| Levelling Up 12:44 - Jun 9 with 2420 views | johnlangy |
Here's something I wasn't aware of from the Budget in March.
The general belief, as far as i'm aware, was that levelling up funding was designed to help bridge the chasm in wealth between London and the rest of the UK.
What a surprise to find that that rundown Northern community Canary Wharf (population apparently 18,000) was awarded £242 million while Wales (population 3,100,000) was awarded £170 million.
Thoughts anyone ? |  | | |  |
| Levelling Up on 13:35 - Jun 28 with 350 views | onehunglow |
Great posting ,chaps | |
| |
| Levelling Up on 16:13 - Jun 28 with 312 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Levelling Up on 22:50 - Jun 27 by majorraglan |
I agree with you that we need to be less London centric, but I think it would be very difficult to move out of London (as much as I’d like to see a lot more shipped out of there) because it would cost billions to move the support structures such as police protective services, many civil services etc away from there.
There was mention of Canary Wharf getting more levelling up money than Wales, from what I’ve seen Canary Wharf is becoming a bit of a ghost town, why not move government down there? |
I don't see why so many civil services would have to be used. Mobile phones and the internet are great ways of communicating.
Police protective services are the easiets to mive when the buildings are designed with security in mind, new entry and exit systems, cameras, scanners at doors,
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-restoration-and-renewal-programme-recent-
Taken from that link,
The estimates at that time suggested that the ‘essential scheme’ (the full decant of the palace) would cost between £7bn and £13bn (excluding VAT) and take between 19 and 28 years, with the palace needing to be vacated for 12 to 20 years. The initial assessment also outlined a ‘continued presence’ study which found that if parliamentarians remained in the building, both the costs and time taken would increase. It also identified “a number of key risks of a continued presence” approach which it argued would need to be addressed. These included fire safety, compliance with health and safety legislation and disruption to parliamentary business.
So we have a building costing anything from 8.5 billion to 16 billion and in reality probably much more because that's how government projections roll. Then it will be vacated for 12-28 years and again, it could be much longer.
It is cheaper and quicker to build a new, modern, fit for purpose building. it is the pragmatic choice. Otherwise where does the government go for that length of time?
I love history but even so we live in the present and the present needs the money more than the past. | | | |
| Levelling Up on 17:44 - Jun 28 with 282 views | majorraglan |
| Levelling Up on 16:13 - Jun 28 by SullutaCreturned |
I don't see why so many civil services would have to be used. Mobile phones and the internet are great ways of communicating.
Police protective services are the easiets to mive when the buildings are designed with security in mind, new entry and exit systems, cameras, scanners at doors,
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-restoration-and-renewal-programme-recent-
Taken from that link,
The estimates at that time suggested that the ‘essential scheme’ (the full decant of the palace) would cost between £7bn and £13bn (excluding VAT) and take between 19 and 28 years, with the palace needing to be vacated for 12 to 20 years. The initial assessment also outlined a ‘continued presence’ study which found that if parliamentarians remained in the building, both the costs and time taken would increase. It also identified “a number of key risks of a continued presence” approach which it argued would need to be addressed. These included fire safety, compliance with health and safety legislation and disruption to parliamentary business.
So we have a building costing anything from 8.5 billion to 16 billion and in reality probably much more because that's how government projections roll. Then it will be vacated for 12-28 years and again, it could be much longer.
It is cheaper and quicker to build a new, modern, fit for purpose building. it is the pragmatic choice. Otherwise where does the government go for that length of time?
I love history but even so we live in the present and the present needs the money more than the past. |
I agree with much of what you’ve written. Some civil service stuff can’t be done remotely, but a lot can.
In terms of policing, it wasn’t so much about the buildings, but the staffing, the politicians moving around, personal protection etc. The Met is the only Force in the U.K. capable of handling the scale of commitment required to look after the politicians, diplomatic stuff etc. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.