Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we tell the mps or not! Maybe Guy Fawkes was ahead of his time!" No. Ensure that they are all in the Chamber; a debate on increasing their pay and allowances should ensure maximum attendance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we tell the mps or not! Maybe Guy Fawkes was ahead of his time! No. Ensure that they are all in the Chamber; a debate on increasing their pay and allowances should ensure maximum attendance." . Good thinking.... Also think of the amount of saving...5.5 billion on a new building plus all those expenses. It's the best austerity package I've seen yet. Also if there estimating the cost at 5.5 billion.... How much do you think it's really going to cost 10? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The HofP prob one of the UKs top tourist attraction which brings in £millions if not billions of tourists pounds and is a worldwide icon... Keep it and refurbish it" . I was joking... They are. There's several options and one is selling the building! The estimate of 5.5 billion is for restoration while mps remain in there, it drops to 3.5 billion if they move them out (but there not keen on the portacabin option)  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would make a great Wetherspoons prime location.   "Biggest Swinger Club in World...in doors swimming pool, sex in the Chambers, private rooms... Think of the money would could save and make at the same time... plus 650 members already except their get the expenses paid as use of jacuzzi's - Wouldnt that be an idea??? Just need to sort out parking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No more £millions gained by them too, as we buy them all a second home of prime London property. Should be a Travelodge contract and end second homes purchased by us. Parliament in Tamworth or Birmingham. No second jobs allowed, unless road or toilet cleaning." I've thought about the 2nd homes thing and why not have a street of houses bought/built for them a 1 off cost 3 per house roughly 250 houses not 650 (saving already) this would also mean that they could reduce travel expense by car sharing etc as well as the police protection as I'm sure there is some proviso would be in 1 area again savings not forgetting 1 full time house keeper per house (another saving) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we tell the mps or not! Maybe Guy Fawkes was ahead of his time! No. Ensure that they are all in the Chamber; a debate on increasing their pay and allowances should ensure maximum attendance." Shhhh!,wait till they all have had dinner in the House of commons Restaurant (subsidised by us from all the cuts in services they voted for) and they are smashed on the cheap wines & brandy(again subsidised by us) give the serving staff notice to evacuate then push the plunger to blow the place up!.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would make a great Wetherspoons prime location. Lmao "Yes you would get great views From up big ben, just don,t forget to Bring your ear plugs... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The revenue the building brings is will whey lay the costs of refurbishment in the long run, our traditions and history are continually being shed and watered down, we need to keep our heritage and this is a strong part of it, as for moving them out, where are they then going to sit, how much will that cost to fund? The building belongs to the people not to the MPs" to say a every single building project ever estimated goes well over budget, moving them out and build anew will save. It'll make a more efficient modern parliment building, second homes will be cheaper, more business will be generated in the area, and more contractors in the surrounding area as a result. The existing building will remain, either as a tourist attraction, gallery, hotel, residence, and be modernised - undertook at the expense of private industry, with them footing the bill, encouraging the economy to grow. It should go to a referendum | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The revenue the building brings is will whey lay the costs of refurbishment in the long run, our traditions and history are continually being shed and watered down, we need to keep our heritage and this is a strong part of it, as for moving them out, where are they then going to sit, how much will that cost to fund? The building belongs to the people not to the MPs" Actually it's a Royal Palace which means it's the property of the Queen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The revenue the building brings is will whey lay the costs of refurbishment in the long run, our traditions and history are continually being shed and watered down, we need to keep our heritage and this is a strong part of it, as for moving them out, where are they then going to sit, how much will that cost to fund? The building belongs to the people not to the MPs to say a every single building project ever estimated goes well over budget, moving them out and build anew will save. It'll make a more efficient modern parliment building, second homes will be cheaper, more business will be generated in the area, and more contractors in the surrounding area as a result. The existing building will remain, either as a tourist attraction, gallery, hotel, residence, and be modernised - undertook at the expense of private industry, with them footing the bill, encouraging the economy to grow. It should go to a referendum "O God, not another bloody referendum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would make a great Wetherspoons prime location.
