Scottish Parliament
Some of you may have heard recently that part of the roof of the much publicised Scottish Parliament building fell in. This is somewhat surprising for a building which cost £430m.
£430m which could have been invested in the health service, education, public transport...
I had the dubious pleasure of seeing the building myself on Tuesday and I just could not believe it. Some things are said to look better in the flesh, but I was honestly not prepared for how cheap, nasty and plain ugly this monstrosity is. Nothing comes close, especially for something meant to be so prestigious. "Cheap?" I hear you say. How indeed can something which robbed the public purse of so much be cheap? Well, for a start I have it on good authority that the wooden structures and trimming are notorious for coming off. And then there is the small matter of the roof.
I find it very ironic that just down the road from the multmillion pound Scottish Parliament building lies the Royal Yacht Brittania. A ship retired because she was not cost effective. Personally I'd rather the Queen had her yacht than these pompous politicians had their new building.
Talking of boats, this Parliament Building is meant to represent an upturned one. Does it heck. To be fair, if you view it from the air you are meant to be able to see the resemblance; but I've not yet had the pleasure.
Anyway, this may just be one building, but it's a symbol of something much more. It is a perfect example of the fact that throwing money at something, impressive as the figures may sound, does not always result in something useful.
Gordon's budget yesterday may not have sounded too controversial, but I wonder what the next stealth tax will be to fund his "tax and spend" mentality, bleeding the population dry in the process. Though it seems to be emerging of course that Gordon's preferred tactic is "borrow and spend".
Doubtless someone will point me in the direction of huge amounts of money "invested" in public services and bleat on about how good this government has supposedly been. Pre-empting that I will ask them to show me concrete evidence of improvement.
Meanwhile, I will point you in the direction of the latest NHS cutbacks. How are we supposed not to notice any effect of 1000 nurses being cut? And what good reason was there for just closing my local hospital - the King Edward VII - without due warning, explanation or enquiry?
Don't like me talking about the NHS? Well, look in the direction of the subsidy cuts in the railways and the reduction in services which has been ordered.
Fed up with my ranting about the railways? Then look at the education standards which do not always reflect the money poured in to it.
I rest my case.
£430m which could have been invested in the health service, education, public transport...
I had the dubious pleasure of seeing the building myself on Tuesday and I just could not believe it. Some things are said to look better in the flesh, but I was honestly not prepared for how cheap, nasty and plain ugly this monstrosity is. Nothing comes close, especially for something meant to be so prestigious. "Cheap?" I hear you say. How indeed can something which robbed the public purse of so much be cheap? Well, for a start I have it on good authority that the wooden structures and trimming are notorious for coming off. And then there is the small matter of the roof.
I find it very ironic that just down the road from the multmillion pound Scottish Parliament building lies the Royal Yacht Brittania. A ship retired because she was not cost effective. Personally I'd rather the Queen had her yacht than these pompous politicians had their new building.
Talking of boats, this Parliament Building is meant to represent an upturned one. Does it heck. To be fair, if you view it from the air you are meant to be able to see the resemblance; but I've not yet had the pleasure.
Anyway, this may just be one building, but it's a symbol of something much more. It is a perfect example of the fact that throwing money at something, impressive as the figures may sound, does not always result in something useful.
Gordon's budget yesterday may not have sounded too controversial, but I wonder what the next stealth tax will be to fund his "tax and spend" mentality, bleeding the population dry in the process. Though it seems to be emerging of course that Gordon's preferred tactic is "borrow and spend".
Doubtless someone will point me in the direction of huge amounts of money "invested" in public services and bleat on about how good this government has supposedly been. Pre-empting that I will ask them to show me concrete evidence of improvement.
Meanwhile, I will point you in the direction of the latest NHS cutbacks. How are we supposed not to notice any effect of 1000 nurses being cut? And what good reason was there for just closing my local hospital - the King Edward VII - without due warning, explanation or enquiry?
Don't like me talking about the NHS? Well, look in the direction of the subsidy cuts in the railways and the reduction in services which has been ordered.
Fed up with my ranting about the railways? Then look at the education standards which do not always reflect the money poured in to it.
I rest my case.
Comments
Really can't be bothered arguing about whether funds are mismanaged or not, because as I've said before central government has no control over how funds are spent, only the civil service. If the Tories spent less it would just mean that less money was thrown at problems.