Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
They could take inspiration from the Canadians, who've moved their Commons chamber into the interior courtyard of a nearby building for 13 years whilst they spend $5bn rennovating their main building, looks quite nice, maybe could do something similar with Buckingham Palace or the FCDO building opposite Downing St?
(picture of Ottawa West Block House of Commons Chamber)
In which case time to do it again! That's 70+ years ago, the world has changed tremendously in the intervening period and what might have worked then clearly doesn't work anymore.
I have been inside Westminster and Buckingham Palace and the former had the vibe of a crumbling school, the latter (despite lovely gardens) the vibe of a country house hotel that had seen better days- neither a patch on the great stately homes.
Surely they're just representations of the UK in miniature? A formerly grand but now slightly crumbling place that has seen better days but still has a few nice bits here and there which no-one is willing to make difficult decisions about how to invest in and preserve/renew for the future?
Perhaps it's had its day. I would take a pragmatic view of how much revenue the architecture and style of a building generates (eg via tourism), on going repair costs, and whether the building is functional by modern standards (heating, cooling, space, noise, lighting etc).
This country does too much of holding on to the past when it comes to architecture. It feeds into the NIMBY / BANANA major issue we have. Some towns and cities do have some nice stone buildings etc but they would be a million times more beneficial to society if they were flattened and replaced by 1000s of nicely designed mid rise dense homes / offices.
Though we do have a habit of replacing things with the cheapest replacement possible so I understand a slight aversion to change. But let's fix that.
They could take inspiration from the Canadians, who've moved their Commons chamber into the interior courtyard of a nearby building for 13 years whilst they spend $5bn rennovating their main building, looks quite nice, maybe could do something similar with Buckingham Palace or the FCDO building opposite Downing St?
That looks superb and just goes to show where there's a will there's a way. Unless there is a dramatic change of heart I don't see it happening here. Certain political figures are completely wedded to clinging on to tradition and a decaying building without at all considering that with no action it will eventually collapse on top of them.
I don’t understand people who are saying to abandon it and move to a conference centre. What kind of an attitude is that for a country to have? Can you imagine the French demolishing the Eiffel Tower or the Italians giving up on St Mark’s Basilica?
Surely they're just representations of the UK in miniature? A formerly grand but now slightly crumbling place that has seen better days but still has a few nice bits here and there which no-one is willing to make difficult decisions about how to invest in and preserve/renew for the future?
So what a great statement of national intent it would be, to resolve to rebuild one to the highest modern standards, while retaining the historic grandeur which makes it unique.
So what a great statement of national intent it would be, to resolve to rebuild one to the highest modern standards, while retaining the historic grandeur which makes it unique.
They actually do have electronic voting now, with card readers placed in the lobbies, but I gather that the manual count is still considered authoritative if there is a discrepancy. Still a far cry from the COVID era where the online voting system was being used as a leading example for other parliaments to follow
Don't forget the fact that there isn't enough seating for all members, therefore anyone wishing to guarantee a seat for a major debate or PMQs has to place a "prayer card" (so called because it has to be done while parliament is in prayer and the cameras are switched off).
Defenders of this ridiculous practice will claim that it is fine because full attendance is otherwise rare, sensible people would note that this is ridiculous given that MPs can't participate remotely any more (even if remote is defined as their office elsewhere on the parliamentary estate). Hot desk offices exist of course, but those places don't have arcane rules over where you can do all aspects of your job...
Don't forget the fact that there isn't enough seating for all members, therefore anyone wishing to guarantee a seat for a major debate or PMQs has to place a "prayer card" (so called because it has to be done while parliament is in prayer and the cameras are switched off).
Defenders of this ridiculous practice will claim that it is fine because full attendance is otherwise rare, sensible people would note that this is ridiculous given that MPs can't participate remotely any more (even if remote is defined as their office elsewhere on the parliamentary estate). Hot desk offices exist of course, but those places don't have arcane rules over where you can do all aspects of your job...