Biggest Swinger Club in World...in doors swimming pool, sex in the Chambers, private rooms... Think of the money would could save and make at the same time... plus 650 members already except their get the expenses paid as use of jacuzzi's - Wouldnt that be an idea??? Just need to sort out parking"lmfao could get the planning permission push through aswell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A referendum is a fine idea, although each one of them costs a billion pounds to run "What question would you suggest? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A referendum is a fine idea, although each one of them costs a billion pounds to run
What question would you suggest?"how many bricks are needed to cease hearing bullshit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should we tell the mps or not! Maybe Guy Fawkes was ahead of his time!" No maybe's!! He was very popular, apparently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The revenue the building brings is will whey lay the costs of refurbishment in the long run, our traditions and history are continually being shed and watered down, we need to keep our heritage and this is a strong part of it, as for moving them out, where are they then going to sit, how much will that cost to fund? The building belongs to the people not to the MPs Actually it's a Royal Palace which means it's the property of the Queen." It is a Royal Palace but it's the property of the crown not the queen - she can't sell it and isn't responsible for liabilities like repairing it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Build a new houses of parliament in the middle of the country, not in a city. Have a dedicated hotel in the same place... with the bedrooms having desk space. Sit them in open plan offices, 30 to an office. Make it as far away from anywhere as possible for security purposes. Put wind turbines in the grounds and solar panels on the roof to provide as much electricity as possible. Reduce the numbers of Lords drastically, and the numbers of MPS by 10% to pay for their pay rise. Pay them a day rate which includes their travel expenses, and is based upon their attendance.. say £400 per day (this would equal an all in package of about £80K p.a.). Have a maximum of 3 choices on a 3 course menu. Max spend of £25 per day, anything else is down to the MP. And prices of food and refreshments should be at commercial rates, not subsidised. Smoking should be banned inside, as it is for anyone else. Get rid of their gold plated pensions. Have parliament sit throughout the year, with MPs having up to 10 weeks off, 5 for holidays, and 5 for constituency work. 2 of their holiday weeks are must be at Christmas. The rest they have to book, on a first come first served basis. This would further reduce the number of seats in the house needed, as the booking system would mean that there are only 85% of MPs present at any one time... so about 520 seats. Have it maybe like a lecture auditorium, with electronic voting buttons to increase productivity. In short, they want a new or refurbished parliament ... then make them help pay for it in job cuts and increased productivity, the same as normal businesses and working people have to. And refurbish the existing houses of Parliament into a tourist attraction. This way the refurbishment could be achieved over a period of time, with the revenue helping to pay for it." Oh, and the 5 weeks that they have for constituency work should be for exactly that, not to add to their holiday entitlement... so each day should be spent having surgeries with their constituents. This would make them more visible and more accountable to their constituents. If they don't attend parliament or hold enough surgeries, then they should be disciplined accordingly, with the ultimate sanction being dismissal. Not holding their surgeries should be treated as gross misconduct, so if they get dismissed for that then they lose their pension rights. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Build a new houses of parliament in the middle of the country, not in a city. Have a dedicated hotel in the same place... with the bedrooms having desk space. Sit them in open plan offices, 30 to an office. Make it as far away from anywhere as possible for security purposes. Put wind turbines in the grounds and solar panels on the roof to provide as much electricity as possible. Reduce the numbers of Lords drastically, and the numbers of MPS by 10% to pay for their pay rise. Pay them a day rate which includes their travel expenses, and is based upon their attendance.. say £400 per day (this would equal an all in package of about £80K p.a.). Have a maximum of 3 choices on a 3 course menu. Max spend of £25 per day, anything else is down to the MP. And prices of food and refreshments should be at commercial rates, not subsidised. Smoking should be banned inside, as it is for anyone else. Get rid of their gold plated pensions. Have parliament sit throughout the year, with MPs having up to 10 weeks off, 5 for holidays, and 5 for constituency work. 2 of their holiday weeks are must be at Christmas. The rest they have to book, on a first come first served basis. This would further reduce the number of seats in the house needed, as the booking system would mean that there are only 85% of MPs present at any one time... so about 520 seats. Have it maybe like a lecture auditorium, with electronic voting buttons to increase productivity. In short, they want a new or refurbished parliament ... then make them help pay for it in job cuts and increased productivity, the same as normal businesses and working people have to. And refurbish the existing houses of Parliament into a tourist attraction. This way the refurbishment could be achieved over a period of time, with the revenue helping to pay for it." 
I like your style!
& to add to this, the design of this new building should symbolize TRANSPARENCY, with no layers of bureaucracy to hide behind, ever to be allowed to grow again.
Party 'donations' (backhanders) to be scrubbed, replaced by the above system & absolutely definitely no place for a peodo to hide, nor any means to cover it up.
