Council urged to sell off part of £190m art collection (From Daily Echo)

If the public never gets to see the artwork why shouldn't it be sold? The point of assets is to use them wisely as investments, and cash in when needed.

sell to spend the money on an arts centre that 200,00 of the city residents wont use ,like the titanic money wasted that we could have used right now thats why roys lot lost about time the council took notice of the people they pay to say if its ok to sell

sell to spend the money on an arts centre that 200,00 of the city residents wont use ,like the titanic money wasted that we could have used right now thats why roys lot lost about time the council took notice of the people they pay to say if its ok to sell. when is the editor of the echo going to move on,he`s try to run the council and all the big shipping companys in the city,he needs a new challange owners of the echo.

Sell all the modern cr*p languishing in the basements or the modern rubbish so often seen on display come to that.

Once sold and the money used for things like sure start, what will happen in the future to sure start when it needs more cash?

Erm, dont build a waste of time and money art complex, then you will not need to borrow £10m you short sighted neanderthals!

If the art is collecting dust (which it is), then why not sell it? Surely it cant all be owned by trusts!

Just another reader wrote:
If the public never gets to see the artwork why shouldn't it be sold? The point of assets is to use them wisely as investments, and cash in when needed.

.. er, because it's NOT the council's art works to sell.

Like it says 'because most of the collection is owned by trusts set up through bequests.'

Taskforce 141 wrote:
Erm, dont build a waste of time and money art complex, then you will not need to borrow £10m you short sighted neanderthals!

If the art is collecting dust (which it is), then why not sell it? Surely it cant all be owned by trusts!

It's not gathering dust. Most galleries rotate their collections, so if you sell it you won't be able to show it in the future. I do like the idea of selling your art collection to fund a new art development. Maybe they could say the empty space is a modern art instillation.

Southampton has one of the most valuable art collections in the country and has plans to build a brand new Arts complex. For those of people who are interested in Arts and Culture will be very happy to see all the works on display in here. There is no way all these works will be sold off. Labour sold most of our Gold reserves when Gold was at its lowest valuation. Art has a very high value and will be an attraction for generations to come.

Agree put children ahead of a small amount of art. Sell some asap.

Typical Tories ..... Sell it all off ....... Build things we cant afford.
.
If Moulton was that keen why did he get go agead when the Tories were in power ... ......... Simple ...... He was told that you cant.
.
He is now being told that you cannot sell it ......... yet is trying to make a pathetic political point.
.
Give it a break Moulton .......... If your lousy outfit hadnt wasted millions on a white elephant perhaps this issue would not have arisn.
.
The Art belongs to the people of Southampton ........ Its NOT FOR SALE

Just another reader wrote:
If the public never gets to see the artwork why shouldn't it be sold? The point of assets is to use them wisely as investments, and cash in when needed.

The point is that they do not own it, if sold they would be breaking agreement with the owners and would leave them wide open to be sued, and handing the money over from the sale to the rightful owners of the art.

The only art the council can legally sale are the ones that the council have bought for investment, the problem here is that they have all ready been sold back in the 80's tory council and since then they have bought now new art.

I think its a bit rich of the Tories complaining about loan repayment,,thanks to them we making loan repayments to the tune £5 million for the Sea City Museum,,,money that they said we wouldn't need to build to it in the first place,,,I recall Cllr Hannides saying private investment would pay for Sea City,,which appears to be not the case.

As for libraries staying open,,,wasn't it the Tories gem of an idea to make library staff redundant and get volunteers to run them,,,by using the now not spoken about Big Society ethos which failed and David Cameron seems to have forgotten about.

On another issue,,,Where's Royston gone? when his party ruled the city Jeremy Moulton never really got an outing in the media,,,why now,,,is Roy of Tories on holiday or is it he doesn't get the allowance from the taxpayers as he used too?

southy wrote:

Just another reader wrote:
If the public never gets to see the artwork why shouldn't it be sold? The point of assets is to use them wisely as investments, and cash in when needed.

The point is that they do not own it, if sold they would be breaking agreement with the owners and would leave them wide open to be sued, and handing the money over from the sale to the rightful owners of the art.

The only art the council can legally sale are the ones that the council have bought for investment, the problem here is that they have all ready been sold back in the 80's tory council and since then they have bought now new art.

Southy..... did you miss this bit ?

Cllr Jeremy Moulton, deputy leader of the Tory group, said: “There’s a small proportion of the collection that we have been given professional advice on and we can sell, and it’s not part of the core collection.

The selling of this will not cure the problem of the shortfall, it will only delay the inevitable cutting of the services at a later date.

Outside of the Box wrote:
I think its a bit rich of the Tories complaining about loan repayment,,thanks to them we making loan repayments to the tune £5 million for the Sea City Museum,,,money that they said we wouldn't need to build to it in the first place,,,I recall Cllr Hannides saying private investment would pay for Sea City,,which appears to be not the case.

As for libraries staying open,,,wasn't it the Tories gem of an idea to make library staff redundant and get volunteers to run them,,,by using the now not spoken about Big Society ethos which failed and David Cameron seems to have forgotten about.

On another issue,,,Where's Royston gone? when his party ruled the city Jeremy Moulton never really got an outing in the media,,,why now,,,is Roy of Tories on holiday or is it he doesn't get the allowance from the taxpayers as he used too?

