of power out of London is a reasonable point though, but it's the capital, that's where the seat of power is.

Agree with MSP - I'd keep the facade and some of the important rooms but seems to me that most of it's just shitty little offices that should be stripped rather than preserved (which I assume is what's making the projected cost so high)

... and I'm all for moving the government onto a new site outside of London - perhaps into the northern powerhouse

There isn't enough office space, committee rooms and meeting rooms for the MP's, never mind admin staff, unless the 4 billion includes expanding the building it just cannot meet the requirements.

A modern office building that meets the requirement need cost no where near that amount.

Knock it down and then re-built taller, incorporating enough studio flats to cater for the number of parliamentary seats.

Stick Big Ben tower at the top of the new building, raising its profile in modern London.

Then change the rules for MP housing/accommodation expenses, including any benefits they get from second homes near the capital.

Did anyone mention "Barnett Consequentials"?

This will be one of those things, like the Olympics, which is supposed to be "benefitting the whole UK" so there will be no Barnett consequentials.

It's just a coincidence that so many things like that are built in London.

I think we need to put the (often justified) anti-MP rhetoric aside and remember that this is a massively important building from a cultural, historical and architectural perspective. It must be one of the most famous buildings in the world.

I beg to differ. It's gopping. Indeed it's worse than that, it's fake gopping. (Re)Built in the mid 19 hundreds to ape a gothic aesthetic from half a millennia previously. It's no better than one of the mock tutor Barratt homes from the 80's. There is lots of amazing architecture in London that is truly reflective of the age in which it was built and genuinely inspiring constructions and the Palace of Westminster is not one of them.

Drag it down, sell the rubble to gullible tourists (probably not the asbestos bits) and build something considered, contemporary and fit for purpose on the same location. Probably cost half what trying to renovate the piece of junk will come to. We don't live in the middle ages anymore (even if the Victorians thought it would be nice to make it look like we did) so let's have a parliament building that represents what a modern ground breaking nation we can be. It would probably be built by Poles, right before we kick them out!

It's just a coincidence that so many things like that are built in London.

I know, just look at how Scotland was starved of investment with the Scottish Parliament buildings

Moving the seat of power out of London is a reasonable point though, but it's the capital, that's where the seat of power is.

Does that really matter Canberra is the Aussie capitol but Sydney is the place that most recognise as 'the' Australian city?

[url= http://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancini_how_to_upgrade_democracy_for_the_internet_era ]Democracy needs a reboot!
[/url] It's an opportunity to modernise!

to build a new one would cost, I'd imagine, about 4 billion.

Unless you had to buy the site in London it would be likely to be much cheaper. Victorian buildings were not built with maintenance in mind and incorporated large quantities of unpainted ferrous fittings, added to which 150 years of retro fits, abundant asbestos so its not hard to see where the budget comes from.

The difficult bit is understanding the need for a temporary debating chamber when most cities have conference centres which would be more than up to the job (I do like the idea of the boat though (particularly a leaky one).

The idea that it needs to be in London is a bit thin (unless you live in London). Australia and the US seem to do quite well having an administrative capital and a separate principle business city. (Beaten to it above)

Perhaps we could sell the Palace of Westminster so that it can be turned into a heritage theme park 'Democracy World' perhaps

See, if we'd planned ahead, this could have been the ideal legacy use for one of the Olympic stadia, or possibly the millennium dome.

I know, just look at how Scotland was starved of investment with the Scottish Parliament buildings

The Scottish Parliament was paid for entirely by the Scottish government. People in the rest of the U.K. did not contribute a penny. Just like the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, really.

The rule is simple: if it's in Scotland, then Scotland pays for it. If it's in London, then Scotland helps pay for it too.

We, as a nation*, have let it get into a state where it is literally nearly falling down

Are you referring to the building, or the institution it houses?

History cannot and should not be preserved at any cost, and certainly not at the cost of damaging the present and the future.

This. Most definitely this. We are living in an age of austerity with growing numbers of food banks, NHS struggling to meet it's committments and young people leaving university with thousands of pounds of debt yet we are proposing to spend [b][u]£4 BILLION[/u][/b] renovating a building that's not fit for purpose because it's on the front of the HP bottle?

Knock it down and then re-built taller, incorporating enough studio flats to cater for the number of parliamentary seats.

Now this *is* a good idea. I like this one a lot!

Are you referring to the building, or the institution it houses?

Well, I was referring to the former, but there's a strong argument to also apply the sentiment to the latter.

It's not really that historic a building is it? It's pretty much a modern fake, built on the cheap to replace one that burned down.

