As the Guardian noted last night:
Plans to restore the crumbling Palace of Westminster could cost £40bn and take up to 61 years, a report by the body set up to investigate how the project should be handled has found.
Critics labelled the cost as “eye-watering” and said the project lacked accountability.
This cost is absurd and utterly disproportionate.
What is the answer? It has to be knocking the whole place down and starting again. Repairing a building already wholly unfit for purpose at phenomenal cost is absurd.
Are these people utterly incapable of identifying the obvious?
And, getting rid of this place might be important. Built as a symbol of privilege and separation from the population at large, it continues to reinforce such ideas. Getting rid of it might be the best thing we can do. Replacing it with something vastly more open would symbolise a new democracy. But is that what MPs are frightened of?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Knock it down and replace it with allotments?
We need a parliament.
A theme park. Same with Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. New Parliament building with accommodation in the Midlands.
Not a bad idea this. The population weighted centre of the UK is close to Donington. East Midlands airport isn’t far away, so build it there.
If there is anything more symbolic of a parsimonious state that is addicted to not spending money it is the ‘palace’ of Westminster – a structure destroyed by the stupidity it harbours.
The same people who clutched their pearls and screamed at the spiralling costs of the Holyrood parliament building barely bat an eyelid at the absurd cost of renovating the clown house on the Thames.
What about buying County Hall? Its just over the river and I understand its not all used
Or is that ‘…Sarf of the River’ dont go there!
It could have been perfect.
`
It may be an idea.
County Hall would have been perfect – and the signs of problems with the current building were obvious at the time.
But not sufficiently obvious for the government of the time to move, and with the current tenants in place I think the time has passed.
A shame because inside it is a very pleasant place to work (or have meetings, as I’ve experienced).
As an hotel with meeting rooms it should be repossessed and used for MPs. This two homes one of which is funded by the tax payer business has to stop.
So, what do you want? MPs to be forced back into sleeping in their offices? Please don’t write nonsense here. People being required to work in two places must be helped to do so unless you want all MPs to be from very wealthy backgrounds. Comments like this really irritate me.
“Up to” is doing a lot of work. What is included in this 60 year programme? Feels like this is an impossibly long project with an extreme price tag, created as a straw man to make anything else look reasonable.
Even so, £40 billion over 60 years is about £666m per year. Which is about £10 per person in the UK. Less than £1 per month each.
It symbolises the UK’s constitution: an old and badly maintained heritage asset.
🙂
I’ve got to agree, that is an insanely big number. I would love to see the breakdown of how they come up with it. You could sell 134,000 houses for that price. Westminster is big but its not 134,000 times bigger than your average house, yes there will be more expensive materials and processes but seriously. Also which contractors are getting the money? Is this an opportuinity for corruption? I mean yes the answer is obviously yes.
Turn it into student accommodation, a boutique hotel and a globalist tourist theme park like they do to the rest of us, visit Edinburgh, Cambridge etc
The building is toxic
Literally……..
A great opportunity to move it out of London, or at least out of the centre of London.
Imagine a UK Parliamentary Campus:
A modern debating chamber with a semicircular layout suited to multi-party politics and potential proportional representation; space for all MPs to sit, with digital voting and hybrid participation. And better acoustics, accessibility and visibility for members and the public.
An open committee hub, with purpose-built rooms for scrutiny, evidence sessions and cross-party collaboration. And public galleries with full digital access to strengthen transparency. Enable close working with bodies such as the National Audit Office to deepen accountability.
A democracy and education centre, with exhibitions explaining how laws are made under different electoral systems, and facilities for citizens’ assemblies, petitions hearings and public forums.
All of this in a location outside central London, with regional committee centres.
This is the opportunity that a crumbling Palace of Westminster gives us. Thank goodness we’ve got such a competent Government to guide us towards it. Er. Oh no. Hang on.
Much to agree with
£40 billion and 61 years will be HS2 grade estimates. Anyway in 61 years time, might properties so close to the Thames be under water, due to globally rising sea levels, or are there a couple of hundred billion £’s worth of flood defences for Central London to find as well?