Think you find Royston days are numbered as leader of the Tory Party, Moulton is now stepping up and getting ready to take over.
Royston still earns a fair amount £ probley more than you do in a full time job, He get a more than the average wage for sitting on the 2 boards that I know he sits on that only meets once mth for about half day and that are the Docks and Fire brigade boards.

Cyber__Fug wrote:

southy wrote:

Just another reader wrote:
If the public never gets to see the artwork why shouldn't it be sold? The point of assets is to use them wisely as investments, and cash in when needed.

The point is that they do not own it, if sold they would be breaking agreement with the owners and would leave them wide open to be sued, and handing the money over from the sale to the rightful owners of the art.

The only art the council can legally sale are the ones that the council have bought for investment, the problem here is that they have all ready been sold back in the 80's tory council and since then they have bought now new art.

Southy..... did you miss this bit ?

Cllr Jeremy Moulton, deputy leader of the Tory group, said: “There’s a small proportion of the collection that we have been given professional advice on and we can sell, and it’s not part of the core collection.

The selling of this will not cure the problem of the shortfall, it will only delay the inevitable cutting of the services at a later date.

yes I did read it, and if that was possable then the Torys would off all ready sold them off if they could off when they was in office.
There are some bits that could be sold, BUT they can only be sold to buy more works of art, I remember what Pat Bear was telling me about it all when she was a councillor and mayor of Southampton.
Like I said they can only sell the arts that are for investment (that was bought by the council with council funds) there are none left as they have all ready been sold.

It must be about 3 months since the Echo last ran this story so it was about time it was rerun. I confidently predict we will soon see another story about the lack of an ice rink. And we haven't heard much about that sex club in Woolston for a few weeks.

Ford Prefect wrote:
It must be about 3 months since the Echo last ran this story so it was about time it was rerun. I confidently predict we will soon see another story about the lack of an ice rink. And we haven't heard much about that sex club in Woolston for a few weeks.

The sex story was I think run over the weekend (just gone) it has now been closed down,,,,the ice rink will forever run because no one will build it

before people come on here berating the Tories for saying sell two pieces exactly how many people go to the Art gallery?
If they put a box at the door how much would they get from voluntary contributions to keep all the art & pay towards a bigger Arts Complex?
Why not send a questionnaire to all the city's residents & let's see exactly how many do visit it?
we need the money to build it bigger to show what we have to attract tourists but you so called art lovers would rather see it locked in vaults?
You socialists are great at blaming the Government but here's something we can do to help save services & you attack the people who propose it?
As Moulton has said there are pieces that were not bequested to us & we can sell so for the good of the city why not?
how many families are selling items they've acquired to make up short falls in earnings?

.. the more I see pictures of Moulton, the more I think he looks like a sheep.

Such short sighted behaviour from Jeremy & Co.
.
The short term selling of the family silverware gets you nowhere in the long run.
.
Irrespective of the failure of the last Conservaive administration to sell any of the collection and the legal issues stopping it now, it is simply a terrible policy and nothing more than a poor publicity stunt.
.
We should be protecting our history, heritage and assets, not selling them off to plug short term holes.
.
This city suffered appallingly when short term decisions were made to rebuild the City Centre (look how our heritage and City Walls were destroyed or blocked in).

loosehead wrote:
before people come on here berating the Tories for saying sell two pieces exactly how many people go to the Art gallery?
If they put a box at the door how much would they get from voluntary contributions to keep all the art & pay towards a bigger Arts Complex?
Why not send a questionnaire to all the city's residents & let's see exactly how many do visit it?
we need the money to build it bigger to show what we have to attract tourists but you so called art lovers would rather see it locked in vaults?
You socialists are great at blaming the Government but here's something we can do to help save services & you attack the people who propose it?
As Moulton has said there are pieces that were not bequested to us & we can sell so for the good of the city why not?
how many families are selling items they've acquired to make up short falls in earnings?

Repeat there are none left to be sold unless your counting the ones that can be sold to buy more art work.

Why blame the Government well like they say the buck stops with them.

freefinker wrote:

Just another reader wrote:
If the public never gets to see the artwork why shouldn't it be sold? The point of assets is to use them wisely as investments, and cash in when needed.

.. er, because it's NOT the council's art works to sell.

Like it says 'because most of the collection is owned by trusts set up through bequests.'

Er, so sell the ones that are owned by the council then! My point still stands.

And what is the point of the council sitting on these assets if it has to lay workers off and cancel vital services. That's the job of the council, to provide services to the citizens.

Just another reader wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Just another reader wrote:
If the public never gets to see the artwork why shouldn't it be sold? The point of assets is to use them wisely as investments, and cash in when needed.

.. er, because it's NOT the council's art works to sell.

Like it says 'because most of the collection is owned by trusts set up through bequests.'

Er, so sell the ones that are owned by the council then! My point still stands.

And what is the point of the council sitting on these assets if it has to lay workers off and cancel vital services. That's the job of the council, to provide services to the citizens.

.. so, you put off the inevitable redundancies for a year, maybe. And then? Redundancies and cuts in vital services. Short sighted and cultural vandalism.

southy wrote:

Outside of the Box wrote:
I think its a bit rich of the Tories complaining about loan repayment,,thanks to them we making loan repayments to the tune £5 million for the Sea City Museum,,,money that they said we wouldn't need to build to it in the first place,,,I recall Cllr Hannides saying private investment would pay for Sea City,,which appears to be not the case.

