John McDonnell said Parliament could move out of London, and why not?

There's strong opposition to moving parliamentarians out of the Palace of Westminster for renovation works, but some of the arguments don't stack up.

Parliament could hold sessions outside of London to better take into account the ‘real needs of the regions’, Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell said yesterday.

During the launch of a Labour-commissioned report suggesting the Bank of England could move to Birmingham, McDonnell made further comments on devolving our institutions of state, saying:

“I think there is an argument put forward for ensuring that certainly Cabinet and maybe sessions of Parliament could be held elsewhere.

“I know Jeremy has been talking about holding shadow cabinet meetings around the country on a regular basis and I think you will see that evolve into other forms of direct devolution.

McDonnell’s view is especially pertinent given the current debate over the urgently needed renovation of the Palace of Westminster — works that could take up to thirty years and cost £5bn.

Though some parliamentarians have voiced opposition, one proposal is to move the House of Commons and Lords out of the Palace whilst the work goes ahead: to a building, or buildings, nearby in central London.

But if moving out of the Palace of Westminster is an option, why not take it a step further and move Parliament out of London completely?

Labour MP Alison McGovern set out what could be achieved by such a move, telling The Guardian recently: “If we moved out of London, it would have a profound effect on our political culture,” continuing:

“Imagine if we had a national competition for all the towns in Britain, and they could apply to become a city and get parliament in one go. What could be a more progressive thing, if, say, Barnsley could apply, and Barnsley could be the seat of our parliament?”

But the proposals aren’t popular with some. The journalist in The Guardian piece, Charlotte Higgins, seemed to speak for many responding to McGovern’s views: I had the feeling of how fantastical [this] kind of talk was”;

“Britain simply isn’t the kind of country that is willing to uproot its national politics from Westminster, the navel of church and state since the Saxons first moored their boats there, and plonk it down in Barnsley.”

Many who work in Parliament share this lazy view that British democracy and the Westminster site are irreparably linked by history — and could never be parted. But it’s not actually the case.

As Bernard Porter writes in the London Review of Books:

“Peripatetic parliaments or king’s councils are not unprecedented. We had them in the early Middle Ages. Other countries still do.”

There’s no sacrosanct, historic link between Westminster and British democracy. So why not get our parliamentarians out on the road? As Porter writes:

“That way MPs could re-engage directly with the parts of Britain that feel distanced from Westminster today.”

“Meeting one year in Manchester, the next in Glasgow (not Edinburgh, given the local competition), another in Swansea, then in Newcastle or even Hull, they would see the shuttered-up shops, the desolation caused by deindustrialisation, as well as the many positive and promising aspects of provincial life.”

John McDonnell’s comments are welcome and sensible. Moving parliament could be especially good for British democracy — reengaging people and their lawmakers and rebuilding trust in the institution, which has been in decline for decades.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

4 Responses to “John McDonnell said Parliament could move out of London, and why not?”

  1. nhsgp

    How about Cities bid for parliament, and send the bill for the move in, move out, to their voters?

  2. Chester Draws

    And how, exactly, would MPs be able to talk to the people they need to talk to?

    Is the Labour Party willing to have to move its headquarters every time the parliament shifts. Or do you think they’ll stay in London and move out of politics? I’m sure ministers will love getting briefings from civil servants by intermittent Skype. And that every meeting with anyone much will involve travelling to the new Parliament site, wasting hours in travel time for all and sundry. Does the PM have to live in the new Parliament city, or in London where he or she does business. Are foreign visitors going to enjoy staying in Barnsley?

    Moving the government (which is absolutely NOT parliament) out of London has some merit. But the shift would be horrendous and very costly and would need to be permanent.

  3. patrick newman

    More important than moving the Bank of England to Brum (it’s OK with me) is taking the key role for economy management away from the institution and the absurd obsession of monthly interest rate setting by a committee of monetarists. The BoE should concern itself with the limited role of advising on money supply and ensuring the integrity and competence of the major financial institutions. Interest rates inter alia should be set by the government. As for Parliament – Labour should focus on opposing the reduction of M.P.’s (650 to 600) when the population is to grow by 2 million ex EU citizens who are legitimised under Brexit.

  4. Robbie Leslie

    Well, why not?
    Parliament does not need to be at Westminster – in the Middle Ages it was peripatetic, meeting at the place of the monarch’s choosing.
    There isn’t a city or major town in the UK that couldn’t provide a debating chamber for 400-odd people to use for a ten week parliamentary term.
    So … move Whitehall out of London and base it in Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield – 3 closely connected cities at the geographical heart of the U.K. with good links to London ( links that would improve exponentially should such a scheme come to pass…)
    Then… have Parliament sit in London for one term each year (the one including the Queen’s speech) and then move around the country term-to-term in a manner akin to test match cricket.
    Why not?
    The Humphrey Applebys and Malcolm Tuckers will hate it, well they would….’MP’s will miss the clubishness of Westminster…
    So be it. The person on the Clapham omnibus might just get a wee bit. more responsive and understanding government.

Comments are closed.