London's parliament is falling down . . .

bompington wrote:

Have you ever actually participated in a teleconference?

Which is what I was going to post. We run one here and they are bloody awful to use, yeah they work, but it's no way to conduct business. Parliament over teleconference is entirely unworkable.

Like it or not, MPs do need to be in one place. If that place is the Palace of Westminster or Bishop Auckland sports centre I couldn't give a stuff.

The basements underneath the historic building are full of asbestos, leaking pipes and miles and miles of outdated wiring and cables.

Having been on various site visits to the place over the years with work I can confirm that it is indeed a shite whole that is well overdue a complete overhaul as far as the building services are concerned.

From my experience though the amount of money that gets wasted down there on repairs is unbelievable as you have the incumbent sub-contractors on site who are basically there for good and the p*ss taking that goes on with tendering is untrue, to say that tax payers money is being wasted is an understatement :shock:

They do have a very decent, and cheap, 'staff' cafe though, again probably at your expense however

VTech wrote:

MP's don't get paid enough for the work they are signed up to do.

I so know. proper mental innit. I tots understood why loads were fiddling their expenses - just to get by.

VTech wrote:

MP's don't get paid enough for the work they are signed up to do.
This is the reason why corruption exists and why people moan.

The MP's just work in the building so I'm not sure what that has to do with fixing the building?

Hmm, I don't imagine that the state of things is any more perilous than it has been at any other point in the last few decades, or the requirement for a major overhaul is exactly a surprise.

Thinking about something remotely comparable, it cost ~£150m to get St. Pancras Hotel/Chambers from an unstable, s*itty, leaking set of NR offices to a modern 5* hotel (structural stabilisation, extension, new M&E, facade repairs, extensive heritage feature restoration etc.) The HoP are a lot bigger, can be seen from far more angles, its twenty years older and made from a more perishable facing material - so I'd expect it to cost several times more; the huge step to £3bn might be the estimate factoring in political interference and the workings of a bumbling state-led comity, as opposed to a tight-fisted, eye-on-the-prize developer...

I'm surprised the clever amongst you didn't understand my post ?
My post was valid simply because in the UK we have enough through taxation to pay all bills and remove ourself from negative equity.
Waste is the issue and waste is more often than not bought about by bad choices and in some cases corruption (back handers etc).
You would find it hard to find a person capable of running a council or acting as an MP to work for the money people expect MP's to work for. You can argue about it until the cows come home but like for like people in business with even half the responsibility of an MP would be on much more than £66k a year.

Of course I expect some to argue the point but come on, are you all that naive ?

Our heritage needs to be maintained. Far too much was knocked down and replaced by monstrosities especially in the 1960's. I couldn't care less if it continues to be the seat of government, but the building itself is important.

arran77 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Waste is the issue and waste is more often than not bought about by bad choices and in some cases corruption (back handers etc).

This is very much the case and something I eluded to in my earlier post.

Places like the Houses of Parliament are a very closed shop when it comes to who does and doesn't work down there, we've tried several times to get contracts for M & E works there but to no avail, it's all about who you know and what you're prepared to 'offer' them

Agreed.
I also find it odd how an english train manufacturer can put in an offer to make trains and a french company can come in at a higher price and win the deal.
How ?

Ben6899 wrote:

VTech wrote:

I also find it odd how an english train manufacturer can put in an offer to make trains and a french company can come in at a higher price and win the deal.
How ?

Higher quality.

In some areas you would have to agree but not in this case. The English bid was the best but trains is a very corrupt business that Richard Branson bought to light when he offered to run the service at nonprofit having already given the best service records in decades yet still lost.


We conquered the world with our train network and then ruined it.

pinarello001 wrote:

Build a block of flats in London that is owned by the state and can be used by MP's when they are in London and whilst they are an MP, deduct rent from their salary directly - simples.

"The people get the government they deserve."

What we going to do with the Houses of Parliament then? We can't just knock it down, I imagine it might be listed or something :P

VTech wrote:

In some areas you would have to agree but not in this case. The English bid was the best but...

Out of interest, which particular train(s) / project are you referring to?

(I work in the industry)

Quiet at the back...rhooooobarb...rhooooobarb...rhooooobarb...Mr Speaker Mr Speaker...rhooooobarb..order order...rhooooobarb

or

Volume button off...volume button on.

markhewitt1978 wrote:

The issue is that the building needs renovating no matter what. MPs need a building to meet in no matter what.

The cost of renovating the Palace of Westminster for MPs to use is going to be less than doing that anyway and having a new or adapated building for a new place.

Why does it need renovating - why can't we build something in its place more impressive and more fit for purpose ? When the original burnt down they didn't build a replica.