Maybe the police should have somewhere similar! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Build a new houses of parliament in the middle of the country, not in a city. Have a dedicated hotel in the same place... with the bedrooms having desk space. Sit them in open plan offices, 30 to an office. Make it as far away from anywhere as possible for security purposes. Put wind turbines in the grounds and solar panels on the roof to provide as much electricity as possible. Reduce the numbers of Lords drastically, and the numbers of MPS by 10% to pay for their pay rise. Pay them a day rate which includes their travel expenses, and is based upon their attendance.. say £400 per day (this would equal an all in package of about £80K p.a.). Have a maximum of 3 choices on a 3 course menu. Max spend of £25 per day, anything else is down to the MP. And prices of food and refreshments should be at commercial rates, not subsidised. Smoking should be banned inside, as it is for anyone else. Get rid of their gold plated pensions. Have parliament sit throughout the year, with MPs having up to 10 weeks off, 5 for holidays, and 5 for constituency work. 2 of their holiday weeks are must be at Christmas. The rest they have to book, on a first come first served basis. This would further reduce the number of seats in the house needed, as the booking system would mean that there are only 85% of MPs present at any one time... so about 520 seats. Have it maybe like a lecture auditorium, with electronic voting buttons to increase productivity. In short, they want a new or refurbished parliament ... then make them help pay for it in job cuts and increased productivity, the same as normal businesses and working people have to. And refurbish the existing houses of Parliament into a tourist attraction. This way the refurbishment could be achieved over a period of time, with the revenue helping to pay for it." I have a feeling your post might be a bit tongue in cheek. But it's an effing good idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inside it's a really impractical building to run - I'm surprised it's not gone up in flames from an electrical fire as the wiring is crazy in there. It just wasn't designed to be used as it is now. So loathe as I am to say it - a new modern building makes more sense. Be cheaper, in the long run, for us to run. As long as they keep it and use it in some way - as a museum or a hotel or similar and it's restored. It's beautiful so I wouldn't want to lose that architecture. " A museum sounds cool - but please not a political one...........unless it's named the political chamber of horrors!
Failing that, the new Parliament building could be paid for by selling the old to Arabs wanting to build a hotel!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Biggest Swinger Club in World...in doors swimming pool, sex in the Chambers, private rooms... Think of the money would could save and make at the same time... plus 650 members already except their get the expenses paid as use of jacuzzi's - Wouldnt that be an idea??? Just need to sort out parking lmfao could get the planning permission push through aswell. " Why planning permission would it invlove a change of use? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Build a new houses of parliament in the middle of the country, not in a city. Have a dedicated hotel in the same place... with the bedrooms having desk space. Sit them in open plan offices, 30 to an office. Make it as far away from anywhere as possible for security purposes. Put wind turbines in the grounds and solar panels on the roof to provide as much electricity as possible. Reduce the numbers of Lords drastically, and the numbers of MPS by 10% to pay for their pay rise. Pay them a day rate which includes their travel expenses, and is based upon their attendance.. say £400 per day (this would equal an all in package of about £80K p.a.). Have a maximum of 3 choices on a 3 course menu. Max spend of £25 per day, anything else is down to the MP. And prices of food and refreshments should be at commercial rates, not subsidised. Smoking should be banned inside, as it is for anyone else. Get rid of their gold plated pensions. Have parliament sit throughout the year, with MPs having up to 10 weeks off, 5 for holidays, and 5 for constituency work. 2 of their holiday weeks are must be at Christmas. The rest they have to book, on a first come first served basis. This would further reduce the number of seats in the house needed, as the booking system would mean that there are only 85% of MPs present at any one time... so about 520 seats. Have it maybe like a lecture auditorium, with electronic voting buttons to increase productivity. In short, they want a new or refurbished parliament ... then make them help pay for it in job cuts and increased productivity, the same as normal businesses and working people have to. And refurbish the existing houses of Parliament into a tourist attraction. This way the refurbishment could be achieved over a period of time, with the revenue helping to pay for it. I have a feeling your post might be a bit tongue in cheek. But it's an effing good idea. "Actually, I'm serious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Here's a radical idea. Why not build a brand new Houses of Parliament and include residential accommodation for the MP's which will reduce expenses claims for second homes and travel between those homes and parliament. Then sell the Palace of Westminster and let a private investor worry about the renovation. Just a thought" See my post 6 above yours! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... " The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. " What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. " Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Build a new houses of parliament in the middle of the country, not in a city. Have a dedicated hotel in the same place... with the bedrooms having desk space. Sit them in open plan offices, 30 to an office. Make it as far away from anywhere as possible for security purposes. Put wind turbines in the grounds and solar panels on the roof to provide as much electricity as possible. Reduce the numbers of Lords drastically, and the numbers of MPS by 10% to pay for their pay rise. Pay them a day rate which includes their travel expenses, and is based upon their attendance.. say £400 per day (this would equal an all in package of about £80K p.a.). Have a maximum of 3 choices on a 3 course menu. Max spend of £25 per day, anything else is down to the MP. And prices of food and refreshments should be at commercial rates, not subsidised. Smoking should be banned inside, as it is for anyone else. Get rid of their gold plated pensions. Have parliament sit throughout the year, with MPs having up to 10 weeks off, 5 for holidays, and 5 for constituency work. 2 of their holiday weeks are must be at Christmas. The rest they have to book, on a first come first served basis. This would further reduce the number of seats in the house needed, as the booking system would mean that there are only 85% of MPs present at any one time... so about 520 seats. Have it maybe like a lecture auditorium, with electronic voting buttons to increase productivity. In short, they want a new or refurbished parliament ... then make them help pay for it in job cuts and increased productivity, the same as normal businesses and working people have to. And refurbish the existing houses of Parliament into a tourist attraction. This way the refurbishment could be achieved over a period of time, with the revenue helping to pay for it. I have a feeling your post might be a bit tongue in cheek. But it's an effing good idea.
