£4-£6 billion to save the Houses of Palriament

[MappingTheMind]

Just seen this on the news. If major works aren't carried out the Pakace of Westminster will subside and crumble but the works will cost the tax payer £4-6 billion.

£4-6 billion could pay for thousands of new schools. Or several hospitals. Or a significant rise in minimum wage. So part of me thinks saving a Palace is a huge waste.

However this is one of the UK's most iconic buildings. London without Big Ben is a sad thought. And it's a stunning building with such amazing history. So part of me thinks it's worth it.

What do others think?

Happybubblebrain.... why not blame the party that caused all the mess?

The party that increased government spending by 50% over several years, far higher than anywhere else in Europe, on the proceeds of their financial bubble bank financed economy and government debt - that once fell away in the worst financial/economic recession in 80-years, left a massive debt black hole?

The party than increased Welfare/benefits far more than any other country?

The party who screwed the life chances of the UK poorest in jobs, services, homes, by having no immigrations controls in (2004) and never upgraded our services or built enough homes to cope with the net 3 million to follow in a few years?

Blaming the governments from 2010 trying to sort out that mess from those clueless/frightened to do what had to be done then, but miraculously understand that now, doesn't help anyone.

People DO come first, but some blame has to go on politicians who foolishly thought they'd 'stopped boom and busts' (right before the biggest boom and bust) and built their Welfare/benefits Utopia on a financial bubble, that burst.

And back to parliament .........

i prefer to blame the banks. politicians should have let them go to the wall.

Banks weren't insolvent, so letting them go bust taking out company and people's deposits would have meant the UK going back to the Groat and barter system.

Note the economic crash came after the financial crash, not the other way around, so a WORSE financial crash would have meant what - more private sector job losses, less tax receipts, larger financial cuts to government, their employees and our welfare/benefits state.

Not so clever.

And back to parliament ......

Isitmebut - you can blame whoever you're brainwashed into believing caused the 'financial mess' - immigrants, poor people, the vulnerable, the Labour Party.

But, either we're skint or we're not. If the government want to spend 6 billion on an old building, billions and billions on a train line, give themselves massive pay rises etc etc etc then maybe we're not as skint as they like to conveniently say we are. We're only skint when it suites their agenda.

I agree with Sanfairyanne. I blame the rich and greedy, the banks, the media, the patriarchy, the psychopathic government and the people who fall for all their crap.

Other countries went for a different approach to the crisis and used stimulus rather than austerity. Completing major works forms a core part of many stimulus plans. It's not necessarily a bad use of money, besides which I suspect there isn't much choice about doing the work.

Fundamentally the only other choice might be selling the buildings off to a very large private property company, probably very undervalued to take into account the work to be done, and then take into account the significant costs of building somewhere else (probably not central London as the cost would be prohibitive) the Welsh Assembly building cost 69M and the Scottish Parliament building cost 415M ,both much smaller than Westminster (and building took years - eight for Wales and five for Scotland) plus of course the reputational hit of being too skint to fix your own parliamentary buildings, especially when they are amongst the most iconic in the world. Is anyone seriously suggesting that as a way ahead?

I hate the Tory bastards too, but I don't see in this case that it's them driving things, I bet they would love to put this off some more.

nooka .... re your last paragraph, I think you'll find that the difference between "Tory bastards" and the others, is that they DON'T put off tough/difficult decisions (that need to be done) because they are worried how the plebs vote - they didn't in 1979, they didn't in 2010, that why they are known as the 'nasty party' innit? Feck knows where we'd have been on both accounts if they hadn't.

happybubblebrain .... thats right, the £1.5 trillion National Debt and current £87 bil annual overspend, and our population growth are all figments of my imagination. Hmmm

If over the last century the government waited to be able to 'afford it' before investing in infrastructure etc, we'd all be riding push bikes everywhere, wearing little green suits - which thinking about it would please some of the poster on here.

P.S. MP's pay as mentioned numerous times on this board, is not decided by them, its an Independent body and said to be fairly neutral as pensions, expenses, leaving pay offs etc etc etc - are said to be lower.

Maybe if we paid more to the people that make laws/policies on our behalf, we'd get a better quality numpties, not making stupid ideological decisions we can't afford, for votes.

All governments put off difficult unpopular decisions. It's simply an effect of the electoral cycle, the primary drive for all parties if to get into and then stay in power. Decisions that could lose elections are rarely made unless they are incredibly pressing or they fit ideological bias (and that could be said to be electoral too, appealing to your base etc).

I do agree that there are issues about getting well qualified and diversely experienced people into executive and legislative positions. I don't think it's just a simple pay issue though.

"I do agree that there are issues about getting well qualified and diversely experienced people into executive and legislative positions. I don't think it's just a simple pay issue though."

Well said and I totally agree.

(I'm already getting too hot and cranky, so best I get off-line, up my meds, and do some chores involving a hot iron)

I really don't think you can pin the blame on any particular party for the fact that the building is a bit aged and it was stuffed chock full of asbestos

Although I'm sure some will try...

It is a lot of money and clearly the costs will only go up over time (these type of quotes never go down for public work, lets face it).....

it would be nice if they could find 5bn to build affordable homes for the people before blowing 5bn on rebuilding parliament though.

What's wrong with just letting them crumble? It'd save us having to do a Guy Fawkes.

The MPs could move into Windsor Castle for a bit (they have such long holidays it shouldn't be too much of an upheaval).The Queen should be fairly empathetic with regards to crumbling walls etc. I would like to see the buildings saved but I'm sure the Queen has a few jewels she could pawn? We ALL have to tighten belts these days.

It is a law of this country that the Queen gets paid more (benefits Britain) year on year. The laws of our country protect a tiny minority and fuck over the rest of us. It's time the old laws crumbled away along with the Houses of Parliament.

I'd loathe it if we ended up with a seat of government like Canberra, made up of Parliament, government, their employees, and services for Parliament/government. Plus landmarks.

It leads to a peculiarly insular, company town vibe. Everything revolves around public administration. Loathe London as you will, but it has multiple focus points, and people move and settle in London for a huge variety of reasons.

as opposed to now,when everything revolves around london/south east england?

fuck em, make em move up north

Not sure it would change very much when the economic focus remains so very much the South East - and don't think it leads to particularly good towns.

You'd get a huge house price rise overnight, though, wherever you moved the Parliament and government to.

Don't get me wrong, by the way - I'd love to see a less centrist setup. I just don't agree that moving parliament and the parts of central government that are in London would do very much to achieve that, at this particular point in our history, would be hugely expensive to the public purse, and wouldn't necessary be cohesive or net beneficial to the new host city.

Maybe if we'd moved it after the fire in 1834, there would have been a fighting chance.