All Simon Jenkins’ arguments for moving parliament – and power – to the north of England are spot on (A parliament that listens has to get out of London, 17 July). But for just five years? That will really make no difference to what he calls the “greatest handicap on the political economy” – the north-south imbalance. MPs and civil servants will just commute “up north” as special trains, planes and limos are laid on.

We must move both parliament and the seat of government out of London for good. There will be many advantages for both London and the rest of the country, but moving to an existing big city would be unnecessary, divisive and disruptive. Only by a decisive and permanent move northwards of the seat of power itself can we transform and rebalance the relationship between London and the rest of England and create a genuine economic and cultural counterweight to the south-east.

A 20-year project to build a new northern city of around half a million people could create not only a political and governmental powerhouse but an economic growth centre based on the new technologies – a new silicon valley of the north. The obvious location is somewhere in the “concealed” coalfield belt east of Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham – on the M1 and linked motorways (and HS2!), in attractive countryside – and with plenty of flat land for England’s new hub airport, which should not be in “London”.

Barry and Pugin’s amazing palace can then become the museum of English and British history they always intended and a massive revenue-earning tourist attraction.

Tony Greaves

Liberal Democrat, House of Lords

• Simon Jenkins makes an important point about how the Palace of Westminster’s major programme of works should be used to reconnect parliament with the people. The joint committee I co-chaired published its report nearly a year ago, but government and parliament have continued to put off a decision. To a large extent that’s understandable: this involves huge sums of public money for which so many other public projects can also lay claim. After the tragedy of Grenfell and with a renewed focus on the state of social housing, the decision is not one that parliament wants to face soon.

But bridging the divide that Grenfell and political events of the last year have exposed is what should guide us. Now more than ever, parliament must use the works as a bold opportunity to build stronger connections with the people who feel increasingly distant from it.

With a sharper focus on that purpose, a temporary move out of London is worth reconsidering – and there must be other big ideas that merit examination. One thing’s clear, maintaining the Palace of Westminster for parliament to return there only to stay the same is not good enough. The works have to be an opportunity to change things for the better.

Tina Stowell

Conservative, House of Lords

• How right Simon Jenkins is to argue a case for parliament to find a temporary home for the coming five years. Of the four cities he cites, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds are already doing well enough, but Sheffield needs it the most. MPs would be doing themselves a favour, too: Sheffield has world-class theatre (Sheffield Theatres is an unprecedented three-times winner of the Regional Theatre of the Year award), the largest independent cinema outside London, bohemian quarters at Kelham Island and Sharrow Vale, two enterprising universities, great ale, affordable and classy housing, and deep countryside on the doorstep. All that and it’s very, very friendly. Just hope we can keep that way when parliament arrives.

Mark Doel

Sheffield

• Simon Jenkins repeats arguments he has made before that parliament should relocate outside London. This would only make sense if all MPs did at Westminster was occasionally make speeches and ask ministers questions in the House of Commons chamber. But they don’t!

The Palace of Westminster is a community of some 10,000 people, including MPs’ secretaries and researchers, canteen and restaurant staff, librarians, IT and digital media networking staff, select committee administrators and researchers, excellent librarians, as well as administrative and security officials, cleaners, electricians, plumbers, gardeners etc.

Many of these staff live in, or within travelling distance of, London; it is simply not practical for all of these people to up sticks and move to live, albeit temporarily, in a regional city, however nice it may be. The same applies to many national organisations that lobby parliament. They are located in London partly to take advantage of this ease of access to our lawmakers and policy formulators.

Additionally, parliament at Westminster works synergistically with Whitehall, around the corner, as governmental officials and ministers go back and forth, sometimes at very short notice, to appear before MPs in committees or in the case of ministers, answering urgent last-minute questions from MPs in the Commons chamber. Such scrutiny by our elected representatives would not be possible if ministers were based in London, but parliament was hundreds of miles – and several hours – away.

Sir Simon has clearly not thought through the full implications of his proposals.

Dr David Lowry

(Researcher for MPs since 1984)

Stoneleigh, Surrey

• The five-year renovation of the picturesque but not so ancient neo-Gothic pile by the Thames is a historic opportunity to commence a move of the home of the mother of parliaments to a permanent location more central to the UK.

This act of decentralisation would not only be healthy for our democracy but would offer the possibility of doing away with much of the flummery that impedes the business of a 21st-century parliament. Imagine a modern debating chamber with electronic voting, state-of-the-art office accommodation, lower maintenance and running costs and, importantly, no adversarial seating plan.

Madame Tussauds and others could bid for leases to open up Westminster to the tourist trade with Speaker’s processions, mock debates and so on to bring in some revenue. Of course, it won’t happen. Vested interests and a national obsession with tradition and flummery will see to that.

Les Farris

Lopen, Somerset

• To improve their engagement with the regions, how about parliament having a state-of-the-art big-top circus tent touring towns and cities countrywide. MPs are natural performers with many diverse talents to engage and even entertain their audiences, as we see at PMQs. As for the clowns…

Judy Liebert and Julian Marsh

Nottingham

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters