Why parliament needs to move out – and move on

Readers respond to Simon Jenkins’s article suggesting that parliament should relocate out of London

Simon Jenkins is right to characterise parliament as “outdated and immune to reform” (Notre-Dame was restored in five years and under budget. But the Palace of Westminster? No chance, 6 November). However, it is not only cost, practicality and design that are compelling reasons to empty the building and move to purpose-built premises. The building and the institution in their present form are entirely inappropriate for the workplace of a modern democracy.

The self-entitlement evident in the resistance to moving out, such as that voiced by, among others, Jacob Rees-Mogg, illustrates the assumptions of class and leadership roles in those most comfortable with the status quo, and with the arcane, outdated building and rituals, which must seem bizarre and intimidating to anyone not raised in privilege and the traditional public schools.

It is way past time to modernise, to sustain those things that have made parliament a useful model, and to dispense with the decay that extends beyond just the building. Tim Lambert London

Of course parliament should move from Westminster. But instead of Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham, which have already undergone regeneration, why not move to a city in the north-east of England? There would be several advantages to this.

Property, and the cost of living, is much cheaper, so MPs would require less in subsidies for their second homes and other allowances. It would bring a massive economic injection to a part of the country that needs renewed infrastructure: housing, services, shops and public transport.

And perhaps most important, it would sift out the dilettante politicians who enjoy posing in Westminster, and leave those who take the business of being an MP seriously; could anyone see Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees-Mogg, for example, falling over themselves to work in the north-east? Perhaps then we could move on to politics for the common good. Maggie Hamilton Oxford

Simon Jenkins is right to say that parliament should move north and do its work in a conference centre or some such.

If repairs to the Palace of Westminster take decades, so much the better. By the time they move back, legislators might have stopped caring about maces, prayer cards, division bells and men in tights banging on doors.

Those traditions, never particularly charming, have long since become a distraction and a brake on democracy.

And hopefully, after a generation or two away from Westminster, MPs will have grown out of the embarrassing habit of hooting and jeering when people are trying to speak. We could even find ourselves with a parliament of grownups – one that is bemused by the clanky, dusty, raucous old circus that it used to be. Jonathan Bastable Brighton

I think Simon Jenkins would find that anyone with plans to turn the Palace of Westminster into a “great museum” would first have to deal with the asbestos, update the wiring and make sure it was safe for public use. A not inconsiderable outlay. Jennifer Rees Cardiff

Simon Jenkins is spot-on calling for parliament to leave London, but the UK loves living in the “glorious” past of long ago victories and having a capital that led the world in its ideas of taste and sophistication. Today’s parliamentarians seem to turn misty eyed as soon as they enter their derelict, draughty building, and vote again and again to do nothing about it.

Their attitude pervades the UK’s attempts at capital projects that consume millions of pounds and take for ever, and still don’t take off. Other countries seem to manage capital projects with ease, and they don’t believe they rule the world. Sam White Lewes, East Sussex