As for libraries staying open,,,wasn't it the Tories gem of an idea to make library staff redundant and get volunteers to run them,,,by using the now not spoken about Big Society ethos which failed and David Cameron seems to have forgotten about.

On another issue,,,Where's Royston gone? when his party ruled the city Jeremy Moulton never really got an outing in the media,,,why now,,,is Roy of Tories on holiday or is it he doesn't get the allowance from the taxpayers as he used too?

Think you find Royston days are numbered as leader of the Tory Party, Moulton is now stepping up and getting ready to take over.
Royston still earns a fair amount £ probley more than you do in a full time job, He get a more than the average wage for sitting on the 2 boards that I know he sits on that only meets once mth for about half day and that are the Docks and Fire brigade boards.

We'll hold you to this one. Hope you've got your facts right.

Not that looking a fool seems to bother you.

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Typical Tories ..... Sell it all off ....... Build things we cant afford.
.
If Moulton was that keen why did he get go agead when the Tories were in power ... ......... Simple ...... He was told that you cant.
.
He is now being told that you cannot sell it ......... yet is trying to make a pathetic political point.
.
Give it a break Moulton .......... If your lousy outfit hadnt wasted millions on a white elephant perhaps this issue would not have arisn.
.
The Art belongs to the people of Southampton ........ Its NOT FOR SALE

I doubt if Moulton or his Tory colleagues will ever listen to you, but hope you can convince the closet Conservatives, who are pretending to be Labour in Council, not to sell one of City's best assets.

Problem of balancing the Council’s budget can only be resolved by most if not all the Councils getting together to demand that central government should stop wasting money on bankers the EU and wars etc and start giving part of those savings to local authorities so they do not have to keep on making cuts.

Anti local government policies introduced during Thatcher's time have created problems for the Councils. For survival of local government concept those policies must be reviewed. Neither Blair nor Brown did that when they were in power and so far Millband led mob has also failed to make any commitment, because as David Milliband said other day, they too want to work within the same envelope as ConDem Coalition.

While you are doing the right thing by consistently exposing the Tories, you should also be teaching some sense to your NuLabourite mates. If they do not change then I am afraid the only choice for many will be to start supporting Southy's TUSC.

As in Coxford I am supporting Councillors Thomas and Morrell. I hope TUSC will also do the same.

The Watcher wrote:
Such short sighted behaviour from Jeremy & Co.
.
The short term selling of the family silverware gets you nowhere in the long run.
.
Irrespective of the failure of the last Conservaive administration to sell any of the collection and the legal issues stopping it now, it is simply a terrible policy and nothing more than a poor publicity stunt.
.
We should be protecting our history, heritage and assets, not selling them off to plug short term holes.
.
This city suffered appallingly when short term decisions were made to rebuild the City Centre (look how our heritage and City Walls were destroyed or blocked in).

Thanks for fact based intelligent comment. Hope people in power will learn something from your views.

loosehead wrote:
before people come on here berating the Tories for saying sell two pieces exactly how many people go to the Art gallery?
If they put a box at the door how much would they get from voluntary contributions to keep all the art & pay towards a bigger Arts Complex?
Why not send a questionnaire to all the city's residents & let's see exactly how many do visit it?
we need the money to build it bigger to show what we have to attract tourists but you so called art lovers would rather see it locked in vaults?
You socialists are great at blaming the Government but here's something we can do to help save services & you attack the people who propose it?
As Moulton has said there are pieces that were not bequested to us & we can sell so for the good of the city why not?
how many families are selling items they've acquired to make up short falls in earnings?

Strange. I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

Similarly, I seem to recall that you made no complaint about the waste of money spent on the gigantic white elephant, that is eating up much needed money.

If this art went on sale, I wonder who would be buying it.

Would it end up on the walls of some stately home, where we would have to pay to see it, or would it end up abroad?

I doubt that it would end up hung on the walls of South Towers.

It has always been said that the Tories know the price of everything and the value of nothing.... I cannot say I am pleased to see that nothing has changed!

So here we have it Labour/ART 6 -0 Children.
Sell a small amount of Art and use it for children's services.
Want to save more money, merge services with the IOW. Labour won't because it is a Tory idea, so we all lose.
SAD LABOUR, BAD LABOUR.
Vote Tory in 2014 for a caring Council.
We could have had an ice rink, but Williams cancelled it, again Tory idea.
SAD LABOUR,BAD LABOUR

Ford Prefect wrote:
It must be about 3 months since the Echo last ran this story so it was about time it was rerun. I confidently predict we will soon see another story about the lack of an ice rink. And we haven't heard much about that sex club in Woolston for a few weeks.

Selling art to fund a arts development?