I am not so against requiring members to be physically present if they're attending debates (though it is a bit of a pain it being in the corner of the country, despite transport connections, due to travel time). I think there's a lot of value to in-person discussions and really for a proper debate with hundreds of potential speakers I think it's practically essential. But there's no reason for a lot of the weird quirks about how debates and votes and ceremonies are conducted in Parliament except because... tradition. Holyrood, the Senedd, Dáil Eireann, the UN manage to use electronic voting; the House of Commons is just stuck in the past wasting taxpayers' money.
Sadly Parliament IS acting in a contemporary way- so very 'British'- dither, delay, decay. indecison, a crumbling edifice, changing tack, ...
Rising costs- how much did Holyrood cost, or the Senedd Cymru, ... is the Northern Ireland Assembly assembling?
A well-designed and -constructed newbuild ought to enable a modern organisation to perform its function efficiently and effectively.
St Pancras Midland Hotel is more or less contemporaneous- how has that worked out? County Hall? Surely our 'heritage buildings' could provide wonderful tourist 'opportunities'.
I hope we don't end up with a 'European' compromise with Parliament meeting part-time in London and part-time in Makerfield.
IIRC there were 90 acres of 'industrial development land' available at Ince-in-Makerfield in the 1970s- Harold Wilson I think referred to it as 'no laughing matter'.
Not good. Assuming AB gets the job he is predicted to get, he'd do well to take over from KS in a more seemless and positive way, which will involve him having to work from Downing Street initially whilst the hand/change over takes place at least, so may be first six months to a year?
His current stance on creating a No 10 North from day one, will only serve to put peoples backs up down South (like it or not), and tells me (and many others no doubt), he wants to stay 'safe' in his own cosy environment from day one. In other words he's sticking two fingers up at Westminster etc.
He talked a lot in his first speech in Manchester very recently, but he said very little of substance. Beware the 'spin'.
In any such major change there needs to be a window (period) of time, for the major changes to take place, during which there will likely be some compromises, if (and I re-iterate IF) those concerned genuinely have the best interests of the country at large at heart.
These are of course smaller parliaments. 129 MSPs in Scotland, 96 MPs in Wales, 90 MLAs in Northern Ireland. Versus 650 MPs and nearly 800 peers in Westminster.
However I don't think that really offsets the cheapest Westminster plan being £7-13 billion. The longest proposal would take 76 years to complete. These are just incredible numbers.
A well-designed and -constructed newbuild ought to enable a modern organisation to perform its function efficiently and effectively.
St Pancras Midland Hotel is more or less contemporaneous- how has that worked out? County Hall? Surely our 'heritage buildings' could provide wonderful tourist 'opportunities'.
I hope we don't end up with a 'European' compromise with Parliament meeting part-time in London and part-time in Makerfield.
IIRC there were 90 acres of 'industrial development land' available at Ince-in-Makerfield in the 1970s- Harold Wilson I think referred to it as 'no laughing matter'.
Well that's the interesting thing. We are planning on spending monumental sums because they're listed building and attract tourism. Yet, because it's still the active meeting place of the government, tours are restricted to Saturdays and recess days. We could generate incredible income by running tours 7 days a week, but we can't if it's the active place of Parliament.
I worry about electronic voting, combined with remote "attendance" just leading to MPs becoming increasingly isolated from one other and being less likely to challenge the party leadership on anything.
I also think that if we move parliament out of the current complex, it won't go back.
I worry about electronic voting, combined with remote "attendance" just leading to MPs becoming increasingly isolated from one other and being less likely to challenge the party leadership on anything.
IIRC 'the member for the eighteenth century' (aka Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg) had similar thoughts about 'remote' contributions and voting during Covid times. I wonder whether any 'research' was done regarding such matters as isolation and lack of challenge. I think the 'greasy pole' and the 'payroll vote' are stronger factors. The whips have always observed members' speaking and voting profiles.
There may be a case for reducing the 'size' of constituencies. Why 600 odd MPs? Surely electronics have reduced the 'distance' of constituents.
The Lords is the size it is because of the LibDem-Con coalition. The Lib Dems 'demanded' greater representation in the Upper House, and they stilll have it- Lords don't leave when their parties share of the vote goes down.
