View previous topic | View next topic

Relocation of Parliament

Page 3 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

suze
1321659.  Sun May 12, 2019 5:00 pm Reply with quote

I shall take your word for it that it would be a simple matter to rearrange the sukuk scheme such that a different building was the collateral, and Richmond House returned to the unencumbered ownership of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That goes beyond my understanding of Islamic banking.

But looking at the point from the other end, is there any reason why MPs should have access to alcohol at whatever place is serving as the House of Commons? Alcohol is not served at my workplace, and I'd be in quite a lot of trouble if I went to work under its influence. I don't suppose your employer encourages drinking on the job either.

Why should it be different for MPs? Is the job of an MP in some way special, and it is unthinkable that they shouldn't be able to drink while doing it? Are we back to Old Etonians who have never had a proper job believing that they are entitled to perks that most people don't get? Or are the MPs who cannot imagine a dry House really saying that they don't approve of the very existence of the sukuk scheme? (In which case, why didn't they vote against its creation when they had the opportunity?)

 
barbados
1321672.  Mon May 13, 2019 12:46 am Reply with quote

There is no need to take anyone’s word, the scheme matures 8n ten weeks, on 23rd of July there will be a new one (probably considering the current one was over subscribed)

As for alcohol in the work place, my previous employer used to have alcohol available in an after work bar, but it was stopped as a cost saving. My current employer it would be impractical, mainly as with yours, because of the number of minors around. Although if memory serves, you previous employer would have had alcohol available in the workplace. I have 4 employers that have provided a workplace bar, one of them was a free bar, the others were subsidised, so it isn’t unheard of.

 
suze
1321708.  Mon May 13, 2019 11:33 am Reply with quote

It's not unheard of by any means, but it's becoming less and less common.

It used to be common for a factory to have a social club somewhere out back, but most of these have gone by now. In some cases that was because they were little used and cost too much to keep open, in some cases it was because a new CEO or a new (often North American) owner didn't want alcohol on site.

Larger companies often had a sports and social club away from the business premises, but most of these too are gone. No longer are they of much value when recruiting, and the land on which they were situated was attractive to developers. The Civil Service grounds in Chiswick are by now owned by a property company, while the Bank of England club in Barnes has announced that it will close by the end of the year. Nearer to my home, the former BAE SYSTEMS sports and social club in Hoo has been covered in houses. If the government no longer considers it proper to offer such facilities to its employees, why should MPs get them?

 
barbados
1321712.  Mon May 13, 2019 11:49 am Reply with quote

The civil service club is in great Scotland Yard not Chiswick.
Perhaps that’s why?

 
suze
1321719.  Mon May 13, 2019 12:04 pm Reply with quote

The club in Great Scotland Yard is just a bar, restaurant, and hotel for established civil servants, also available to employees of the Metropolitan Police Service.

The former club in Chiswick had acres and acres of sports pitches, a less starched collar bar, and so on. Those sports pitches are in fact still there for the moment and are used by a variety of tenant sports teams, but it has been made plain that they are likely to be built on in the longer term.

The future of the Bank of England grounds is not yet clear, and it is reported that planning permission to build houses on the site would probably not be forthcoming. A country house-type hotel and/or golf course seems fairly likely, but watch that space.

 
Alexander Howard
1321725.  Mon May 13, 2019 12:15 pm Reply with quote

Workplace clubs have faded out; now we drift home to the telly and the internet or the pub. In the days before television and before homes with room to swing a cat, social clubs and pubs filled a need that is less obvious now. We have lost something there.

For a time in the Victorian period, it was common to have a workplace rifle company.

When Napoleon III came to the throne in France there was a national panic and someone noticed that a Napoleonic-era statute encouraging the formation of volunteer military units was still in force. All at once, men started banding together, buying their own guns, and reporting to the Lord-Lieutenant, whose duty was to enrol them as a military unit.

It was common to have companies based on the workplace and I believe there were an number of civil service units. Mostly they were rifle companies, but there were cavalry units too. My great-grandfather was a rifle volunteer, and his shopboy joined with him.

All the fun went out of it when the government regularised it all too much and it became the Territorial Army.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1321751.  Tue May 14, 2019 1:11 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
If the government no longer considers it proper to offer such facilities to its employees, why should MPs get them?

A little empathy please - their colleagues are enough to drive anyone to drink.

And it’s not a new home they’re building, it’s a temporary workplace they’re setting up.

 
GuyBarry
1321759.  Tue May 14, 2019 2:13 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:

And it’s not a new home they’re building, it’s a temporary workplace they’re setting up.


In that case, why is it necessary to reproduce the interior of the House of Commons in detail? (I think they're doing without the extensive wood panelling.)

If the Lords can sit in the QEII Conference Centre - which is not a replica of the House of Lords - then surely it's possible for the Commons to use some existing public space. Both Houses of Parliament used Church House as a temporary home during the Second World War.

 
tetsabb
1321789.  Tue May 14, 2019 8:41 am Reply with quote

Wembley? Earle Court? The Brighton Centre? NEC in Birmingham?

 
Alexander Howard
1321797.  Tue May 14, 2019 10:09 am Reply with quote

There's a redundant parliament building, with two chambers and committee rooms within and government / civil service building around it, waiting just outside Belfast.

 
suze
1321804.  Tue May 14, 2019 12:05 pm Reply with quote

tetsabb wrote:
Earls Court?


Tricky, since the Earls Court Exhibition Centre closed in 2014 and has been knocked down. The redevelopment has stalled several times, but it's going to be posh flats for rich people rather than a large auditorium.

Realistically the temporary Parliament does have to be in London; it would be just too complicated for it not to be where the main parts of the civil service are. It probably has to be a building that is already in public ownership too, because it would be a PR disaster to pay zillions of pounds in rent to a commercial landlord who could name his price.

 
tetsabb
1321811.  Tue May 14, 2019 12:42 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
tetsabb wrote:
Earls Court?


Tricky, since the Earls Court Exhibition Centre closed in 2014 and has been knocked down. The redevelopment has stalled several times, but it's going to be posh flats for rich people rather than a large auditorium.

Shows how much attention I pay to stuff.
That Jimmy Savile is a good bloke, isn't he? Haven't heard much about him of late.

 

Page 3 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group