Mrs Thatcher sold the national family silver to fund tax cuts and unemployment benefit. We have nothing to show now for the loss of all those great assets sold on the cheap in the 1980s.
Southampton should not sell its irreplaceable treasures to cover short term imbalances between income and expenditure. The relatively deprived we will always have with us but once the assets are gone it will take decades, maybe even generations, to replace them.

aldermoorboy wrote:
So here we have it Labour/ART 6 -0 Children.
Sell a small amount of Art and use it for children's services.
Want to save more money, merge services with the IOW. Labour won't because it is a Tory idea, so we all lose.
SAD LABOUR, BAD LABOUR.
Vote Tory in 2014 for a caring Council.
We could have had an ice rink, but Williams cancelled it, again Tory idea.
SAD LABOUR,BAD LABOUR

Totally wrong ..... Yet again.
.
Read what Southy has posted..... It is correct.
.
The paintings do not belong to the Council ......... THEY CANNOT SELL THEM.
.
The few that are available must be replaced with art.
.
I know it seems a bit simplistic .... But.
,
And like other Tory posters ........ You didnt insist on selling when in power did you, ........Just think you could have paid for the Sea Museum instead of putting the City into great debt.. ......... But there again you didnt .. because Moulton and his little outfit knew that they could not sell

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Typical Tories ..... Sell it all off ....... Build things we cant afford.
.
If Moulton was that keen why did he get go agead when the Tories were in power ... ......... Simple ...... He was told that you cant.
.
He is now being told that you cannot sell it ......... yet is trying to make a pathetic political point.
.
Give it a break Moulton .......... If your lousy outfit hadnt wasted millions on a white elephant perhaps this issue would not have arisn.
.
The Art belongs to the people of Southampton ........ Its NOT FOR SALE

I doubt if Moulton or his Tory colleagues will ever listen to you, but hope you can convince the closet Conservatives, who are pretending to be Labour in Council, not to sell one of City's best assets.

Problem of balancing the Council’s budget can only be resolved by most if not all the Councils getting together to demand that central government should stop wasting money on bankers the EU and wars etc and start giving part of those savings to local authorities so they do not have to keep on making cuts.

Anti local government policies introduced during Thatcher's time have created problems for the Councils. For survival of local government concept those policies must be reviewed. Neither Blair nor Brown did that when they were in power and so far Millband led mob has also failed to make any commitment, because as David Milliband said other day, they too want to work within the same envelope as ConDem Coalition.

While you are doing the right thing by consistently exposing the Tories, you should also be teaching some sense to your NuLabourite mates. If they do not change then I am afraid the only choice for many will be to start supporting Southy's TUSC.

As in Coxford I am supporting Councillors Thomas and Morrell. I hope TUSC will also do the same.

As far as I know we will not be putting up any one to stand against Thomas and Morrell, which should at lest give one person free to stand in Sholing

Lone Ranger. wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
So here we have it Labour/ART 6 -0 Children.
Sell a small amount of Art and use it for children's services.
Want to save more money, merge services with the IOW. Labour won't because it is a Tory idea, so we all lose.
SAD LABOUR, BAD LABOUR.
Vote Tory in 2014 for a caring Council.
We could have had an ice rink, but Williams cancelled it, again Tory idea.
SAD LABOUR,BAD LABOUR

Totally wrong ..... Yet again.
.
Read what Southy has posted..... It is correct.
.
The paintings do not belong to the Council ......... THEY CANNOT SELL THEM.
.
The few that are available must be replaced with art.
.
I know it seems a bit simplistic .... But.
,
And like other Tory posters ........ You didnt insist on selling when in power did you, ........Just think you could have paid for the Sea Museum instead of putting the City into great debt.. ......... But there again you didnt .. because Moulton and his little outfit knew that they could not sell

Think the local branch of the Tory party should be force to pay for that white elephant the sea museum, maybe then in the future they might think twice on spending money where it was not needed

Lonely Ranger, I think you are wrong.
Have you been to the SEA MUSEUM it is great and the staff are friendly, good investment for the City.

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Typical Tories ..... Sell it all off ....... Build things we cant afford. . If Moulton was that keen why did he get go agead when the Tories were in power ... ......... Simple ...... He was told that you cant. . He is now being told that you cannot sell it ......... yet is trying to make a pathetic political point. . Give it a break Moulton .......... If your lousy outfit hadnt wasted millions on a white elephant perhaps this issue would not have arisn. . The Art belongs to the people of Southampton ........ Its NOT FOR SALE

The people's verdict was to kick the tories out of the city. Why is Moulton's face still in the picture? He would sell his own mother to feed his wallet.The art is the city's to enjoy, not to sell.Now get to it Labour and let us see it.

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lonely Ranger, I think you are wrong.
Have you been to the SEA MUSEUM it is great and the staff are friendly, good investment for the City.

At what price ......... Such a good investment that the Tories got voted out of power .......
.
Delighted that the staff are friendly !! What would you expect

Review the councillors expenses system. Cut out layers of needless waste. Stop the sponging benefits' claims. Balance the books and stop being paranoid about getting votes to continue to strut and pose. Politicians at all levels are just out for themselves. Let's make them accountable. If they cannot balance the books...kick them out

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:
before people come on here berating the Tories for saying sell two pieces exactly how many people go to the Art gallery?
If they put a box at the door how much would they get from voluntary contributions to keep all the art & pay towards a bigger Arts Complex?
Why not send a questionnaire to all the city's residents & let's see exactly how many do visit it?
we need the money to build it bigger to show what we have to attract tourists but you so called art lovers would rather see it locked in vaults?
You socialists are great at blaming the Government but here's something we can do to help save services & you attack the people who propose it?
As Moulton has said there are pieces that were not bequested to us & we can sell so for the good of the city why not?
how many families are selling items they've acquired to make up short falls in earnings?

Strange. I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

Similarly, I seem to recall that you made no complaint about the waste of money spent on the gigantic white elephant, that is eating up much needed money.