Actually, I'm serious."Then I'm on board!!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose." I have no transportation theory for you to disprove, it's just an opinion. And I still think putting parliament in the countryside is utter bullshit. Have you ever tried to commute between some of those cities you've mentioned without a car? I don't think in 2015 the government should be setting an example that involves forcing all their employees to drive to work. Just because "businesses do it all the time" doesn't make it right. A huge amount of time would be wasted travelling. As for the non-politician MPs, you want to ditch all the expertise that's been built up over however many years, just so that parliament isn't in a city? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose. I have no transportation theory for you to disprove, it's just an opinion. And I still think putting parliament in the countryside is utter bullshit. Have you ever tried to commute between some of those cities you've mentioned without a car? I don't think in 2015 the government should be setting an example that involves forcing all their employees to drive to work. Just because "businesses do it all the time" doesn't make it right. A huge amount of time would be wasted travelling. As for the non-politician MPs, you want to ditch all the expertise that's been built up over however many years, just so that parliament isn't in a city? " Like I said, people commute all the time. And yes, I travel all the time for work, have been doing so for over 20 years. Sometimes I drive, sometimes I go by other means, train or plane. Most people who work in London don't actually live in London, and commute to work. It's no different for those who work at the HOP. In fact, if MPs had to commute 'between some of those cities' something may well be done about public transport, don't you think? As for your theory on 'non-politician' MPs? Why would that make any difference? Do all MPs come from London? No! So why would it make a difference if the HOP was in the middle of the country? Surely it makes it easier for many more MPs than it makes it harder for! And they'd all have hotel rooms on site to stay in! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose. I have no transportation theory for you to disprove, it's just an opinion. And I still think putting parliament in the countryside is utter bullshit. Have you ever tried to commute between some of those cities you've mentioned without a car? I don't think in 2015 the government should be setting an example that involves forcing all their employees to drive to work. Just because "businesses do it all the time" doesn't make it right. A huge amount of time would be wasted travelling. As for the non-politician MPs, you want to ditch all the expertise that's been built up over however many years, just so that parliament isn't in a city? Like I said, people commute all the time. And yes, I travel all the time for work, have been doing so for over 20 years. Sometimes I drive, sometimes I go by other means, train or plane. Most people who work in London don't actually live in London, and commute to work. It's no different for those who work at the HOP. In fact, if MPs had to commute 'between some of those cities' something may well be done about public transport, don't you think? As for your theory on 'non-politician' MPs? Why would that make any difference? Do all MPs come from London? No! So why would it make a difference if the HOP was in the middle of the country? Surely it makes it easier for many more MPs than it makes it harder for! And they'd all have hotel rooms on site to stay in! " Yes it's very easy to commute to London. Because it's a city with excellent transport links. I have no problem with your suggestion of moving it to elsewhere in the country. I just think that elsewhere should be a city, whether that's Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or whatever. By non-politician MPs I meant non-politician employees (sorry, still waking up). Perhaps I'm biased on this because I don't drive. But I really don't agree with plonking something in the middle of the countryside with no proper transport links so every single person who has to work or visit there will have to drive. Most businesses would tend to agree with me too, which is why you'll tend find the headquarters of large companies in cities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose. I have no transportation theory for you to disprove, it's just an opinion. And I still think putting parliament in the countryside is utter bullshit. Have you ever tried to commute between some of those cities you've mentioned without a car? I don't think in 2015 the government should be setting an example that involves forcing all their employees to drive to work. Just because "businesses do it all the time" doesn't make it right. A huge amount of time would be wasted travelling. As for the non-politician MPs, you want to ditch all the expertise that's been built up over however many years, just so that parliament isn't in a city? Like I said, people commute all the time. And yes, I travel all the time for work, have been doing so for over 20 years. Sometimes I drive, sometimes I go by other means, train or plane. Most people who work in London don't actually live in London, and commute to work. It's no different for those who work at the HOP. In fact, if MPs had to commute 'between some of those cities' something may well be done about public transport, don't you think? As for your theory on 'non-politician' MPs? Why would that make any difference? Do all MPs come from London? No! So why would it make a difference if the HOP was in the middle of the country? Surely it makes it easier for many more MPs than it makes it harder for! And they'd all have hotel rooms on site to stay in! Yes it's very easy to commute to London. Because it's a city with excellent transport links. I have no problem with your suggestion of moving it to elsewhere in the country. I just think that elsewhere should be a city, whether that's Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or whatever. By non-politician MPs I meant non-politician employees (sorry, still waking up). Perhaps I'm biased on this because I don't drive. But I really don't agree with plonking something