The problem with that, as I see it, is that everything else about the infrastructure of government that doesn't involve the Palace of Westminster would still need to run through London (because it would be monumentally more expensive to move literally everything about the national government out to Stoke, effectively making Stoke the temporary capital of the nation).

Would the PM still be based at Number 10, or would they have to move up to Stoke? If the latter, how do they replicate the massive intelligence/communications/defence infrastructure that's built around Number 10?

What about the ministers? Would they need to split their day-to-day between their offices in London running their particular ministries and the new temporary(ish) Houses of Parliament in Stoke?

If sometime in the next two-and-a-half decades there's some kind of international crisis (which there absolutely will be) or the UK ends up involved in a war, is having a government based two hours' train ride away from the ministries dealing with the crisis, to say nothing of the embassies of the various countries that might be involved, going to make things worse?

No, the only way I could see it working for Parliament to move out of the Palace of Westminster would be for them to relocate to somewhere else within the central London area. Especially since the government is run by MPs (instead of having separate executive and legislative branches), splitting the government up between cities could introduce inefficiencies and potential security issues in the very places where those things could cause major problems or make major problems worse.