Bino's Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Surely if the repair cost to Westminster is £4 billion, which would no doubt rise during works There must be a business case for repair to be untenable and a new purpose built parliament for even £1 billion proposed Within this should contain the House of Lords being disbanded allowing cost savings going forward also or maybe we should just repair it anyway without a seconds thought whilst austerity, restriction of doctors terms and conditions continue etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 There's an important point to be made here where we have to separate the argument for repairing and preserving a fantastic historic building from any political arguments about what goes on inside it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDYER63 Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 31 minutes ago, biffer said: There's an important point to be made here where we have to separate the argument for repairing and preserving a fantastic historic building from any political arguments about what goes on inside it. Who normally funds the upkeep of public historic buildings , is it our taxes or does it come from private donations, grants etc? I genuinely dont know. I agree that no matter how much you dislike what goes on inside it , there is no denying it is a magnificent building. If private donations nornally fund or part fund these things i cant see why some spectacularly rich folk cant stick their hand in their pocket. There is enough of them around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishcumnock Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Scotland will be liable for 9% no doubt, £360,000,000 or there about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewelk Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 If they turned it into a museum and charged for entry or even allowed it to be an exclusive party venue for the elite they could make some kind of business case for it. Then build a modern parliament in Hull or somewhere. But no. Tradition. Blighty. British. World Standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 It's not that old, only about 150 years, it's just designed to appear more gothic, some of us might live in older houses. They should move the parliament to Manchester imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Its a scandalous price to pay, and will no doubt end up being much higher than £4 billion. However, the UK Government needs to be in London, and should be in an iconic building. London is on of the top 5 or so global cities, and not having our () capital there, and placing it in some (English) midlands location would be ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 22 minutes ago, kumnio said: However, the UK Government needs to be in London, and should be in an iconic building. London is on of the top 5 or so global cities, and not having our () capital there, and placing it in some (English) midlands location would be ridiculous. It wouldn't be unprecedented... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_multiple_capitals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Return of Yermaw Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 sell it to a developer. could be a museum and hotel. building would be maintained. use proceeds of sale to build a new parliament building or better reconvert an existing building. you cant have Government imposing austerity cuts impacting on vulnerable members of society over the their term in office and then with the same breath approving a £4bn improvement project. shockingly hypocritical and the fact there is not yet any real anger about this just shows how subdued the electorate is and how the media on the whole are happy to be the mouthpiece for elitist, greedy, self serving arseholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bino's Posted September 9, 2016 Author Share Posted September 9, 2016 it cost £435 million to build The Shard there simply can be no justification to spend 10 times that on the repair of any building they must relocate and disband the house of lord in the process Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 To spend 4 billion minimum on a repair is insane. Pity the germans weren't more accurate during the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 18 hours ago, kumnio said: Its a scandalous price to pay, and will no doubt end up being much higher than £4 billion. However, the UK Government needs to be in London, and should be in an iconic building. London is on of the top 5 or so global cities, and not having our () capital there, and placing it in some (English) midlands location would be ridiculous. Billy Brit ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueGaz Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Pity the germans weren't more accurate during the war. James Hunt ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, BlueGaz said: James Hunt ^^^ If they had properly bombed the palace of westminster there might have been another parliament building, and not necessarily in landanmate. Fanny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 19 hours ago, kumnio said: Its a scandalous price to pay, and will no doubt end up being much higher than £4 billion. However, the UK Government needs to be in London, and should be in an iconic building. London is on of the top 5 or so global cities, and not having our () capital there, and placing it in some (English) midlands location would be ridiculous. Plenty countries don't have their capital in their major city - Australia, Canada, Brasil, USA, Scotland. Probably loads more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Orraloon said: Plenty countries don't have their capital in their major city - Australia, Canada, Brasil, USA, Scotland. Probably loads more. Netherlands, togo, canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Possibly China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, Orraloon said: Plenty countries don't have their capital in their major city - Australia, Canada, Brasil, USA, Scotland. Probably loads more. 2 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Netherlands, togo, canada. Oops, just spotted canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydoo Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Germany. Munich is the major city in germany, IMO. Frankfurt 2nd, Hamburg 3rd, then berlin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bino's Posted September 9, 2016 Author Share Posted September 9, 2016 8 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Netherlands, togo, canada. Togo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, scoobydoo said: Munich is the major city in germany, IMO. Frankfurt 2nd, Hamburg 3rd, then berlin. Bold statement that. Berlin has 4 times the population of Munich for a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 12 minutes ago, Toepoke said: Bold statement that. Berlin has 4 times the population of Munich for a start. By "bold" do you mean "completely wrong"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannannan Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Bonn was a cool capital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Orraloon said: Plenty countries don't have their capital in their major city - Australia, Canada, Brasil, USA, Scotland. Probably loads more. One thing all those countries have in common - with the exception of Scotland - is that they have a federal system. Arguably, Edinburgh is Scotland's major city, not Glasgow. It used to be said that Edinburgh had all the establishment functions, ie. Parliament and government, the legal fraternity and the professions. Glasgow had the industry the trade and the money. Following the Union of 1707, Edinburgh lost the government and parliament but of course that's now back again and getting more important by every week. Glasgow lost the heavy industry and trade last century and while the transformation of Glasgow as a city has been fantastic, I can't see it has a claim to be Scotland's major city any more. It is the largest city but even that is under threat as Edinburgh's population is likely to exceed Glasgow's. I'll get the tin hat on, but Edinburgh, post devolution is way more important than Glasgow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 34 minutes ago, aaid said: One thing all those countries have in common - with the exception of Scotland - is that they have a federal system. Arguably, Edinburgh is Scotland's major city, not Glasgow. It used to be said that Edinburgh had all the establishment functions, ie. Parliament and government, the legal fraternity and the professions. Glasgow had the industry the trade and the money. Following the Union of 1707, Edinburgh lost the government and parliament but of course that's now back again and getting more important by every week. Glasgow lost the heavy industry and trade last century and while the transformation of Glasgow as a city has been fantastic, I can't see it has a claim to be Scotland's major city any more. It is the largest city but even that is under threat as Edinburgh's population is likely to exceed Glasgow's. I'll get the tin hat on, but Edinburgh, post devolution is way more important than Glasgow. You don't even have a underground FFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.