in the middle of the countryside with no proper transport links so every single person who has to work or visit there will have to drive. Most businesses would tend to agree with me too, which is why you'll tend find the headquarters of large companies in cities." Like I said, if it's out of a city, in the middle of the country, (not the countryside), then maybe something would be done about public transport links. But they could always lay on commuter buses for their staff. The other thing of course, is that in not having it in a city, people and parliament would be safer from terrorist attacks. And with HS2 being built, it could quite easily be put somewhere along this line, providing high speed rail links. That would actually give something to justify building HS2 for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose. I have no transportation theory for you to disprove, it's just an opinion. And I still think putting parliament in the countryside is utter bullshit. Have you ever tried to commute between some of those cities you've mentioned without a car? I don't think in 2015 the government should be setting an example that involves forcing all their employees to drive to work. Just because "businesses do it all the time" doesn't make it right. A huge amount of time would be wasted travelling. As for the non-politician MPs, you want to ditch all the expertise that's been built up over however many years, just so that parliament isn't in a city? Like I said, people commute all the time. And yes, I travel all the time for work, have been doing so for over 20 years. Sometimes I drive, sometimes I go by other means, train or plane. Most people who work in London don't actually live in London, and commute to work. It's no different for those who work at the HOP. In fact, if MPs had to commute 'between some of those cities' something may well be done about public transport, don't you think? As for your theory on 'non-politician' MPs? Why would that make any difference? Do all MPs come from London? No! So why would it make a difference if the HOP was in the middle of the country? Surely it makes it easier for many more MPs than it makes it harder for! And they'd all have hotel rooms on site to stay in! Yes it's very easy to commute to London. Because it's a city with excellent transport links. I have no problem with your suggestion of moving it to elsewhere in the country. I just think that elsewhere should be a city, whether that's Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or whatever. By non-politician MPs I meant non-politician employees (sorry, still waking up). Perhaps I'm biased on this because I don't drive. But I really don't agree with plonking something in the middle of the countryside with no proper transport links so every single person who has to work or visit there will have to drive. Most businesses would tend to agree with me too, which is why you'll tend find the headquarters of large companies in cities. Like I said, if it's out of a city, in the middle of the country, (not the countryside), then maybe something would be done about public transport links. But they could always lay on commuter buses for their staff. The other thing of course, is that in not having it in a city, people and parliament would be safer from terrorist attacks. And with HS2 being built, it could quite easily be put somewhere along this line, providing high speed rail links. That would actually give something to justify building HS2 for. " Would it really be safer from terrorist attacks? Or would you need to develop a whole security infrastructure in a place which is not accustomed to having that? Do you think the police force in, say, Jarrow are as experienced and capable of dealing with terrorist threat as GMP or the Met? The cost of building a public transport infrastructure or laying on commuter buses for staff would vastly outweigh the savings on rent or building costs from putting it in any non-London city. I'm not convinced by the cost argument or the security argument, so all that remains is some sort of "we have to suffer a shitty long commute so you should too" kind of mentality. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose. I have no transportation theory for you to disprove, it's just an opinion. And I still think putting parliament in the countryside is utter bullshit. Have you ever tried to commute between some of those cities you've mentioned without a car? I don't think in 2015 the government should be setting an example that involves forcing all their employees to drive to work. Just because "businesses do it all the time" doesn't make it right. A huge amount of time would be wasted travelling. As for the non-politician MPs, you want to ditch all the expertise that's been built up over however many years, just so that parliament isn't in a city? Like I said, people commute all the time. And yes, I travel all the time for work, have been doing so for over 20 years. Sometimes I drive, sometimes I go by other means, train or plane. Most people who work in London don't actually live in London, and commute to work. It's no different for those who work at the HOP. In fact, if MPs had to commute 'between some of those cities' something may well be done about public transport, don't you think? As for your theory on 'non-politician' MPs? Why would that make any difference? Do all MPs come from London? No! So why would it make a difference if the HOP was in the middle of the country? Surely it makes it easier for many more MPs than it makes it harder for! And they'd all have hotel rooms on site to stay in! Yes it's very easy to commute to London. Because it's a city with excellent transport links. I have no problem with your suggestion of moving it to elsewhere in the country. I just think that elsewhere should be a city, whether that's Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or whatever. By non-politician MPs I meant non-politician employees (sorry, still waking up). Perhaps I'm biased on this because I don't drive. But I really don't agree with plonking something in the middle of the countryside with no proper transport links so every single person who has to work or visit there will have to drive. Most businesses would tend to agree with me too, which is why you'll tend find the headquarters of