If this art went on sale, I wonder who would be buying it.

Would it end up on the walls of some stately home, where we would have to pay to see it, or would it end up abroad?

I doubt that it would end up hung on the walls of South Towers.

Wrong I totally agreed with selling two pieces of art.
Linesman if this art gallery was well patronised & if they were willing to keep it up if we charged to get in then fine but I've read constantly from people who think like you about the Sea City Museum about every thing having to pay it's way or it's a White Elephant isn't that right?
How much does it cost this city to keep the Art Gallery running?
How much does it cost us to store this stuff away out of sight?
I just ask the NO group please tell me how many residents of this city bother to visit the Art Museum?

cliffwalker wrote:
Mrs Thatcher sold the national family silver to fund tax cuts and unemployment benefit. We have nothing to show now for the loss of all those great assets sold on the cheap in the 1980s.
Southampton should not sell its irreplaceable treasures to cover short term imbalances between income and expenditure. The relatively deprived we will always have with us but once the assets are gone it will take decades, maybe even generations, to replace them.

Who sold our gold to bail out the Euro?

aldermoorboy wrote:
So here we have it Labour/ART 6 -0 Children.
Sell a small amount of Art and use it for children's services.
Want to save more money, merge services with the IOW. Labour won't because it is a Tory idea, so we all lose.
SAD LABOUR, BAD LABOUR.
Vote Tory in 2014 for a caring Council.
We could have had an ice rink, but Williams cancelled it, again Tory idea.
SAD LABOUR,BAD LABOUR

FAILED LABOUR!

aldermoorboy wrote:
Lonely Ranger, I think you are wrong.
Have you been to the SEA MUSEUM it is great and the staff are friendly, good investment for the City.

They have plenty of time to be friendly because they are not rushed off their feet now that the initial interest has waned.

It is now Yesterdays' News, and the crowds that Royston Smith claimed would be flocking through its doors, have now dwindled to a trickle.

loosehead wrote:

cliffwalker wrote:
Mrs Thatcher sold the national family silver to fund tax cuts and unemployment benefit. We have nothing to show now for the loss of all those great assets sold on the cheap in the 1980s.
Southampton should not sell its irreplaceable treasures to cover short term imbalances between income and expenditure. The relatively deprived we will always have with us but once the assets are gone it will take decades, maybe even generations, to replace them.

Who sold our gold to bail out the Euro?

Perhaps there would not have been the need if the steady income from North Sea Oil had come into the Government's coffers instead of going abroad.

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:

cliffwalker wrote:
Mrs Thatcher sold the national family silver to fund tax cuts and unemployment benefit. We have nothing to show now for the loss of all those great assets sold on the cheap in the 1980s.
Southampton should not sell its irreplaceable treasures to cover short term imbalances between income and expenditure. The relatively deprived we will always have with us but once the assets are gone it will take decades, maybe even generations, to replace them.

Who sold our gold to bail out the Euro?

Perhaps there would not have been the need if the steady income from North Sea Oil had come into the Government's coffers instead of going abroad.

Quite agree with you just think of what we could do or have done with the £14billion we pay each year into the EU.

loosehead wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:
before people come on here berating the Tories for saying sell two pieces exactly how many people go to the Art gallery?
If they put a box at the door how much would they get from voluntary contributions to keep all the art & pay towards a bigger Arts Complex?
Why not send a questionnaire to all the city's residents & let's see exactly how many do visit it?
we need the money to build it bigger to show what we have to attract tourists but you so called art lovers would rather see it locked in vaults?
You socialists are great at blaming the Government but here's something we can do to help save services & you attack the people who propose it?
As Moulton has said there are pieces that were not bequested to us & we can sell so for the good of the city why not?
how many families are selling items they've acquired to make up short falls in earnings?

Strange. I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

Similarly, I seem to recall that you made no complaint about the waste of money spent on the gigantic white elephant, that is eating up much needed money.

If this art went on sale, I wonder who would be buying it.

Would it end up on the walls of some stately home, where we would have to pay to see it, or would it end up abroad?

I doubt that it would end up hung on the walls of South Towers.

Wrong I totally agreed with selling two pieces of art.
Linesman if this art gallery was well patronised & if they were willing to keep it up if we charged to get in then fine but I've read constantly from people who think like you about the Sea City Museum about every thing having to pay it's way or it's a White Elephant isn't that right?
How much does it cost this city to keep the Art Gallery running?
How much does it cost us to store this stuff away out of sight?
I just ask the NO group please tell me how many residents of this city bother to visit the Art Museum?

As said, I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

As has been pointed out, many articles are the City Council's on trust. Something that the previous administration were made aware of, but Moulton has conveniently forgotten in an attempt to score political points.

When the previous administration went ahead with its plan for The Sea City Museum, the council tax payers were informed that it would not be a cost to them because it would be paid for by Government grants and sponsorship by private businesses and persons.

That did not materialise, and the current administration were left with a massive debt to pay off.

With regard everything having to pay its way, I think that is a reasonable expectation in the current financial climate. It is my understanding that, on current figures, it is not covering its running costs, and certainly not raising money to help pay off the money owed to build the place.#

How much does it cost to store art?

I have no idea, but would imagine that it is under lock and key, and does not require shift workers to keep a 24/7 eye on it, unlike the Museum.

I have also been led to believe that some of it goes out on loan to other city art galleries. If that is correct, then I would assume that the city would receive rent.

I have no idea how many residents bother to visit the Art Gallery, but now that the initial rush to visit the Sea Museum has subsided, I imagine that it would be on a par with the museum.

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:
before people come on here berating the Tories for saying sell two pieces exactly how many people go to the Art gallery?
If they put a box at the door how much would they get from voluntary contributions to keep all the art & pay towards a bigger Arts Complex?
Why not send a questionnaire to all the city's residents & let's see exactly how many do visit it?
we need the money to build it bigger to show what we have to attract tourists but you so called art lovers would rather see it locked in vaults?
You socialists are great at blaming the Government but here's something we can do to help save services & you attack the people who propose it?
As Moulton has said there are pieces that were not bequested to us & we can sell so for the good of the city why not?
how many families are selling items they've acquired to make up short falls in earnings?

Strange. I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

Similarly, I seem to recall that you made no complaint about the waste of money spent on the gigantic white elephant, that is eating up much needed money.

If this art went on sale, I wonder who would be buying it.

Would it end up on the walls of some stately home, where we would have to pay to see it, or would it end up abroad?

I doubt that it would end up hung on the walls of South Towers.

Wrong I totally agreed with selling two pieces of art.
Linesman if this art gallery was well patronised & if they were willing to keep it up if we charged to get in then fine but I've read constantly from people who think like you about the Sea City Museum about every thing having to pay it's way or it's a White Elephant isn't that right?
How much does it cost this city to keep the Art Gallery running?
How much does it cost us to store this stuff away out of sight?
I just ask the NO group please tell me how many residents of this city bother to visit the Art Museum?

As said, I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

As has been pointed out, many articles are the City Council's on trust. Something that the previous administration were made aware of, but Moulton has conveniently forgotten in an attempt to score political points.

When the previous administration went ahead with its plan for The Sea City Museum, the council tax payers were informed that it would not be a cost to them because it would be paid for by Government grants and sponsorship by private businesses and persons.

That did not materialise, and the current administration were left with a massive debt to pay off.

With regard everything having to pay its way, I think that is a reasonable expectation in the current financial climate. It is my understanding that, on current figures, it is not covering its running costs, and certainly not raising money to help pay off the money owed to build the place.#

How much does it cost to store art?

I have no idea, but would imagine that it is under lock and key, and does not require shift workers to keep a 24/7 eye on it, unlike the Museum.

I have also been led to believe that some of it goes out on loan to other city art galleries. If that is correct, then I would assume that the city would receive rent.

I have no idea how many residents bother to visit the Art Gallery, but now that the initial rush to visit the Sea Museum has subsided, I imagine that it would be on a par with the museum.

linesman please explain to me why we need Surestart centres as we never did when I was young/
exactly what function do they provide?
As I don't know enough about them I can't criticise them but are they essential?
If they are is the Art essential to the well being of the people old & young of this city?
Get the Council to retract the restored pay & no need to cut services & no need to sell art but this council have their hands tied as the unions got them elected with the promise to restore pay.
Unlike all the other promises made & all those people lied to when they were made the restoration of pay had to be done to satisfy the Labour Party's pay masters didn't it?

loosehead wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:
before people come on here berating the Tories for saying sell two pieces exactly how many people go to the Art gallery?
If they put a box at the door how much would they get from voluntary contributions to keep all the art & pay towards a bigger Arts Complex?
Why not send a questionnaire to all the city's residents & let's see exactly how many do visit it?
we need the money to build it bigger to show what we have to attract tourists but you so called art lovers would rather see it locked in vaults?
You socialists are great at blaming the Government but here's something we can do to help save services & you attack the people who propose it?
As Moulton has said there are pieces that were not bequested to us & we can sell so for the good of the city why not?
how many families are selling items they've acquired to make up short falls in earnings?

Strange. I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

Similarly, I seem to recall that you made no complaint about the waste of money spent on the gigantic white elephant, that is eating up much needed money.

If this art went on sale, I wonder who would be buying it.

Would it end up on the walls of some stately home, where we would have to pay to see it, or would it end up abroad?

I doubt that it would end up hung on the walls of South Towers.

Wrong I totally agreed with selling two pieces of art.
Linesman if this art gallery was well patronised & if they were willing to keep it up if we charged to get in then fine but I've read constantly from people who think like you about the Sea City Museum about every thing having to pay it's way or it's a White Elephant isn't that right?
How much does it cost this city to keep the Art Gallery running?
How much does it cost us to store this stuff away out of sight?
I just ask the NO group please tell me how many residents of this city bother to visit the Art Museum?

As said, I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

As has been pointed out, many articles are the City Council's on trust. Something that the previous administration were made aware of, but Moulton has conveniently forgotten in an attempt to score political points.

When the previous administration went ahead with its plan for The Sea City Museum, the council tax payers were informed that it would not be a cost to them because it would be paid for by Government grants and sponsorship by private businesses and persons.

That did not materialise, and the current administration were left with a massive debt to pay off.

With regard everything having to pay its way, I think that is a reasonable expectation in the current financial climate. It is my understanding that, on current figures, it is not covering its running costs, and certainly not raising money to help pay off the money owed to build the place.#

How much does it cost to store art?

