Borrow cash but don't sell our city's art (From Daily Echo)

We should sell the Art and buy Gold. The problem with art is you never really know how much it is worth until it is sold.

"Labour politicians are calling on Tories to borrow the millions needed for a new heritage museum in Southampton rather than flog art masterpieces."

They know all about borrowing cash. Just look at the state of public finances. Sixteen billion borrowed last month alone. If Britain was a person, it would be applying for an IVC by now, or even bankrupcy.

Have the council ever thought about applying for a lottery grant? Surely the lottery fund would consider their plans as being part of a good cause, or is this not in the rules.

How about a wealthy donor? They could contact the new owner of the Saints to see if he would part with a bob or two.

Simple solution should be to learn to live within affordable means.
Selling the assets in the shape of Art will be immoral and like selling the family silver.
Borrowing to cater for something not absolutely necessary will put the mill stone of debt around the necks of our future generations who have already been burdened unprecedented debt of billions by Brown's decision to help Banker friends of New Labour.

Bartonian wrote:
"Labour politicians are calling on Tories to borrow the millions needed for a new heritage museum in Southampton rather than flog art masterpieces."

They know all about borrowing cash. Just look at the state of public finances. Sixteen billion borrowed last month alone. If Britain was a person, it would be applying for an IVC by now, or even bankrupcy.

Have the council ever thought about applying for a lottery grant? Surely the lottery fund would consider their plans as being part of a good cause, or is this not in the rules.

How about a wealthy donor? They could contact the new owner of the Saints to see if he would part with a bob or two.

the uk was heading into bankrupcy, back in the 1980's, when thatcher sold state owership to the private sector, and then we had no manufactory base, just take a look at our exports to our imports, before she came to power, our export's in tons and value was higher then our imports, whe she got in to power this soon came about to be the other way round, imports greater than our exports. it was from her days in power was when we started to become bankrupt, there was one industry she sold off, that would of ment billions off £ for the uk economy, and every one would of benefited from it, but she sold it of to the few. so in sted of the uk people benefiting from this billions of £ only a few do. her family being one of them, d thatcher is a major player in this industry, and that industry is oil. so if your going to point fingers at lest go back to when the big problem started from.

Sadly the 1960s/1970s export situation in the UK was at the mercy of belligerent Unions and their knuckle headed members. From the car industry, the motorcycle industry, shipbuilding, steel, coal,docks etc etc etc. They were all crippled with strikes which left the UK with the name of the sick man of Europe. Inevitably the majority of our industry that was capable of export went to the wall or was replaced with a foreign equivalent and our ability to balance the books with industrial exports disappeared. The same old rhetoric was heard at the recent Dinosaurs Conference where they still live in the beer and sandwich days of the 1960s and unbelievably in the face of history, there are still idiots that are stupid enough to believe them.

Bartonian wrote:
"Labour politicians are calling on Tories to borrow the millions needed for a new heritage museum in Southampton rather than flog art masterpieces."

They know all about borrowing cash. Just look at the state of public finances. Sixteen billion borrowed last month alone. If Britain was a person, it would be applying for an IVC by now, or even bankrupcy.

Have the council ever thought about applying for a lottery grant? Surely the lottery fund would consider their plans as being part of a good cause, or is this not in the rules.

How about a wealthy donor? They could contact the new owner of the Saints to see if he would part with a bob or two.

Actually, a lottery grant towards the founding of the museum may not be a bad idea... I'm opposed to borrowing to pay for it, as others have said it would be living beyond the City's means which in these times is pure craziness. I hope the council are made to back down over this, then perhaps they can sit down and consider some real methods of funding this idea, scaling it down, or even making more of the existing attributes the city has already. Whilst a new museum would be good - it is patently obvious that the cost in this case is 'too high'.

The Sea City Museum has already been awarded £500,000 by the Heritage Lottery Fund and will apply for a further £4.5 million next year. Keep up people!

southy wrote:

Bartonian wrote: "Labour politicians are calling on Tories to borrow the millions needed for a new heritage museum in Southampton rather than flog art masterpieces." They know all about borrowing cash. Just look at the state of public finances. Sixteen billion borrowed last month alone. If Britain was a person, it would be applying for an IVC by now, or even bankrupcy. Have the council ever thought about applying for a lottery grant? Surely the lottery fund would consider their plans as being part of a good cause, or is this not in the rules. How about a wealthy donor? They could contact the new owner of the Saints to see if he would part with a bob or two.

the uk was heading into bankrupcy, back in the 1980's, when thatcher sold state owership to the private sector, and then we had no manufactory base, just take a look at our exports to our imports, before she came to power, our export's in tons and value was higher then our imports, whe she got in to power this soon came about to be the other way round, imports greater than our exports. it was from her days in power was when we started to become bankrupt, there was one industry she sold off, that would of ment billions off £ for the uk economy, and every one would of benefited from it, but she sold it of to the few. so in sted of the uk people benefiting from this billions of £ only a few do. her family being one of them, d thatcher is a major player in this industry, and that industry is oil. so if your going to point fingers at lest go back to when the big problem started from.

