Rant thread

[Bob8]

Why? Do "reputable" companies expect to have cost overruns? I'd expect any company to build slack into their costs, if they can't deliver to a cost then I'd be suspicious that they haven't actually understood what needs to be done.

Admittedly on a smaller scope but my projects teams operate on fixed price basis. We're currently delivering about £20m of projects on that basis, if we overrun or haven't got our costs right then that's our problem.

Yes, they do. 

 

If a project will take two years to complete, issues will emerge and people will change their minds about things.  These add-ons add considerably to the scope.  My own company tend to allow for this in the original estimate, but most do not.

[ckn]

Yes, they do. 

 

If a project will take two years to complete, issues will emerge and people will change their minds about things.  These add-ons add considerably to the scope.  My own company tend to allow for this in the original estimate, but most do not.

Ah, I meant unplanned cost overruns, i.e there's no slack in the original price to cater for the risk of the work as scoped.  Any changes to scope should be paid for separately, if the royals want a change then they can open up their coffers.

[Ramite]

Then the tenders would be twice as much or if the potential over costs are high enough the main contractor would go bust.

[JonM]

If you're going to make those sorts of comparisons how much rent do they pay? If they pay a comparative amount for their property to you and I out of their vast private wealth then fair enough.

 

The owners of West Ham FC got a good bit more than £390m spent on their gaffe by the taxpayer and pay sod all rent. At least the royal family don't make their income off pornography.

 

I thought the point about Buckingham Palace was that the queen goes there for meetings, she spends most of her nights elsewhere. It's a government building. The amount being spent will be dwarfed by the cost of doing up Westminster, presumably.

[Ramite]

The amount being spent will be dwarfed by the cost of doing up Westminster, presumably.

Very comfortably any costs will run into the billions.

[Bleep1673]

OK Rant thread, I am fed up with the way the Railway Systems treat Hastings. Tonight, again, there is no trains out of Hastings in the three directions out of here. My Partner needed to go to London tonight for work in the morning, but there is a bus replacement service between Hastings and Ashford International, Bexhill, and Battle, which means a Bus Replacement service. If anyone was disabled, they would have to order a taxi, 24 hours in advance, and pay a subsidy. Southern/Southeastern you are W**kers.

 

PS. I am writing to my local MP with these complaints, and she is the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd MP, so I guess it will be slipped under the carpet as usual.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Bleep1673

[gingerjon]

 The amount being spent will be dwarfed by the cost of doing up Westminster, presumably.

 

Last I heard the figure being bandied casually about was £7bn.

 

Which, incidentally, I also wouldn't expect the country to pay.  Move Parliament somewhere more modern - hand over the costly relics to the preservers.

[Griff9of13]

Last I heard the figure being bandied casually about was £7bn.

Which, incidentally, I also wouldn't expect the country to pay. Move Parliament somewhere more modern - hand over the costly relics to the preservers.

Absolutely. A modern, purpose built building, preferably outside London with a hostel attached to house the MPs who have to stay overnight.

I would suggest it be hosted in the most economically deprived area of the country and be moved on every 20 years or so. If the area is where MPs have to spend their working life it won't remain deprived and starved of funds for long. You rejuvenate the whole north west economy for £7bn

Edited November 21, 2016 by Griff9of13

[Derwent]

Spending £369 million of public money doing up a fabulously rich family's London townhouse.

I need my roof turning anyone wanna chip in or shall I go straight to the government for the dosh?

 

I wonder how much of the said £369m will flow down into the general economy in the form of construction jobs, supply chain etc ? The royal family aren't the only ones who will benefit from a project like this.

[Griff9of13]

I wonder how much of the said £369m will flow down into the general economy in the form of construction jobs, supply chain etc ? The royal family aren't the only ones who will benefit from a project like this.

There's already a shortage of builders in London. They rely heavily on workers from Eastern Europe.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Griff9of13

[gingerjon]

I wonder how much of the said £369m will flow down into the general economy in the form of construction jobs, supply chain etc ? The royal family aren't the only ones who will benefit from a project like this.

 

So you're in favour of the state building things just to give people jobs?

[Derwent]

So you're in favour of the state building things just to give people jobs?

 

They aren't building things. They are carrying out essential maintenance. How many people do you know who live in places where the heating, plumbing and electrical systems are pre-war ? If a council was letting out homes with lead water pipes, high levels of asbestos, dangerous electrical systems and antiquated heating that was barely adequate then people would quite rightly be up in arms about it and demand it be rectified out of the public purse. There's no difference here apart from some people's loathing of royalty blinding them to the actual facts.

[Mark S]

There are plenty of empty building in Doncaster, no reason why parliament can't be moved their.

[gingerjon]

They aren't building things. They are carrying out essential maintenance. How many people do you know who live in places where the heating, plumbing and electrical systems are pre-war ? If a council was letting out homes with lead water pipes, high levels of asbestos, dangerous electrical systems and antiquated heating that was barely adequate then people would quite rightly be up in arms about it and demand it be rectified out of the public purse. There's no difference here apart from some people's loathing of royalty blinding them to the actual facts.

 

I'm slightly confused as to why you think I loathe the royals - although I am, as ever, pointing and laughing at people who want to take back control, scream about democracy (etc) who go all moist in the crotch when it comes to those who are better than us mere oiks.  I merely think that there are substantially better things to spend £369m on.  And if you want to make it about job creation - which you did earlier - then giving 369 businesses a £1m start up grant each would be a substantially better idea (although daft, just not as daft).

[Ramite]

Who are these people ? Do you think we should leave B palace until it becomes unsafe because of who lives there and what it represents ?

[gingerjon]

Do you think we should leave B palace until it becomes unsafe because of who lives there and what it represents ?

 

It's very far down my list of priorities of what £369m should be spent on.

[Ramite]

I would imagine so , though it didn't answer my question. still if the works needs doing it needs doing regardless of people's thought on the Royal family. I would like to be in a position to say where tax payer money was spent but it's not going to happen.

Do we know who these people are that you laughing at yet ?

Edited November 21, 2016 by Ramite

[gingerjon]

Do we know who these people are that you laughing at yet ?

 

Any and all royalists.

 

I find them all hilarious in different ways.

[Derwent]

Any and all royalists.

 

I find them all hilarious in different ways.

Thinking that the renovations at the palace are necessary doesn't make me a royalist. I'm fairly indifferent to the monarchy. But the fact is that this work does need doing. And on the issue of funding well the Crown Estates contribute >£300m to the treasury each year so the cost is covered multiple times by that.

[Tiny Tim]

So you're in favour of the state building things just to give people jobs?

 

Like a "high speed" train track between London and Brum?

[gingerjon]

Like a "high speed" train track between London and Brum?

 

I find spending £65bn to save me 20 minutes is entirely sensible.

[Tiny Tim]

I find spending £65bn to save me 20 minutes is entirely sensible.

 

I'd personally rather spend the extra 20 minutes on a train than in Brum, although I can see the appeal of the return journey being 20 minutes quicker.

[JohnM]

Perhaps you, like many of us on here, are not in the target market. And yes, it's a waste, when a proper transpennine sevice from North Wales to East Hull would in my view deliver a much better return.

[Ramite]

It's more about capacity and the continued growth in the use of the railways than speed.

[JohnM]

It's more about capacity and the continued growth in the use of the railways than speed.

 

That's not a rant!!