Surely (?) it makes no sense to provide for a new parliamentary building without deciding FIRST what it's for; how many members etc- esp if devolution is 'on the cards'. And Lord's reform questions the whole of the 'Act of Settlement' with Monarch, Established Church etc etc. Too big an issue, 'distraction', hot potato, divisive, vote loser, etc. Would require a James Hacker PM to make a 'bold decision', or a government with a large majority -- which we have?
I'd expect the whips to apply pressure to isolate MPs as far as possible from their colleagues, to reduce the chance of any kind of rebellion being coordinated on a level likely to threaten the government.
Much harder to do that when all the voters have to be in the same room.
Any kind of social life associated with the commons would be strangled, ensuring as few people know each other as possible.
I think the Commons has to get larger, because large constituencies just render MPs entirely beholden to the party apparatus. The larger the constituency the harder it is to get elected without the support of the party leadership.
I prefer AMS, so constituencies would not be smaller than todays but I think we probably need around 800MPs.
We should also fix the payroll vote to a value well below 100.
More drastically I'd not be too opposed to something like Australian "semi parliamentarianism", where the budget is passed by the lower house but all other matters require two elected houses to approve to pass.
More drastically I'd not be too opposed to something like Australian "semi parliamentarianism", where the budget is passed by the lower house but all other matters require two elected houses to approve to pass.
Oh please no! If the two houses were controlled by different parties (and given the unfailing tendency of voters to always vote against the incumbent government in non-general elections, this would probably be the case) then we would be subjected to a near-constant tug-of-war and constitutional crisis.
One house being elected to express the popular will*, the other a forum for debate by experts and minority voices- this is what we have and even though it is somewhat Ruritarian in this country, it is not a bad set-up in practice.
I always notice that a lot of American political coverage is insufferably dull stuff about filibusters and committee motions, adjudicated by lawsuits in their politicised courts. I think we had quite enough of that nonsense during Brexit.
(*= yes, opinions obviously differ on the correct voting system for the Commons).
However I don't think that really offsets the cheapest Westminster plan being £7-13 billion. The longest proposal would take 76 years to complete. These are just incredible numbers.
So long that there would be people born after the work starts and die before it's finished. I wouldn't be surprised if you could knock the whole thing down and build an exact replica down to the last stone and it would both be cheaper and done more quickly than all the building restoration plans that involve at least partial occupancy continuing.
The fact that these are not being seriously slammed shows out completely blinded by tradition and pageantry the political and media classes are.
I worry about electronic voting, combined with remote "attendance" just leading to MPs becoming increasingly isolated from one other and being less likely to challenge the party leadership on anything.
I also think that if we move parliament out of the current complex, it won't go back.
I wouldn't generally support remote attendance outwith exceptional circumstances.
I don't think electronic voting is an issue though. In fact some of the bullying people into aye/no lobbies you hear about arguably makes the current system more open to abuse.
I don't see an issue with parliament moving permanently out of their current site. Turn it into a proper tourist attraction and move to a more modern workplace.
AIUI, most National Trust/English Heritage attractions only have some of their country homes' rooms open, because maintaining the whole property is unviable. If the Palace were to become a museum, maintaining the building could be limited to the chambers and a few other important bits; many of the offices would be redundant and could be closed off with electrics disconnected, reducing the maintenance bill required.
AIUI, most National Trust/English Heritage attractions only have some of their country homes' rooms open, because maintaining the whole property is unviable. If the Palace were to become a museum, maintaining the building could be limited to the chambers and a few other important bits; many of the offices would be redundant and could be closed off with electrics disconnected, reducing the maintenance bill required.
AIUI, most National Trust/English Heritage attractions only have some of their country homes' rooms open, because maintaining the whole property is unviable. If the Palace were to become a museum, maintaining the building could be limited to the chambers and a few other important bits; many of the offices would be redundant and could be closed off with electrics disconnected, reducing the maintenance bill required.
Battersea Power Station is a great example of a unique building that can be well preserved in character while earning its keep for residential and commercial use after a massive restoration task. (It was a derelict shell 20 years ago.)