Your grammar is so irritating.

You go off on a tangent. Actually, Britain has been in decline long since the days of Thatcher. No doubt you will bore us with yet another one of your fruitless history lessons.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Bartonian wrote: "Labour politicians are calling on Tories to borrow the millions needed for a new heritage museum in Southampton rather than flog art masterpieces." They know all about borrowing cash. Just look at the state of public finances. Sixteen billion borrowed last month alone. If Britain was a person, it would be applying for an IVC by now, or even bankrupcy. Have the council ever thought about applying for a lottery grant? Surely the lottery fund would consider their plans as being part of a good cause, or is this not in the rules. How about a wealthy donor? They could contact the new owner of the Saints to see if he would part with a bob or two.

Actually, a lottery grant towards the founding of the museum may not be a bad idea... I'm opposed to borrowing to pay for it, as others have said it would be living beyond the City's means which in these times is pure craziness. I hope the council are made to back down over this, then perhaps they can sit down and consider some real methods of funding this idea, scaling it down, or even making more of the existing attributes the city has already. Whilst a new museum would be good - it is patently obvious that the cost in this case is 'too high'.

Too right......imagine how much interest would have to be paid back on several million pounds. Why burden council tax payers with this stress.

Business leaders should be making a contribution in how this is going to be funded. It would be a shame if the paintings in question went to a private collection somewhere in the world, never to be seen again.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Simple solution should be to learn to live within affordable means. Selling the assets in the shape of Art will be immoral and like selling the family silver. Borrowing to cater for something not absolutely necessary will put the mill stone of debt around the necks of our future generations who have already been burdened unprecedented debt of billions by Brown's decision to help Banker friends of New Labour.

Paramijit...are you re-fering to Browns banker friends or the banks receiving billions of our pounds. If its his friends...who are they....if its the banks that supply us with money and financial transactions then you will know why they were bailed out.
-

fruitless to a capitalist yes, who only interested in him self and not the ordinary person, or even the country.
derek its capitalism that is the old dinosaurs, its trying to make a pre 1940 policy to work in a modern world, it started to stop working right when the industral revolution started, and only gets worse has time passes by, the 1920's depression should of told you that, and saying the uk was the sick man of europe that is only capitalist propaganda and was far from the truth, we had a few strikes, but that did not stop people buying our goods, and all though those strikes our exports stayed greater than our imports. was not till the 80's did this go the other way round.

Lone Ranger wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote: Simple solution should be to learn to live within affordable means. Selling the assets in the shape of Art will be immoral and like selling the family silver. Borrowing to cater for something not absolutely necessary will put the mill stone of debt around the necks of our future generations who have already been burdened unprecedented debt of billions by Brown's decision to help Banker friends of New Labour.

Paramijit...are you re-fering to Browns banker friends or the banks receiving billions of our pounds. If its his friends...who are they....if its the banks that supply us with money and financial transactions then you will know why they were bailed out. -

Hmmm......bailed out by money that came out of thin air. That has what has happened in the U.S. Bailed out with money that doesn't exist. But we must not deflect from the main point, that of finnancing this project.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Bartonian wrote: "Labour politicians are calling on Tories to borrow the millions needed for a new heritage museum in Southampton rather than flog art masterpieces." They know all about borrowing cash. Just look at the state of public finances. Sixteen billion borrowed last month alone. If Britain was a person, it would be applying for an IVC by now, or even bankrupcy. Have the council ever thought about applying for a lottery grant? Surely the lottery fund would consider their plans as being part of a good cause, or is this not in the rules. How about a wealthy donor? They could contact the new owner of the Saints to see if he would part with a bob or two.

Actually, a lottery grant towards the founding of the museum may not be a bad idea... I'm opposed to borrowing to pay for it, as others have said it would be living beyond the City's means which in these times is pure craziness. I hope the council are made to back down over this, then perhaps they can sit down and consider some real methods of funding this idea, scaling it down, or even making more of the existing attributes the city has already. Whilst a new museum would be good - it is patently obvious that the cost in this case is 'too high'.

Borrowing is not always a bad thing.
If I wanted to buy a new car, I would not sell my house to fund it!
I would trade in my old one and take out a loan to fund the balance which, in time, would make the car mine and I would retain my house.
Reckless borrowing, or using one credit card to the limit then switching it to a new card for a period of 'interest free' is where the problem lay.
Once the art is lost, it will never be regained and I doubt whether it would ever be seen by those who currently own it - the citizens of Southampton!

just dont bother with this project, it will end up has a white elephant.

I shall go over all your blogs - I am of the basic 'don't sell' brigade,they are not to our taste but neverthless they are our 'treasures'. We do not see 'money' we are not part of the tastless treasure island opportunists - sorry folk you really are the bottom end of town - and I include the Daily Echo who sadly, as an 'out of town' reporter - is not the kernal of our beliefs in this City. You all don't have to be 'University', you have to be a deep down Soton City folk most of us have a deep rooted belief in our roots. You are all welcomed but don't undermine us a piece of our heritage.

goard

Lets flog off the art - and build this new museum.

BUT when the art has gone and the Museum closed what will Southampton have left ?

southy wrote:
fruitless to a capitalist yes, who only interested in him self and not the ordinary person, or even the country.
derek its capitalism that is the old dinosaurs, its trying to make a pre 1940 policy to work in a modern world, it started to stop working right when the industral revolution started, and only gets worse has time passes by, the 1920's depression should of told you that, and saying the uk was the sick man of europe that is only capitalist propaganda and was far from the truth, we had a few strikes, but that did not stop people buying our goods, and all though those strikes our exports stayed greater than our imports. was not till the 80's did this go the other way round.

"it started to stop working right when the industral revolution started",.... Wow, lets all go back to working in cotton mills or become sons of the soil and work the land from sun-up to sun down.
"we had a few strikes".... I remember the 60s and 70s and it would be closer to the truth to say we had a few strike free days. Exports weren't exactly helped by the militant dockers who eventually sold their own jobs for a few pieces of silver, as did the miners.
Your problem is that you don't want progress and you see the way forward as a Stalinist regime where everyone is employed doing something that may or may not be useful or even wanted. The world around him marched on for another 70 years leaving the USSR bogged down in the past. Now they have seen the mistakes they made and are trying to catch up with the West. Do I have to mention the rest of the Iron curtain countries who seem to be emulating the West as opposed to the old Socialist values. Just face it, you've backed the wrong horse and you're not big enough to admit it.

Bartonian wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Bartonian wrote: "Labour politicians are calling on Tories to borrow the millions needed for a new heritage museum in Southampton rather than flog art masterpieces." They know all about borrowing cash. Just look at the state of public finances. Sixteen billion borrowed last month alone. If Britain was a person, it would be applying for an IVC by now, or even bankrupcy. Have the council ever thought about applying for a lottery grant? Surely the lottery fund would consider their plans as being part of a good cause, or is this not in the rules. How about a wealthy donor? They could contact the new owner of the Saints to see if he would part with a bob or two.

Actually, a lottery grant towards the founding of the museum may not be a bad idea... I'm opposed to borrowing to pay for it, as others have said it would be living beyond the City's means which in these times is pure craziness. I hope the council are made to back down over this, then perhaps they can sit down and consider some real methods of funding this idea, scaling it down, or even making more of the existing attributes the city has already. Whilst a new museum would be good - it is patently obvious that the cost in this case is 'too high'.

Too right......imagine how much interest would have to be paid back on several million pounds. Why burden council tax payers with this stress.

Business leaders should be making a contribution in how this is going to be funded. It would be a shame if the paintings in question went to a private collection somewhere in the world, never to be seen again.

Why burden council tax payers with this stress..............
......

Business leaders should be making a contribution........
.......

Business leaders who own businesses which make money directly or indirectly by trading with the public. One way or another, you'll pay for it in the long run.

StEmmosfire wrote:
We should sell the Art and buy Gold. The problem with art is you never really know how much it is worth until it is sold.

You would make a great financial advisor. Gold is currently at an all time high.

Rob444 wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote: We should sell the Art and buy Gold. The problem with art is you never really know how much it is worth until it is sold.

You would make a great financial advisor. Gold is currently at an all time high.

and Brown sold all ours at the lowest price ever!

As for the art the council should not be keeping millions of £'s worth of assets and then expect the tax payer to pay more every year. It's morally wrong and the council should sell because council tax is regressive and must be kept down at all costs.

Condor Man wrote:

Rob444 wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote: We should sell the Art and buy Gold. The problem with art is you never really know how much it is worth until it is sold.