I have no idea, but would imagine that it is under lock and key, and does not require shift workers to keep a 24/7 eye on it, unlike the Museum.

I have also been led to believe that some of it goes out on loan to other city art galleries. If that is correct, then I would assume that the city would receive rent.

I have no idea how many residents bother to visit the Art Gallery, but now that the initial rush to visit the Sea Museum has subsided, I imagine that it would be on a par with the museum.

linesman please explain to me why we need Surestart centres as we never did when I was young/
exactly what function do they provide?
As I don't know enough about them I can't criticise them but are they essential?
If they are is the Art essential to the well being of the people old & young of this city?
Get the Council to retract the restored pay & no need to cut services & no need to sell art but this council have their hands tied as the unions got them elected with the promise to restore pay.
Unlike all the other promises made & all those people lied to when they were made the restoration of pay had to be done to satisfy the Labour Party's pay masters didn't it?

I imagine it is because when we, or certainly when I was young, there were plenty of opportunties for work.

Many firms offered apprenticeships, and so many were labour intensive, with that labour now being replaced by automation.

Like you, I have no personal knowledge of Surestart Centres, but imagine that they were considered to be needed now because so many types of jobs have been lost, and other requirements have arisen by nature of the methods that have replaced them.

Art is not essential. A museum is not essential. A park is not essential. A theatre or cinema is not essential. A rugby, cricket or football pitch is not essential.

Food, clothing and a place of shelter are, in my opinion, the essentials

It is the current administration's aim to restore the cuts in pay that the previous administration made to help fund Royston's folly. To the best of my knowledge, they did not set a time limit on when it would be restored, I imagine that they would be expecting that at some time the government will either restore the cuts in government grants, or permit councils to raise council tax without having their grant cut by a similar amount.

In my opinion, this has to happen at some time. With all other costs rising, a council, like families, cannot maintain standards if their income remains static, while prices continue to rise.

I imagine that the thermostat has not been put down a couple of notches, or a cut made in the food bill at No 10, but I bet that, in these arctic conditions, there are many pensioners that are feeling the effects of having their heating allowance drastically cut while fuel prices have continued to rise.

Loose our parents had the Health Centers and district nurses, that monitored your developement, but those places was closed down by the Tory Government of the 80's and there cuts to services.
So please think about it longer of the things that we had that are no longer there.

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Linesman wrote:

loosehead wrote:
before people come on here berating the Tories for saying sell two pieces exactly how many people go to the Art gallery?
If they put a box at the door how much would they get from voluntary contributions to keep all the art & pay towards a bigger Arts Complex?
Why not send a questionnaire to all the city's residents & let's see exactly how many do visit it?
we need the money to build it bigger to show what we have to attract tourists but you so called art lovers would rather see it locked in vaults?
You socialists are great at blaming the Government but here's something we can do to help save services & you attack the people who propose it?
As Moulton has said there are pieces that were not bequested to us & we can sell so for the good of the city why not?
how many families are selling items they've acquired to make up short falls in earnings?

Strange. I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

Similarly, I seem to recall that you made no complaint about the waste of money spent on the gigantic white elephant, that is eating up much needed money.

If this art went on sale, I wonder who would be buying it.

Would it end up on the walls of some stately home, where we would have to pay to see it, or would it end up abroad?

I doubt that it would end up hung on the walls of South Towers.

Wrong I totally agreed with selling two pieces of art.
Linesman if this art gallery was well patronised & if they were willing to keep it up if we charged to get in then fine but I've read constantly from people who think like you about the Sea City Museum about every thing having to pay it's way or it's a White Elephant isn't that right?
How much does it cost this city to keep the Art Gallery running?
How much does it cost us to store this stuff away out of sight?
I just ask the NO group please tell me how many residents of this city bother to visit the Art Museum?

As said, I don't remember you urging them to sell when they were in power.

As has been pointed out, many articles are the City Council's on trust. Something that the previous administration were made aware of, but Moulton has conveniently forgotten in an attempt to score political points.

When the previous administration went ahead with its plan for The Sea City Museum, the council tax payers were informed that it would not be a cost to them because it would be paid for by Government grants and sponsorship by private businesses and persons.

That did not materialise, and the current administration were left with a massive debt to pay off.

With regard everything having to pay its way, I think that is a reasonable expectation in the current financial climate. It is my understanding that, on current figures, it is not covering its running costs, and certainly not raising money to help pay off the money owed to build the place.#

How much does it cost to store art?

I have no idea, but would imagine that it is under lock and key, and does not require shift workers to keep a 24/7 eye on it, unlike the Museum.

I have also been led to believe that some of it goes out on loan to other city art galleries. If that is correct, then I would assume that the city would receive rent.

I have no idea how many residents bother to visit the Art Gallery, but now that the initial rush to visit the Sea Museum has subsided, I imagine that it would be on a par with the museum.

linesman please explain to me why we need Surestart centres as we never did when I was young/
exactly what function do they provide?
As I don't know enough about them I can't criticise them but are they essential?
If they are is the Art essential to the well being of the people old & young of this city?
Get the Council to retract the restored pay & no need to cut services & no need to sell art but this council have their hands tied as the unions got them elected with the promise to restore pay.
Unlike all the other promises made & all those people lied to when they were made the restoration of pay had to be done to satisfy the Labour Party's pay masters didn't it?

I imagine it is because when we, or certainly when I was young, there were plenty of opportunties for work.

