Walk through the Houses of Parliament and you’ll immediately notice signs of decay: crumbling masonry, cordoned-off zones, water seeping through walls, leaking pipes, and danger signs. Taxpayers are spending £2m per week to maintain the Palace of Westminster, yet sewage leaks and vermin infestations persist. The Public Accounts Committee warns that there is a growing risk of a catastrophic event destroying the palace before it is restored.
Despite this, MPs have continuously postponed plans to futureproof the building. Recently, it was announced that a decision will be postponed until after the next election. It’s been known for a while that the palace, a famous UNESCO world heritage site, requires an extensive and costly restoration program. The greatest danger lies in outdated electrical systems and inadequate fire control measures, which significantly increase the risk of a devastating fire. The delay in action can be attributed partly to the estimated cost of £7-13 billion over 12-20 years, even if all parliamentarians were relocated. However, it is also due to the reluctance of MPs to spend such a long time in exile, knowing they may never get the chance to speak in the chamber again.
This situation serves as a perfect metaphor for the short-term nature of our politics today. Short-termism is prevalent everywhere you look. For example, the decision to not extend HS2 all the way to Euston in order to save money in the short-term ignores the potential long-term benefits. The failure of political leaders to reform elder care over the past two decades is another example of short-sightedness, as it fails to ensure dignity for everyone in our aging society. Additionally, the recent rollback of climate commitments, which were already deemed insufficient, demonstrates a lack of focus on long-term consequences.
While it may feel like our current political landscape is ill-equipped to tackle long-term challenges, there have been instances where politicians have risen above short-sightedness. The postwar consensus on social housing is a prime example. For 35 years after World War II, both parties invested public funds to build 4.4 million rental homes, representing the only period in recent history when the UK constructed enough homes. However, such cross-party consensus seems unimaginable today due to the polarized nature of modern politics.
Various proposals have been put forward to address the institutional problem of short-termism. Breaking up the Treasury to free other government departments from its short-sighted accounting mindset, appointing a future generations commissioner, and increasing the use of citizens’ juries are all potential solutions. However, our psychology is inherently biased towards the near-term. Humans naturally value immediate benefits over long-term gains. Thinking about the future beyond our own lifetime can be unsettling, which makes it difficult to prioritize long-term thinking.
One response to the fear of the future is to turn to immortality, an idea some billionaires have embraced. However, a healthier approach is to recognize that the longevity of civilization depends on individuals extending their horizons in the present. This is the goal of the Long Time Project, which aims to explore how human thinking about time can be reframed in the context of multigenerational threats like the climate crisis.
The Long Time Project is built on two transformative concepts. The first is intergenerational empathy, which involves caring deeply about the world our descendants will inherit. The challenge is to make this emotional connection less abstract and more tangible. The second concept is legacy. If there was a toast to be made to you at a future party, what would it be about? This question may evoke discomfort, but embracing it and adopting the mindset of medieval architects who designed grand cathedrals knowing they wouldn’t live to see them completed can benefit future generations.
Returning to MPs and their failure to prioritize the future of our national heritage over their short-term desires, it is reasonable to expect more from them. However, it’s worth considering how we would act in their position. Would we be any better? The answer is uncertain.
Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