large companies in cities. Like I said, if it's out of a city, in the middle of the country, (not the countryside), then maybe something would be done about public transport links. But they could always lay on commuter buses for their staff. The other thing of course, is that in not having it in a city, people and parliament would be safer from terrorist attacks. And with HS2 being built, it could quite easily be put somewhere along this line, providing high speed rail links. That would actually give something to justify building HS2 for. Would it really be safer from terrorist attacks? Or would you need to develop a whole security infrastructure in a place which is not accustomed to having that? Do you think the police force in, say, Jarrow are as experienced and capable of dealing with terrorist threat as GMP or the Met? The cost of building a public transport infrastructure or laying on commuter buses for staff would vastly outweigh the savings on rent or building costs from putting it in any non-London city. I'm not convinced by the cost argument or the security argument, so all that remains is some sort of "we have to suffer a shitty long commute so you should too" kind of mentality. " Yes, it would be safer from terrorist attacks... It would be on its own, so is easier to defend. Being on its own, if it were attacked, there would be very little 'collateral damage', ie loss of public lives. HS2 is already planned, so there would be no additional public expenditure on rail. Buses are actually pretty cheap to run. Rents in every city are high.. put the HOP in a city, and watch the exponential rental increases. Do you honestly think that it's ' bobbies on the beat' that protect our HOP? They're are highly trained officers, expert in security. They go where they're needed. But in it being away from a city, fewer would be needed, and the general city police population would not have such a high exposure to, or risk of, terrorist attacks. So general policing costs would reduce, and it could be argued that effectiveness would be increased. If you think putting it in the middle of the country is a bad idea because of travel and infrastructure, how much worse an idea is putting it in Newcastle or 'Jarrow'? And I never said 'we have to suffer a shitty commute, so you should too'. I haven't even got that mentality. What I actually said was that the 'existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose. I have no transportation theory for you to disprove, it's just an opinion. And I still think putting parliament in the countryside is utter bullshit. Have you ever tried to commute between some of those cities you've mentioned without a car? I don't think in 2015 the government should be setting an example that involves forcing all their employees to drive to work. Just because "businesses do it all the time" doesn't make it right. A huge amount of time would be wasted travelling. As for the non-politician MPs, you want to ditch all the expertise that's been built up over however many years, just so that parliament isn't in a city? Like I said, people commute all the time. And yes, I travel all the time for work, have been doing so for over 20 years. Sometimes I drive, sometimes I go by other means, train or plane. Most people who work in London don't actually live in London, and commute to work. It's no different for those who work at the HOP. In fact, if MPs had to commute 'between some of those cities' something may well be done about public transport, don't you think? As for your theory on 'non-politician' MPs? Why would that make any difference? Do all MPs come from London? No! So why would it make a difference if the HOP was in the middle of the country? Surely it makes it easier for many more MPs than it makes it harder for! And they'd all have hotel rooms on site to stay in! Yes it's very easy to commute to London. Because it's a city with excellent transport links. I have no problem with your suggestion of moving it to elsewhere in the country. I just think that elsewhere should be a city, whether that's Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or whatever. By non-politician MPs I meant non-politician employees (sorry, still waking up). Perhaps I'm biased on this because I don't drive. But I really don't agree with plonking something in the middle of the countryside with no proper transport links so every single person who has to work or visit there will have to drive. Most businesses would tend to agree with me too, which is why you'll tend find the headquarters of large companies in cities. Like I said, if it's out of a city, in the middle of the country, (not the countryside), then maybe something would be done about public transport links. But they could always lay on commuter buses for their staff. The other thing of course, is that in not having it in a city, people and parliament would be safer from terrorist attacks. And with HS2 being built, it could quite easily be put somewhere along this line, providing high speed rail links. That would actually give something to justify building HS2 for. Would it really be safer from terrorist attacks? Or would you need to develop a whole security infrastructure in a place which is not accustomed to having that? Do you think the police force in, say, Jarrow are as experienced and capable of dealing with terrorist threat as GMP or the Met? The cost of building a public transport infrastructure or laying on commuter buses for staff would vastly outweigh the savings on rent or building costs from putting it in any non-London city. I'm not convinced by the cost argument or the security argument, so all that remains is some sort of "we have to suffer a shitty long commute so you should too" kind of mentality. Yes, it would be safer from terrorist attacks... It would be on its own, so is easier to defend. Being on its own, if it were attacked, there would be very little 'collateral damage', ie loss of public lives. HS2 is already planned, so there would be no additional public expenditure on rail. Buses are actually pretty cheap to run. Rents in every city are high.. put the HOP in a city, and watch the exponential rental increases. Do you honestly think that it's ' bobbies on the beat' that protect our HOP? They're are highly trained officers, expert in security. They go where