IHN - Member

Moving the seat of power out of London is a reasonable point though, but it's the capital, that's where the seat of power is.

As you say, the capital is where the seat of power is- that doesn't mean the parliament has to be in London, it means that if you move the parliament then the new place becomes the capital.

Does this mean if we relocate the Houses Of Parliament to Manchester, the silly house prices in London (and expanding rapidly along the south coast) will reverse and the north can get used to price hikes?

Shame they didn't buy Battersea power station when it was cheap.

Maybe we need a referendum on what city it should be in? Or build a new one? We could do with some more housing.

Does this mean if we relocate the Houses Of Parliament to Manchester,

Manchester indeed, have a word with yourself.

Historic buildings cost a fortune to maintain. Makes you realise how wealthy people / states where before. Just look at the cost to build say a classical Cathedral would be today. It's my view wealth inequality was far worse 100+ years ago than it is today.

Without historic buildings London't tourist numbers would plummet

@mudshark Battersea Power Station has never been "cheap" its bankrupted numerous buyers and only remotely made sense now due to extensive new build planning.

It's not really that historic a building is it? It's pretty much a modern fake, built on the cheap to replace one that burned down.

Some parts are very old. Westminster Hall was built in the 11th century.

As soon as I saw the story about the HoP renovations, I knew it would have many people going ballistic at the cost!

Pity those same people barely lifted an eyebrow when our government voted to waste £200+ billion on a completely useless nuclear missile system which will never be used and was technologically redundant 20+ years ago...

I'm curious as to why it wold cost such a staggering amount of money to renovate, but then there's going to be lots of things we'll never be aware of, such as anti-terrorism security systems, and loads of stuff underground, that won't be cheap. £4 billion though; it's a lot of money.

"The Scottish Parliament was paid for entirely by the Scottish government. People in the rest of the U.K. did not contribute a penny. Just like the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, really."

Where do you think the Scottish parliament gets it's money from? Scotland is not an independent economy. It is certainly not independent of financial input from the rest of the UK! I'm sorry; to claim that the Scottish parliament was paid for entirely by 'Scotland', is like saying the Olympics were paid for entirely by 'London'. Which is nonsense. The UK taxpayers fund everything that goes on in the UK; Welsh Assembly, Manchester commonwealth games, London Olympics etc.

"It's not really that historic a building is it? It's pretty much a modern fake, built on the cheap to replace one that burned down."

😆 It's a [i]little[/i] bit more than that, but you're quite amusing.

Sell it for flats with the caveat that the facade and any other worthwile bits cant be changed.

Build a new one somewher near the centre of the UK (ie the north of England)

"Maybe we need a referendum on what city it should be in?"

Absolutely no need. Would be massively stupid, and monumentally impractical; it's not just the HoP you'd have to move, it would also be all the government departments situated nearby. So, several very large buildings, containing many thousands of staff. Then there's the small issue of where to situate it all, in another city. you'd have to pretty much tear down most of the centres of any large UK city, such as Manchester, Birmingham etc, to be able to put it all in one place. Staff have to be able to physically move from one building to another, no good if they're miles apart or more. A move to another city would end up costing many times what it will to renovate parliament.

What should have happened, 30+ years ago, was the relocation of the financial sector to other parts of the UK. That would have spread things out much more evenly, than having it concentrated in one place. That was the biggest mistake in terms of future planning. Hardly any other major nation has t's government and financial centres in the same place.

Some farms are going to become economic inviable once Brexit truly hits and the subsidies stop.

Government buys largest farm available at a fair market price and creates a new government town on the land, moving out of Westminster with all the cival servants.

clodhopper - Member

It's a little bit more than that

Well, that's partly true but the historic survivors aren't part of the day to day function of westminster. All of the bits that people think of when they think of Westminster are 1840 or later, and the commons chamber is 1950s.

Where do you think the Scottish parliament gets it's money from? Scotland is not an independent economy. It is certainly not independent of financial input from the rest of the UK!

Scotland is also not independent of financial output [u]to[/u] the rest of the country. We get a block grant, but it's not a gift from the people of Britain, it's our money and loans taken out on our behalf returned to us.

to claim that the Scottish parliament was paid for entirely by 'Scotland', is like saying the Olympics were paid for entirely by 'London'. Which is nonsense.

Well, the latter is nonsense, certainly - the Olympics were paid for by everyone, even though they were based in London. But the Commonwealth Games were paid for by the City of Glasgow and the Scottish Government from their block grant, no-one in London contributed.