I'm not sure converting the Palace of Westminster to a museum is very practical - its got quadruple the floor area of the V&A's gallery spaces
I'd have some sympathy that we could convert most of the Westminster precincts east of St James Park into a giant palace/museum complex, but its a very big area with a lot of very big, very old buildings that would soak up maintenance money. If Westminster is gone most of it is probably not particularly useful for practical government.
This of course is the main reason, in my opinion, why Government is so resistant to modernising voting methods. There's a loss of control when people can just push a button from the comfort of their seat in the chamber versus having to physically walk away from their colleagues and with the opposition to vote against the Government. There's a strong psychological barrier there to rebelling. Quite apart from the abuse that we've heard occasionally happens.
I must admit in terms of the Palace itself I am increasingly convinced the answer is to tear down the whole thing apart from Westminster Hall (which a beautiful space and genuinely historic dating back to the 1300s at least) and Big Ben (which is to iconic to be lost). The whole palace only dates back to the 1830s when it last burnt down (and the Commons chamber is from the 1950s after some Luftwaffe inspired remodelling). It's a historic building but it's not ancient by any stretch apart from Westminster Hall. Tear the whole thing down and rebuild something on the site that's actually fit for the 21st Century. You can keep the various trappings like the red and green benches, the general styling of the space could remain as is but underneath it's modern and fit for purpose. In my view that's the real move.
I must admit in terms of the Palace itself I am increasingly convinced the answer is to tear down the whole thing apart from Westminster Hall (which a beautiful space and genuinely historic dating back to the 1300s at least) and Big Ben (which is to iconic to be lost). The whole palace only dates back to the 1830s when it last burnt down (and the Commons chamber is from the 1950s after some Luftwaffe inspired remodelling). It's a historic building but it's not ancient by any stretch apart from Westminster Hall. Tear the whole thing down and rebuild something on the site that's actually fit for the 21st Century. You can keep the various trappings like the red and green benches, the general styling of the space could remain as is but underneath it's modern and fit for purpose
From a book I have (Westminster and Pimlico Past - Isobel Watson - Historical Publications/1993 - ISBN 0 948667 21 4) it would appear that Westminster Hall was only saved from the blaze of 16th October 1834, by a change in the wind over night, albeit the Medieval St. Stephen's Chapel, although unanimously voted for retention by an 1833 select committee (Commons) during discussions with various architects about proposed rebuilding works, was in the event, lost to the fire.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
PS:
As for tearing down and rebuilding fit for 21st century - agree for internal working environments etc, but for external visual purposes think on;
How many tourists to such places as Ypres, marvelling at the medieval buildings today, don't realise that most are post WW1 rebuilds of those destroyed during WW1, including most of the famous Cloth Hall. The Tower still stood proud after the guns fell silent AFAIR, but how much of the original still forms part of the building today, I have no idea, without investigating via the web (which I haven't done as yet)?
If such rebuilds could be accomplished back then, then that should be the (best practice) way to go. Yes, there will be a cost to same, but this to me is often driven by a nation's sense of history and respect for the past. The two go hand in hand in my view, to which I refer one example;
As mentioned above about the physical structures in Ypres, The Last Post is still accorded due ceremony at The Menin Gate in Ypres at 8 pm every night. Where is this degree of respect still shown here in the UK?
Feel free to give me any examples, although I'm not holding my breath.
As further thought, being someone with 18/19th family who lived and worked in Coventry, the post WW2 rebuild (to me) is a travesty, including the Cathedral/Holy Trinity where some of mine were married (and buried). We all know a few medieval buildings were resurrected in what remains of Spon Street (where some of mine lived - hence my specific interest perhaps?), which is a welcome addition as a reminder to the younger generations today of Coventry's past, but with the benefit of hindsight so much more could have been done rather than cover Coventry in concrete.
Don't get me wrong, we as a nation were on our knees by 1945, in all respects, and certain people (architects for one) were seen as a breath of fresh air and a chance to rid our bombed cities of much of their Victorian slums etc so it is understandable to a point how things panned out, but I will always believe the 'modernisation' theme went too far and too fast.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