they're needed. But in it being away from a city, fewer would be needed, and the general city police population would not have such a high exposure to, or risk of, terrorist attacks. So general policing costs would reduce, and it could be argued that effectiveness would be increased. If you think putting it in the middle of the country is a bad idea because of travel and infrastructure, how much worse an idea is putting it in Newcastle or 'Jarrow'? And I never said 'we have to suffer a shitty commute, so you should too'. I haven't even got that mentality. What I actually said was that the 'existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs'. " I wasn't suggesting putting it in Jarrow, (why the inverted commas? It is a real place...) I think you're missing my point entirely. Why would Newcastle be so bad? We've got a decent airport, it's 2 hours and 40 minutes on the train to the middle of London. If it would be too much of a hassle for people to travel to a city with good transport links then why wouldn't it be too much hassle for them to travel to some town in the arse end of the Midlands? Rents in office accommodation in most cities outside London aren't that bad actually, their stifled economies mean there's often a glut of it. I could get you Grade A office accommodation in the middle of Newcastle, Leeds or Liverpool far cheaper than in a South East commuter town. There is infinitely more to transport infrastructure than "putting some buses on". So now the entire elite security force of highly trained officers is going to move to whatever bullshit place in the midlands you're proposing, leaving the rest of London and its security risk assets exposed? Or are you suggesting training a new force of them to cover the new parliament building? Sounds efficient. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
But surely security concerns will mean they have to close it all down? Are unless they're hoping ISIS will help with the demolition?
(Sorry SB, I couldn't find the serious thread  )
Mr ddc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've already said this on another thread, but do people genuinely think there are loads of investors who will want to purchase a Grade 1 listed Unesco World Heritage site (with all of the development restrictions those things entail) and a £3.5bn repair bill? Where's the money in it for an investor? If you're moving Parliament somewhere else, it's going to need to be somewhere with good transport links, can't just bung it in an industrial estate where there's one bus an hour. It would have to be a city. And remember it didn't go so well in terms of sticking to budget when the new Scottish Parliament building was built... The investment for turning the HOP into a tourist attraction should be carried out by the country, and should remain the property of the country. This investment would be a lot less than refurbishing it for parliamentary use. You would not need to return everything to the requirements of parliament. The scottish parliament cost £415Million, a lot less than the £3 to 6 Billion estimate of the HOP. The new HOP does not need to be in a city. Put it in the middle of the country. The existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs. There's the M1, the M6, and rail links. If it was on its own somewhere it would be much more secure from terrorist attacks. It would be purpose built, and fit for purpose. What about all the non-MPs who work there? Do they all have to now buy cars so they can get to the middle of nowhere? Putting it in the countryside is a ridiculous idea. Relocate them, or let them commute, or make them redundant and employ new staff elsewhere. Like I said earlier, that's what businesses do all the time. Why is it a ridiculous idea? I've disproved your theory on transportation, it could be in the middle of the country, which would be close to, but not in, very many transport links and cities- for example, Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, etc. And that's not too far to commute from London... people commute into London from these places all the time. This would allow it to be the size it has to be, and fit for purpose. I have no transportation theory for you to disprove, it's just an opinion. And I still think putting parliament in the countryside is utter bullshit. Have you ever tried to commute between some of those cities you've mentioned without a car? I don't think in 2015 the government should be setting an example that involves forcing all their employees to drive to work. Just because "businesses do it all the time" doesn't make it right. A huge amount of time would be wasted travelling. As for the non-politician MPs, you want to ditch all the expertise that's been built up over however many years, just so that parliament isn't in a city? Like I said, people commute all the time. And yes, I travel all the time for work, have been doing so for over 20 years. Sometimes I drive, sometimes I go by other means, train or plane. Most people who work in London don't actually live in London, and commute to work. It's no different for those who work at the HOP. In fact, if MPs had to commute 'between some of those cities' something may well be done about public transport, don't you think? As for your theory on 'non-politician' MPs? Why would that make any difference? Do all MPs come from London? No! So why would it make a difference if the HOP was in the middle of the country? Surely it makes it easier for many more MPs than it makes it harder for! And they'd all have hotel rooms on site to stay in! Yes it's very easy to commute to London. Because it's a city with excellent transport links. I have no problem with your suggestion of moving it to elsewhere in the country. I just think that elsewhere should be a city, whether that's Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or whatever. By non-politician MPs I meant non-politician employees (sorry, still waking up). Perhaps I'm biased on this because I don't drive. But I really don't agree with plonking something in the middle of the countryside with no proper transport links so every single person who has to work or visit there will have to drive. Most businesses would tend to agree with me too, which is why you'll tend find the headquarters of large companies in cities. Like