Historic buildings cost a fortune to maintain. Makes you realise how wealthy people / states where before. Just look at the cost to build say a classical Cathedral would be today.

Up until the frightening recent past, in building labour (and lives) was cheap and materials expensive. Thankfully, at least in the first world, the equation is reversed. Hence the cost of working on historic buildings, which are incredibly intensive on highly skilled labour. One of the big issues at Westminster was the extensive use of newly developed materials techniques, which are now causing the majority of the problems.

[url= https://c7.staticflickr.com/3/2226/3537324430_49864d07c5_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://c7.staticflickr.com/3/2226/3537324430_49864d07c5_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/6ozHjf ]Westminster Palace[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/cycleologist/ ]Ben Cooper[/url], on Flickr

From Building News, when it was constructed...

Battersea Power Station has never been "cheap"

Well it was purchased for £1.5m in 1987.

"Scotland is also not independent of financial output to the rest of the country. We get a block grant, but it's not a gift from the people of Britain, it's our money and loans taken out on our behalf returned to us."

So, ultimately, it's money raised by [u]all[/u] UK taxpayers. So, not 'Scottish' money at all.

"no-one in London contributed."

😆 No, of course not.

You cannot simply claim that only 'Scottish money' pays for things in Scotland, because by your own admission, all UK taxes raised goes into a big pot, and then distributed according to politicians' whims. So people in Wales, Northern Ireland etc, end up benefitting from the UK economy. As it should be.

Care to comment on this?:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/glasgow-500m-uk-government-nick-7502276

https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=13045

[i]"The UK and Scottish Governments will each give the City Region £500million in grant funding, and the local authorities will borrow a further £130million."[/i]

clodhopper - Member
...it's not just the HoP you'd have to move, it would also be all the government departments situated nearby.

Much as i agree a referendum would be down right silly - look what happened last time - I'm not exactly sure why you would [b] have[/b] to move anything else at all. If you can run a company with as many global offices and the size of Microsoft from Seattle i dont see why it would be so difficult to run something like the FCO from Manchester, it's not like the gov't is any more involved with the day to day at the various ministries and departments than Bob Diamond was with my local Barclays.

Even if they were this is the 21st century, the age off the internet, of web cast, virtual meetings, teleconferencing and the like. Geography isn't as binding as it once was.

Also bear in mind most of the lovely buildings which house the HO, FCO, MOD etc are also not fit for purpose any more and that relocating them would be similarly financially beneficial.

[Edit] for my tupence worth i would move parliament, (and North) though I'd shift it to somewhere that needs the regeneration like Bradford or Rochdale. (I like the idea of a peripatetic gov't but the practicality wouldn't be there.)

IHN - Member
... but it's the capital, that's where the seat of power is.

Works well enough for the Dutch to have the government somewhere that isn't the capital.

That's a fairly unique example though. Most nations will have the seat of government as their capital, even if the economic/financial centre is elsewhere. Berlin/Frankfurt, Rome/Milan, etc.

Fairly unique certainly in most 1st/2nd world countries, not so unusual in 3rds. My point though isn't that its normal so much, rather that seat of government doesn't necessarily mean capital.

Admittedly it's not really comparable (as there isn't a capital) but the seat of EU government is Strasbourg, the "capital" though would be Brussels were there one.

[Edit] Again admittedly unusual but as you mentioned it Milan was the capital of italy, they moved that to Rome...

Build a new one somewher near the centre of the UK (ie the north of England)

Middlesbrough for the win!

Restoration costs are more than Government has spent on social housing for the whole country during the past 5 years.

I can't help thinking there's something wrong somewhere..

the relocation of the financial sector to other parts of the UK.

Eurostar wouldn't have been so useful then.

London is such a big city because it's so close to the rest of Europe. I think it's still a significant factor now tbh.

How about Malaysia? Kuala Lumpur is full so they built a new "administrative city" down the road. KL's still the capital and the parliament is there but the actual seat of power is Putrajaya.

wwaswas, that's truly shocking! Have you got a link to government spending by any chance? Genuinely interested in these figures.

Genuine question wwaswas but isn't social housing paid for by local government so any "government" spending would be expected to be low?

"Too full" strikes me as a great description of London NW

"Too full" strikes me as a great description of London NW

Maybe, but moving the capital to Putrajaya will cause all kinds of trouble. Or did I miss something?

DrJ - Member

Maybe, but moving the capital to Putrajaya will cause all kinds of trouble. Or did I miss something?

Theresa May sold the country to the Malaysians for a quid. Apparently public ownership is inefficient, except when it's foreigners that do the owning.