Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting article in Private Eye about the proposed refurbishment of Parliament, at a cost of £4bn. The refurb of Buckingham Palace is £370m, the Shard cost £435m, Wembley Stadium £798m. The project was waved through until the chairman of the Treasury Committee, Andrew Tyrie, started asking questions about why it was so expensive. I hope this does not impact on Royston's working conditions, and he must be livid about the taxpayer having to fund such a vanity project?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Kish and DonCorleone
ForestHillBilly said:
Interesting article in Private Eye about the proposed refurbishment of Parliament, at a cost of £4bn. The refurb of Buckingham Palace is £370m, the Shard cost £435m, Wembley Stadium £798m. The project was waved through until the chairman of the Treasury Committee, Andrew Tyrie, started asking questions about why it was so expensive. I hope this does not impact on Royston's working conditions, and he must be livid about the taxpayer having to fund such a vanity project?
Click to expand...

As a Building Surveyor by profession (and as a Socialist :emoticon-0107-sweat) I've been reading about this with interest; I'll try and get hold of Private Eye on the way home. It's an obscene amount of money for little gain; I'm not sure where the £4bn figure is derived from but it's clear that it's a 'square peg, round hole' situation - in trying to modernise a 200 year old building. A new fit-for-purpose parliament would be more cost effective. Westminster could be mothballed and left as a relic (with regular minimal routine maintenance in the interests of health and safety).
 
  • Like
Reactions: SuperChrissyisfantasticPardswasatrocious, Ponders Revisited and ForestHillBilly
ForestHillBilly said:
Interesting article in Private Eye about the proposed refurbishment of Parliament, at a cost of £4bn. The refurb of Buckingham Palace is £370m, the Shard cost £435m, Wembley Stadium £798m. The project was waved through until the chairman of the Treasury Committee, Andrew Tyrie, started asking questions about why it was so expensive. I hope this does not impact on Royston's working conditions, and he must be livid about the taxpayer having to fund such a vanity project?
Click to expand...
Royston was hoping to secure some new catering equipment from the deal. He's been using the same melon-baller since 1973.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Kish and ForestHillBilly
  • Like
Reactions: User deleted as requested and Ponders Revisited
The Kish said:
As a Building Surveyor by profession (and as a Socialist :emoticon-0107-sweat) I've been reading about this with interest; I'll try and get hold of Private Eye on the way home. It's an obscene amount of money for little gain; I'm not sure where the £4bn figure is derived from but it's clear that it's a 'square peg, round hole' situation - in trying to modernise a 200 year old building. A new fit-for-purpose parliament would be more cost effective. Westminster could be mothballed and left as a relic (with regular minimal routine maintenance in the interests of health and safety).
Click to expand...
That sounds good. It would be a great tourist attraction. Why should the taxpayer put such a huge amount into Parliament? Better to put more into the NHS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Shabby
ForestHillBilly said:
That sounds good. It would be a great tourist attraction. Why should the taxpayer put such a huge amount into Parliament? Better to put more into the NHS!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Like Stone Henge, which incidentally I hear they're relocating the adjacent motorway to protect? Madness.
 
The Kish said:
Exactly. Like Stone Henge, which incidentally I hear they're relocating the adjacent motorway to protect? Madness.
Click to expand...
Are you saying it is madness to protect Stone Henge? I sincerely hope not.
Our heritage must be safeguarded. Whatever the price, deduct it from the ghastly overseas aid budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Shabby
Scotland preparing to demand another referendum <laugh>

I would love it to happen, but feel it's very unlikely.
 
A question for the more right wing members of this forum:
Are you happy that Her Majesty's Opposition is totally ineffective, with a leader who is a national laughing-stock, or would you rather the opposition had a competent leader who could offer the country an alternative government?
 
I don't align myself with any political party (all knobs), but having no competition is never, ever a good thing.
 
ForestHillBilly said:
Interesting article in Private Eye about the proposed refurbishment of Parliament, at a cost of £4bn. The refurb of Buckingham Palace is £370m, the Shard cost £435m, Wembley Stadium £798m. The project was waved through until the chairman of the Treasury Committee, Andrew Tyrie, started asking questions about why it was so expensive. I hope this does not impact on Royston's working conditions, and he must be livid about the taxpayer having to fund such a vanity project?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of differences between Parliament and the other buildings to mention though, differences which in my opinion make it worth spending money on. To begin with, thousands of people work there every day - from cleaners to Earls - the building itself is a huge employer. Many of the lower paid ancillary staff like cleaners and porters travel in from the poorer parts of London to work there. There is also the factor of the buildings unique place in our national life - every working day many many school kids from all over the country visit and receive proper educational tours etc.

The issue of spending money on the site is actually a non politcal one - there is Cross Party support.
 
The President has two spokespersons now, to provide alternative facts. Take your pick which one you believe. The media is saying Mike Flynn has been sacked, but you know how dishonest the media is.
 
ForestHillBilly said:
A question for the more right wing members of this forum:
Are you happy that Her Majesty's Opposition is totally ineffective, with a leader who is a national laughing-stock, or would you rather the opposition had a competent leader who could offer the country an alternative government?
Click to expand...

No, it is bad for democracy and the long term political health of the UK.

To quote a Labour MP last week

"We have got 600,000 members...and probably that many voters left"

<laugh>
 
ForestHillBilly said:
At the last byelection there were less Labour voters than members:emoticon-0184-tmi:
Click to expand...

Richmond.

That directly refuted Corbyn's central claim for the 2020 election - that his foot soldiers would boost the Labour vote. All the anecdotal evidence is that 90% of the activists who registered did so to vote for Jezza - and were never seen again.
 
The likes of John McDonnell and Diane Abbott will realise that they will lose their seats as well; supporting Corbyn won't help, quite the reverse, and they might panic and have a word in his ear. But the Leader of the Opposition is very well paid, about the same as a cabinet minister I think, so it seems he'll hang on to the bitter end, regardless of all this nonsense about him being such a nice man.
 
ForestHillBilly said:
The likes of John McDonnell and Diane Abbott will realise that they will lose their seats as well; supporting Corbyn won't help, quite the reverse, and they might panic and have a word in his ear. But the Leader of the Opposition is very well paid, about the same as a cabinet minister I think, so it seems he'll hang on to the bitter end, regardless of all this nonsense about him being such a nice man.
Click to expand...

I think you will see a concerted move to shift him after 23 Feb if the Copeland and Stoke Central seats are lost. If that happens, Labour are in meltdown territory. Len McCluskey will be the man to watch, plus the Left wing echo chamber on social media who have supported Corbyn up to now but have realised that he is a dud.

The great thing for us who abhor the Labour Party is that they are sunk regardless. England votes Conservative, and hasn't voted for a truly left wing party since 1974 (you can't count Blair, he was Tory Lite)
Organised Labour has had it, and demographics are against the People's Party as well.
 
Hopefully Len McLuskey will be defeated i by his own members. His decision to donate £250,000 of members' money to Corbyn's campaign was a disgrace. Even if he steps down soon it's a long long way back, but even quite recently he was going on about having a mandate, so it seems to me he intends to hang on regardless of how low down he takes the party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back