I said, if it's out of a city, in the middle of the country, (not the countryside), then maybe something would be done about public transport links. But they could always lay on commuter buses for their staff. The other thing of course, is that in not having it in a city, people and parliament would be safer from terrorist attacks. And with HS2 being built, it could quite easily be put somewhere along this line, providing high speed rail links. That would actually give something to justify building HS2 for. Would it really be safer from terrorist attacks? Or would you need to develop a whole security infrastructure in a place which is not accustomed to having that? Do you think the police force in, say, Jarrow are as experienced and capable of dealing with terrorist threat as GMP or the Met? The cost of building a public transport infrastructure or laying on commuter buses for staff would vastly outweigh the savings on rent or building costs from putting it in any non-London city. I'm not convinced by the cost argument or the security argument, so all that remains is some sort of "we have to suffer a shitty long commute so you should too" kind of mentality. Yes, it would be safer from terrorist attacks... It would be on its own, so is easier to defend. Being on its own, if it were attacked, there would be very little 'collateral damage', ie loss of public lives. HS2 is already planned, so there would be no additional public expenditure on rail. Buses are actually pretty cheap to run. Rents in every city are high.. put the HOP in a city, and watch the exponential rental increases. Do you honestly think that it's ' bobbies on the beat' that protect our HOP? They're are highly trained officers, expert in security. They go where they're needed. But in it being away from a city, fewer would be needed, and the general city police population would not have such a high exposure to, or risk of, terrorist attacks. So general policing costs would reduce, and it could be argued that effectiveness would be increased. If you think putting it in the middle of the country is a bad idea because of travel and infrastructure, how much worse an idea is putting it in Newcastle or 'Jarrow'? And I never said 'we have to suffer a shitty commute, so you should too'. I haven't even got that mentality. What I actually said was that the 'existing transport links are good enough for the rest of us, so they're good enough for MPs'. I wasn't suggesting putting it in Jarrow, (why the inverted commas? It is a real place...) I think you're missing my point entirely. Why would Newcastle be so bad? We've got a decent airport, it's 2 hours and 40 minutes on the train to the middle of London. If it would be too much of a hassle for people to travel to a city with good transport links then why wouldn't it be too much hassle for them to travel to some town in the arse end of the Midlands? Rents in office accommodation in most cities outside London aren't that bad actually, their stifled economies mean there's often a glut of it. I could get you Grade A office accommodation in the middle of Newcastle, Leeds or Liverpool far cheaper than in a South East commuter town. There is infinitely more to transport infrastructure than "putting some buses on". So now the entire elite security force of highly trained officers is going to move to whatever bullshit place in the midlands you're proposing, leaving the rest of London and its security risk assets exposed? Or are you suggesting training a new force of them to cover the new parliament building? Sounds efficient. " So Newcastle isn't so bad to commute to from London as the Midlands? London to Newcastle is 2:40, London to Coventry is 1:02. Even allowing 40 minutes for an onward journey, that is an hour less each way. And you talk of the Midlands as though it's some remote wasteland, devoid of any infrastructure, with transport links few and far between, and cities hundreds of miles apart. It doesn't need to be in the middle of the countryside, as you keep saying I've said... what I have said is in the middle of the country, but outside of a city. Derby to Stoke. For example, is 45 minutes apart. And halfway between the two is JCB worldwide headquarters. So you could get there within half an hour from Stoke, Derby or East Midlands Parkway rail stations. And the government employees that work at the HOP? I would question if they all need to work where MPs work, or if in this age of electronic communications, paperless offices, and video conferencing whether many of them can do so remotely. And as for the elite forces moving or new having to be trained? Some of them could move, maybe some would have to be trained, but why would that not be required in Newcastle, Leeds or Manchester? And there is not much to transport infrastructure dedicated to a particular service than putting some buses on.... you pick people up from one place, deposit then in another. 1 stop at either end. Just like a school run, and believe me, I've worked in public transport, and the school run is very easy to organise, and pretty cheap to run. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
, a few years ago i was having lunch with the then Speaker, Bernard Weatherall, a really nice man, a gentleman.
Apart from tryimg to keep order among the unruly children, he was also responsible for the other 3,000+ people who work in the houses of parliament. A big job.
Bear in mind that the houses comprise nearly 4,000 people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Regarding the people who work in the houses of parliament but aren't MPs. Just to name drop , a few years ago i was having lunch with the then Speaker, Bernard Weatherall, a really nice man, a gentleman.
Apart from tryimg to keep order among the unruly children, he was also responsible for the other 3,000+ people who work in the houses of parliament. A big job.
Bear in mind that the houses comprise nearly 4,000 people"650 of whom are MPs, and 790 are Lords.... these numbers can be cut down drastically straight away, but that leaves about 2,500, many of which would probably be able to work 'remotely', and the rest could commute. Possibly an ideal opportunity to get rid of some of the dead wood and make some efficiency savings and improvements. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
