Commons speaker John Bercow has said that, since our parliament is basically falling apart, MPs have got to think about moving to a different location to allow essential refubirshments to take place.
Of course, they could all just toddle down the road to a less grand but still London-based building as they did during the Second World War, when the Luftwaffe put paid to the old Commons chamber. But why not use this as a chance to take British politics out of its notoriously capital-centric comfort zone and bundle our MPs off somewhere else?
Here are six ideas for where they could go. Tell us what you think on Twitter or by voting in our poll:
The case for: The existing campaigns mentioned above lend the idea ready-made credibility, while a renewed political focus on one of Britain's most disadvantaged regions could yield great results.
The case against: Years of political neglect have left Yorkshire with poor transport and infrastructure networks. While a York-based parliament might give MPs a kick up the proverbial to sort this out, in the initial stages that could be a problem.
The case for: Well connected, culturally rich and with a strong presence on the national and international business stage, Manchester is a global city like the capital.
The case against: Greater Manchester's success has arisen, at least in part, from its (totally Labour-dominated) strong local government. Is any city big enough to accommodate the egos of both MPs and town hall supremos?
The case for: This would bring a whole new dimension to most parliamentarians' understanding of the different issues facing the UK's nations.
The case against: What better way to remind the sometimes fractious nations of Britain that we're "better together" then allowing them to see the weekly spectacle of Prime Minister's Questions at close quarters? Oh, wait...
The case for: MPs needn't leave their nice London homes, and the 102 of them who were educated among the city's dreaming spires could have fun reliving halcyon days spent reading the greats and playing hide-the-crumpet.
The case against: Moving parliament from one part of the pampered south east to another might be seen as a waste of time and money.
The case for: An oft-ignored region could benefit from an influx of money, ideas and attention, all while taking MPs closer to their favourite staycation hotspots in St Ives, Padstow and Rock.
The case against: If you were planning the location of parliament today in purely geographical terms, you probably wouldn't choose London, given its relative remoteness from the rest of England. The same could be said of the cities of the South West, and they don't have the "soft power" that London does.
The case for: What better place to dump the members of one of Britain's least trusted professions than a tiny freezing platform in the middle of the sea?
The case against: Should the rulers of Sealand mount a counter attack, it seems unlikely that our honourable members would be able to co-operate enough to fight them off. It could be a bloodbath.
Of course, they could all just toddle down the road to a less grand but still London-based building as they did during the Second World War, when the Luftwaffe put paid to the old Commons chamber. But why not use this as a chance to take British politics out of its notoriously capital-centric comfort zone and bundle our MPs off somewhere else?
Here are six ideas for where they could go. Tell us what you think on Twitter or by voting in our poll:
York
The idea of a parliament in York has been floating around at least since one of Henry VIII's officials used it to appease some uppity commoners during the Pilgrimage of Grace (just like most devolution promises since, it didn't actually happen). More recently, York is the preferred location for an English Parliament of Eddie Bone, Britain's foremost campaigner for a national assembly for England. Just to add celebrity sex appeal, dad-punk turned social theorist Billy Bragg reckons the city should be our new capital.The case for: The existing campaigns mentioned above lend the idea ready-made credibility, while a renewed political focus on one of Britain's most disadvantaged regions could yield great results.
The case against: Years of political neglect have left Yorkshire with poor transport and infrastructure networks. While a York-based parliament might give MPs a kick up the proverbial to sort this out, in the initial stages that could be a problem.
Manchester
Manchester is the new motherhood and apple pie in British politics. From getting its own special NHS to the power to vote for a mayor in 2017, the Greater Manchester urban area has enjoyed enormous favour from Westminster—and accompanying media attention—in recent months. This is because—as my colleague Jonathan Derbyshire wrote last year—the city is well governed, full of civic pride and fizzing with great ideas.The case for: Well connected, culturally rich and with a strong presence on the national and international business stage, Manchester is a global city like the capital.
The case against: Greater Manchester's success has arisen, at least in part, from its (totally Labour-dominated) strong local government. Is any city big enough to accommodate the egos of both MPs and town hall supremos?
Parliamentary roadshow
"If it works for the EU, it'll work for us," said probably no-one ever, but what about a constantly moving parliament? Given the UK's recent brush with dismemberment in the form of the Scottish independence referendum, perhaps the time is right for a parliament which takes a grand tour of Britain's constituent nations. It could begin in one of the English locations listed here, trundle off to Cardiff, then Edinburgh, followed by Belfast, until it ends up, enriched with new ideas, in a grand return to a newly refurbished Westminster.The case for: This would bring a whole new dimension to most parliamentarians' understanding of the different issues facing the UK's nations.
The case against: What better way to remind the sometimes fractious nations of Britain that we're "better together" then allowing them to see the weekly spectacle of Prime Minister's Questions at close quarters? Oh, wait...
Oxford
Oxford has form in this area. The grand old university town is where King Charles I convened a parliament to plan the royalist campaign during the civil war. More recently, some government departments were moved to Oxfordshire during the Second World War. A stone's throw from London thanks to good train links and a 24-hour coach service, in geographical terms people would hardly notice the difference.The case for: MPs needn't leave their nice London homes, and the 102 of them who were educated among the city's dreaming spires could have fun reliving halcyon days spent reading the greats and playing hide-the-crumpet.
The case against: Moving parliament from one part of the pampered south east to another might be seen as a waste of time and money.
Exeter
Thank my colleague Jay Elwes for this one. He points out that amid excitable talk at Westminster of the "northern powerhouse" the South West, in recent years arguably thought of largely as a tourist destination-cum-wind farm repository by Britain's ruling class, has been neglected.The case for: An oft-ignored region could benefit from an influx of money, ideas and attention, all while taking MPs closer to their favourite staycation hotspots in St Ives, Padstow and Rock.
The case against: If you were planning the location of parliament today in purely geographical terms, you probably wouldn't choose London, given its relative remoteness from the rest of England. The same could be said of the cities of the South West, and they don't have the "soft power" that London does.
The principality of Sealand
A teeny tiny sovereign state founded in 1967 on a disused, seaborne military base, Sealand is a serious threat to Britain's borders. Who knows when they'll mount an attack, especially if we're about to cut defence spending to less than 2 per cent of GDP. We could retake this territory and establish a new parliament there just to show who's boss.The case for: What better place to dump the members of one of Britain's least trusted professions than a tiny freezing platform in the middle of the sea?
The case against: Should the rulers of Sealand mount a counter attack, it seems unlikely that our honourable members would be able to co-operate enough to fight them off. It could be a bloodbath.