Many firms offered apprenticeships, and so many were labour intensive, with that labour now being replaced by automation.

Like you, I have no personal knowledge of Surestart Centres, but imagine that they were considered to be needed now because so many types of jobs have been lost, and other requirements have arisen by nature of the methods that have replaced them.

Art is not essential. A museum is not essential. A park is not essential. A theatre or cinema is not essential. A rugby, cricket or football pitch is not essential.

Food, clothing and a place of shelter are, in my opinion, the essentials

It is the current administration's aim to restore the cuts in pay that the previous administration made to help fund Royston's folly. To the best of my knowledge, they did not set a time limit on when it would be restored, I imagine that they would be expecting that at some time the government will either restore the cuts in government grants, or permit councils to raise council tax without having their grant cut by a similar amount.

In my opinion, this has to happen at some time. With all other costs rising, a council, like families, cannot maintain standards if their income remains static, while prices continue to rise.

I imagine that the thermostat has not been put down a couple of notches, or a cut made in the food bill at No 10, but I bet that, in these arctic conditions, there are many pensioners that are feeling the effects of having their heating allowance drastically cut while fuel prices have continued to rise.

The tory administration had said when the Government started to increase it's funding pay would be restored to it's previous level.
the first thing this council did was restore those over £17,500's up to £22,000 pay do these figures ring a bell?
they should do as these are the Refuse workers ,the strikers who were the pawns in the unions political chess game to get rid of the tories.
As I love chess it's a real pity they never had a better player against the Unions.

southy wrote:
Loose our parents had the Health Centers and district nurses, that monitored your developement, but those places was closed down by the Tory Government of the 80's and there cuts to services.
So please think about it longer of the things that we had that are no longer there.

Southy mky mum beat me4 w3ith brooms,pokers bamboo canes so exactly where were all these things?
A teacher tried getting me help but the social worker didn't believe the visual evidence or my teachers word & believed my mum & I got it worse .
So please explain to me why's Linesman going on about jobs?
I thought this was a place for young mums not unemployed people?

aldermoorboy wrote:
So here we have it Labour/ART 6 -0 Children.
Sell a small amount of Art and use it for children's services.
Want to save more money, merge services with the IOW. Labour won't because it is a Tory idea, so we all lose.
SAD LABOUR, BAD LABOUR.
Vote Tory in 2014 for a caring Council.
We could have had an ice rink, but Williams cancelled it, again Tory idea.
SAD LABOUR,BAD LABOUR

What is this obsession with merging Southampton council's services with the Isle of Wight? Surely it would make more sense if they could be shared with other local authorities with similar urban profiles (Portsmouth or Bournemouth) or with neighbouring district councils like Eastleigh, Test Valley and the New Forest.

Better still why not amalgamate functions across public services in the City (council, NHS, police etc.) as an alternative to inefficient privatisation which costs the taxpayer so much in the long run?

aldermoorboy wrote:
So here we have it Labour/ART 6 -0 Children.
Sell a small amount of Art and use it for children's services.
Want to save more money, merge services with the IOW. Labour won't because it is a Tory idea, so we all lose.
SAD LABOUR, BAD LABOUR.
Vote Tory in 2014 for a caring Council.
We could have had an ice rink, but Williams cancelled it, again Tory idea.
SAD LABOUR,BAD LABOUR

What is this obsession with merging Southampton council's services with the Isle of Wight? Surely it would make more sense if they could be shared with other local authorities with similar urban profiles (Portsmouth or Bournemouth) or with neighbouring district councils like Eastleigh, Test Valley and the New Forest.

Better still why not amalgamate functions across public services in the City (council, NHS, police etc.) as an alternative to inefficient privatisation which costs the taxpayer so much in the long run?

FoysCornerBoy wrote:

aldermoorboy wrote:
So here we have it Labour/ART 6 -0 Children.
Sell a small amount of Art and use it for children's services.
Want to save more money, merge services with the IOW. Labour won't because it is a Tory idea, so we all lose.
SAD LABOUR, BAD LABOUR.
Vote Tory in 2014 for a caring Council.
We could have had an ice rink, but Williams cancelled it, again Tory idea.
SAD LABOUR,BAD LABOUR

What is this obsession with merging Southampton council's services with the Isle of Wight? Surely it would make more sense if they could be shared with other local authorities with similar urban profiles (Portsmouth or Bournemouth) or with neighbouring district councils like Eastleigh, Test Valley and the New Forest.

Better still why not amalgamate functions across public services in the City (council, NHS, police etc.) as an alternative to inefficient privatisation which costs the taxpayer so much in the long run?

If I'm correct they looked at all surrounding councils worked out which one would benefit us amalgamating some services ( higher management) with & the biggest savings to be made were with the Island.
Surely Williams should have looked into it before he just stopped it going ahead?
He scrapped a private company building a snowdome which would have included an Icerink & a brand new rowing club facility. this would have given us more business rates but he scrapped it saying it wasn't water based?
exactly where do people row to?
what'sw Snow & Ice a frozen form of? WATER.
It seems to be Williams has made very negative decisions concerning this city.
the Snow dome in ( I think) Milton Keynes seems to pull in people from a very large area & is all ways full so it would have been a great place for our young & possibly our Olympic skiers could have used it to work out ?
he has done well with the bid with Portsmouth but why not the rest?