So, the Houses of Parliament, are crumbling, and in order to save the British taxpayers a few billion (not to mention several decades) on the repairs, an independent committee has suggested, that either both Houses, or Commons & Lords in turns should temporarily relocate...
...which has inevitably brought about/renewed the question: Why couldn't parliament be relocated...permanently.
But ministers don't want to consider even a temporary move, of course.
Leader of the House Mr Grayling said he was "not warm" to the idea of relocating."My very clear view is this building is an important part of our national heritage and our democracy, and it must remain as such," he said during Business Questions in the Commons.Can't have change now, can we ? National heritage !
There must be no “self-indulgent” reforms to parliamentary procedures as part of the expected refurbishment plan for the Palace of Westminster, Sir Alan Duncan has said.
The Conservative former minister told the Times: “What would be catastrophic is if self-indulgent people who know little about parliament say ‘let’s have electronic voting’ or ‘let’s have a semi-circular chamber’. I’m absolutely with Churchill after the place was bombed who said ‘let’s keep the traditions’. The institution is bigger than anybody in it.”
A report and accompanying statement from the House of Commons Commission will be published tomorrow laying out the options to renovate Parliament.
The function of highest court of appeal now performed by the recently-created 'Supreme Court' traditionally rested with the House of Lords. But you changed that in 2005.
Membership in the House of Lords was traditionally via hereditary peerage, but, in your desire to further weaken the House and increase the power of the Commons and the Prime Minister, you reformed that in 1999, and brought in mostly political appointees for the Lords.*
The traditional right to Habeas corpus is many centuries old, but you did away with that in the name of 'Terror' back in 2005.
The tradition of fixed-term elections has been around less than four years, dating to the Act in 2011.
The traditional central rule of Scotland from Westminster dates back to 1707, and that of Wales to the 1500's, but you re-established the Scottish parliament and established a National Assembly for Wales in 1998.
And these are just some of the changes that come to me off the top of my head.
And for a lot of people, the traditions of the Houses look, frankly, silly, embarrassing even. See for example the row over the SNP clapping, versus the traditional braying and shouting and jeering. Never mind how the British people see the daily antics in Parliament, how do you think it looks to people in other countries ?
 |
| http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-speech-snp-told-clapping-5772809 |
And as for the actual buildings themselves, they only date back to the 1840's, which is nothing in the context of British history. The fact of which wouldn't hurt their repurposing as a tourist-attraction, given the gothic design, and the common assumption that they are far older.
And frankly, I don't see any more reason for Parliament necessarily having to be based in London, than the BBC, large parts of which have been banished to other regions of the country, especially Manchester. Television Centre is arguably as iconic as the Houses of Parliament (albeit rather newer and a little less well known, especially outside the UK), but you sold that in 2012. At least you held on to Broadcasting House...
And you keep talking about the fact that the other regions of England, including in the North, are under-represented. What better way to do something about that than relocating Parliament to Birmingham or Manchester ? It'll also help with Gideon's notion of a 'Northern Powerhouse'.
In fact, I'm not sure there are any good arguments against relocating Parliament, whether simply to a newer more modern facility more 'fit for purpose' (to use a horrible hackneyed phrase so beloved of British MP's) or to also move the body out of London altogether. Other than...it's tradition.
Good arguments, that is, as opposed to the self-interest of politicians, who might be inconvenienced by having to move, and who might feel their status diminished by having to work out of Birmingham or Leeds say. Forcing BBC staff to relocate to Manchester, no problem. Allowing British jobs to be outsourced to the likes of India, who cares ? But MP's, Never ! How dare we suggest that they not be allowed to continue to shout and bray in the traditional chamber with 'its magic quality' ? How dare we deny them their taxpayer-funded second homes in desirable London postcodes ?. How dare we threaten bringing them into the twenty-first century, one where so many jobs have done away with physical offices and desks altogether ?
In the end, they won't move. Not permanently at any rate. And refurbishing the creaky old Victorian edifice will probably cost a lot more than seven billion pounds. But the more we can have these sorts of conversations the better; and the more chance there may be for some actual change, and change that benefits the people, rather than just the powers that be at that.
* And note that as a result of this, and David Cameron's attempts to stuff the House with so many new peers, that it is now so physically overcrowded that it 'risks the House being unable to do its job'.
** Yes, I am well aware that most of the (fairly radical & questionable) constitutional changes mentioned above happened under Tony Blair's watch. And ?
*** When I say 'you' or 'your' above, I am referring to Parliament generally, not specifically to Mister Grayling or Sir Duncan, or even to that fascist fuck Blair.
**** Oh, and 'forty years' !!! WTF ?!
No comments:
Post a Comment