There is little
doubt that the facilities currently ‘enjoyed’ by our elected representatives in
London fall
short of requirements in a number of ways.
Nor can there be any real argument about the need to provide proper
facilities for anyone doing any job of work.
And however cheap any refurbishment was, there would inevitably be an
outcry from the usual suspects (I’m sure that the Taxpayers’ Alliance are drafting their press release if
they haven’t already issued it) against our MPs spending money ‘on themselves’.
In principle, I see
no reason to oppose a reasonable level of expenditure on bringing facilities up
to date and making them fit for purpose.
However, if I understand what is being proposed, it is that up to £3
billion should be spent on refurbishing the facilities and leaving them as outdated
and unfit for purpose as they are currently.
Even if Cameron’s
proposals to reduce the number of MPs were to be successful, there is still not
enough room in the legislature for all of our legislators to sit. Getting, and retaining, a seat for some debates depends on
turning up early and being prepared to do a little pushing and shoving – of those
on your own side.
The whole chamber
is designed around a confrontational approach to politics – even down to the
carefully laid out lines to ensure that government and opposition are always at
least two swords’ lengths apart. And
when it comes to voting, particularly on a series of complex amendments, the members have to
stand up and walk around in circles, sometimes for hours.
Who in his right mind would design a chamber for a
legislature which did not contain enough space to contain all of the members? Yet as I understand it what is being proposed
is that whilst the building will be completely renewed internally, the basic
design and size will remain unchanged.
It shows how easily
people get sucked into ‘tradition’, and ‘the way things work around here’ that
the biggest complaint raised so far seems to be that access to the bars and
tearooms will be impossible during the refurbishment project.
Change of Personnel
blogs on the same question here; I cannot but agree.
Faced with both
opportunity and good reason – i.e. the need to do some serious work on the
current facilities – to make changes which would ensure a parliamentary chamber
fit for use in a 21st century democracy, it seems as though our
elected representatives will actually decide to expend huge sums of money on
maintaining and updating a facility which will remain as unfit for purpose at
the end as it was at the beginning. Freshly
painted lines to maintain the two swords’ separation isn't really what I'd call 'upgrading'.
No comments:
Post a Comment