It is rare that I disagree, but this time. “knock it down”? but surely we sell it – to a rich american? Pull it down and move it to a theme park in USTrump land. The money so generated could then build something more functional – in e.g. Scunthorpe – somewhere that needs a leg-up & is more central. Milton K’? Thus I agree with other poster – move it out of London.
As I understand it Westminster Hall is the only really historic bit, and that should be kept. The rest is just Victorian gothic pastiche – at these costs – it just has to go. The building is the centre of lobbying/money corruption made acceptable by the gothic façade.
Agreed.
Keep the leave of trial of Charles I.
I’m appalled the report didn’t even mention building out of London. Also that, as far as I’m aware, nobody has pointed out that Parliament’s present buildings will probably be overwhelmed by rising sea levels. Definitely build new accommodation further north, right out of Westminster and all that it has come to symbolise. And not just in London suburbs!
So many places that would carry a weight of good symbolism. Newcastle. Manchester. Liverpool. Birmingham. Or what about Milton Keynes, if going North is too much for our decision-makers?
The building is a symbol of repression the name is an affront to democracy. It should be demolished
I have an idea for Bonfire Night!!
Fawkes blast had he succeeded would have taken out a large chunk of central London so its a win-win
£40 billion over 61 years? Everyone in the current parliament will probably be dead by the time it’s completed.
Sounds like a nice earner for someone. Interesting to see who is getting these contracts (and how many MP’s are directors).
Who came up with such figures?
Just move from London. Leave the old place as a monument. They could do tourist trips and call it “The death of neoliberalism”.
Put bars on the windows and use it as a prison for those guilty of political corruption, and any other misuse of public office, those receiving bungs, those offering them, those blackmailing politicians and civil servants, anyone caught lying in public office or in an election.
The Johnson wing, a short-stay Truss wing, an Aitken wing, a Mandelson wing, an Archer wing, a Fa***e wing, a Cameron-Greensill wing. Call the whole thing HMP Gove, with Portcullis House becoming a special MacSweeney court, for the trials, juries chosen only from those eligible for means-tested benefits.
To get this in perspective, the Oresund bridge connecting Denmark and Sweden cost €2 billion. The money would be much better spent building a road bridge across the English channel which is sorely needed and would go a long way to ending the paranoia generated by Britain’s physical isolation from the rest of Europe. Why are we still using ferries and a tunnel ferry to cross a 30 km stretch? And why are we still driving on the left? Ridiculous
To get this in perspective, the Oresund bridge connecting Denmark and Sweden cost €2 billion. The money would be much better spent building a road bridge across the English channel which is sorely needed and would go a long way to ending the paranoia generated by Britain’s physical isolation from the rest of Europe. Why are we still using ferries and a tunnel ferry to cross a 30 km stretch? And why are we still driving on the left? Ridiculous
OK. OK. In the first line of my contribution on this topic, delete ‘UK’and replace with ‘English’. Sorry.
The medieval/victorian Disneyland parliament is a symbol of all that is wrong with Britain. It’s of medieval style but was built in the Victorian era. Essentially, it’s a 19th century operation taking place in a fantasy medieval building. The language they use is anachronistic, nobody can be referred to by name and instead of Finance minister we have “Chancellor of the exchequer.” Plain English is forbidden and they don’t even have electronic voting yet, 80 years after the invention of the transistor. I want to see a building in the round to avoid the confrontation and have cooperation instead, like a civilized country. I also want term limits for MP’s. Restoring the present building would only perpetuate the anti deluvian system of government. It should be abandoned. Then we can talk about a written constitution.
Term limits is a problem. If it take five years to become a minister, five a junior, five in Cabinet and 5 as PM, plus two spells in opposition, getting talent to the top is going to be hard with term limits.
The original budget for Parliament was £724,986 and estimated to take 6 years.
The actual cost of Parliament was over £2 million, and it took 30 years to complete.
In today’s money, that is about £350 million when adjusted for inflation.
We are not quite comparing like with like, as “security features” alone have probably improved in that time.
Even if it costs 10 times as much, that takes us to under £4 billion.
Why the difference in cost? Neoliberalism and the private sector. Every CEO wants their slice of the pie.
£40 billion future spending, whatabout the significant amount of money that has already been spent on that building ?
£40 billion to rebuild a pig-sty! Cart before Horse springs to mind. First, it would be nice to have a fare and truly democratic system of government. One in which all are elected – both houses. No more stinking patronage please and representatives are not allowed 2nd jobs. Second – the national question should be confronted and resolved democratically. Hopefully that should lower the building cost substantially. Clearly it should have suitable accommodation attached, (another massive saving). I totally subscribe to housing the new building outside of London – not a healthy place to do business – far too much corruption – its everywhere. The SE concentration issue has to be dealt with sooner rather than later. When the preceding has been finalised I will be happy to supply a Project Objective Statement and a Scope of Work – Oh and the schedule and project estimate will be far more realistic because it will be Fit for Purpose! It will be a new Parliament that will house representative that will bring about “Politics for People” and be “Funding the Future”.
Thanks
It’s a no brainer. The place will be underwater sooner rather than later.
At the risk of being a heretic, the actual buildings are magnificent and have huge history. Knocking them down would just be vandalism. That said, how on earth they get to £40bn I do not know – sounds like the vastly inflated sums we get quoted for infrastructure. Could we get the Chinese to do for a fraction of the cost?!
At the same time, they are totally unsuitable for their purpose and we should have a properly designed modern Parliament – Ive been to Berlin, and Holyrood, both which show how it should be done. Moving it to the GLA would be fun and a touch ironic. But then Im all for decentralising much of Westminster with a federal model for the English regions as well as Scotland and Wales, all with local assemblies. Then maybe a smaller Westminster location would be needed.
This is Plan A, which involves moving the Lords off site somewhere, while everyone else stays put. There’s also a relatively quicker and cheaper Plan B (“only” 24 years and £15.6bn) where everyone moves out for the duration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp2pzqr84o
Seems to me if they can function ok elsewhere for 24 years, they might as well do so permanently. I do agree Westminster Hall must be preserved, though. Actually the whole Palace of Westminster is Grade I listed, so I can’t see any of it being knocked down.
Noted
Really funny thing is this – Canada’s parliament building AND welcome centre restoration, with estimate the cost to be between $4.5 billion and $5 billion. We aim to complete construction between 2030 and 2031. The Centre Block will reopen about 1 year later. This will allow Parliament to do testing and get the building ready for operations. (From there web)
More funny still it looks like ours, is in the gothic revival style and the work they done on it tunneling underneath is a feat of engineering.
And more funny than that we used to be good at engineering
This is laughable literally we are literally useless as a country at literally everything, that we used to be good at.
Thanks
We really need something that isn’t like a 2-party them-and-us adversarial court. Pity perhaps that it wasn’t damaged more in the war..?
On which note, look at what was done to the Reichstag: the central chamber open to be viewed from above (not the narrow little gallery ‘pews’ in the ‘Palace’ of Westminster); a circular geometry; and a lot of the rest of the activity around the chamber also visible: corridors, meeting areas…
There are buildings in London and elsewhere, that have had their whole interior gutted and partly demolished, with just the exterior frontages preserved. Something similar perhaps? And add in some flood protection and environmental efficiency whilst they’re at it.
But I’d also go for selling it all off, or using it as a tourist site; and building something completely new – outside London.
The Reichstag building is a magnificent combination of a grim history and a modern proper Parliament
Agreed
I spoke there once.
Restoration – it’s example of nostalgia for past greatness sweeping away pragmatism and common sense. Not unlike Brexit. While it will be sad to remove it, it’d make a magnificent hotel (restoration at someone else’s expense). A modern and practical parliament building sets a better, more professional tone sorely needed for the nations’ (nation’s) future. The building encourages the backwards glance to once upon a time glory days that served mainly to benefit the few and not the many. We require a pinnacle to democracy, fairness and compassion, not a monument to inequality and division.
I think we should keep it. It is steeped in history, its architecture unique. The rennovation can teach many apprentices and reveal much history as layers are peeled back.
The money will create work and raise GDP.
The building is innocent. If the current system relocates it is still the same system.
We need to go into deficit of course but the cost should be spread over time.
Oh come on.
There are millions of better ways of spending the money. Well, at least 40,000.
Sell it to the Americans/Chinese/Saudis and use the proceeds to build a new parliament in the centre of the country. Somewhere like Walsall. And, Noddy Holder could be the Speaker if it was located in his home town!!