You would make a great financial advisor. Gold is currently at an all time high.

and Brown sold all ours at the lowest price ever! As for the art the council should not be keeping millions of £'s worth of assets and then expect the tax payer to pay more every year. It's morally wrong and the council should sell because council tax is regressive and must be kept down at all costs.

and Thatcher sold off North Sea Oil, Gas, Electricity, British Rail - you name it, she sold it, and what did she do with the money?

The abbreviation of Conservative is Con! What bigger Con can you have than selling you something that you already own?

Linesman wrote:

Condor Man wrote:

Rob444 wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote: We should sell the Art and buy Gold. The problem with art is you never really know how much it is worth until it is sold.

You would make a great financial advisor. Gold is currently at an all time high.

and Brown sold all ours at the lowest price ever! As for the art the council should not be keeping millions of £'s worth of assets and then expect the tax payer to pay more every year. It's morally wrong and the council should sell because council tax is regressive and must be kept down at all costs.

and Thatcher sold off North Sea Oil, Gas, Electricity, British Rail - you name it, she sold it, and what did she do with the money?

The abbreviation of Conservative is Con! What bigger Con can you have than selling you something that you already own?

The UK gets a massive amount of tax revenue from the North Sea while the oil companies take the risk.British Rail has always been a white elephant and it's not really fared any better in private hands but at least the taxpayers aren't burdened with the entire cost of keeping it afloat. Gas and Electricity should be in private ownership but with some clearer restrictions to prevent excessive profits being made from an essential service. Look back at the industries that were sold off and they are still running today with a fraction of the workforces that they were carrying and the taxpayer was paying for. When something is in private hands, the new owners have to fork out for costs as well as reaping any rewards. In last weeks news there were stories of government (taxpayers) ownership and the spiraling costs of anything they got involved in. How did the Olympic Games jump from £2.5 Billion to over £10 Billion? The answer is that no-one sees it as real money because it comes from the public purse or from we, the taxpayers. Thats the benefit of privatisation.

So Labour want to borrow the money - who's paying for it?

MrGMan wrote:
So Labour want to borrow the money - who's paying for it?

The local taxpayer - US! Who else?

The solution is this:
a) The council to acknowledge the rival (privately-funded) Titanic museum on Town Quay, and work with them
b) Keep the other museums where they are, the Sea City site is hopeless in comparison, miles from the old town
c) Develop another location near the waterfront for another museum to tell the story of Southampton's development as a city
d) Use any heritage grants obtained to fund the above, and scrap the Civic Centre museum project
e) Extend the art gallery into the available space when the cops move out
Can I have Hannides' job please?

The private one is meant to open in 2 weeks time. Anyone seen any adverts for it?

the grapevine says they are in competition with the council for some of the exhibits, which would make the ludicrously-expensiv
e Sea City project all the more ridiculous

Condor Man wrote:

Rob444 wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote: We should sell the Art and buy Gold. The problem with art is you never really know how much it is worth until it is sold.

You would make a great financial advisor. Gold is currently at an all time high.

and Brown sold all ours at the lowest price ever! As for the art the council should not be keeping millions of £'s worth of assets and then expect the tax payer to pay more every year. It's morally wrong and the council should sell because council tax is regressive and must be kept down at all costs.

Sure you are right to point at Brown for selling the gold when prices were low. But then you shoot yourself in the foot by asking Tories to do the same with art collection when market is even lower.
I think Brown bungled it and Tories should in Southampton should not be selling art collection even if the prices were high. It is not theirs they have no moral right to sell what decent minded people donated in good faith.

There is no problem borrowing. the issue is then managing the debt responsibly. Ask any normal family. All families have some kind of debt. A mortgage is one example.
Our council is typical of the Tory sell it off type.Its a weak, here today, gone tomorrow, strategy that when it ends and there is nothing else to sell you still have rising council taxes. But hey, our Tories have still been drawing their expenses and hiring consultants at council tax payers expense, to work out more cuts.

We let the Tories lose again with our economy at our peril!!

Derek of Dibden Purlieu said ""Your problem is that you don't want progress and you see the way forward as a Stalinist regime where everyone is employed doing something that may or may not be useful or even wanted.""
you do make me laugh at times, it sticks out a mile that you are one of those brainwashed kids, in a way single thinking.
stalin was just one man, who acted more like a capitalist than a commmunist, and more than likey the real reason why russia collapse the way it did.
technology advances quicker under a communist or a socialist system, because it dont hold it back and wait till there this big money to be made out it, thats why when russia colapses the world found out that lead the field in rocket engine and computors technology, ideas that are in use to-day.
there was only a few strikes there was not that many, and it was a small price we paid, to stay a head of every one else, now look at us a second rate country, and fastly becoming a third rated one, thats what capitalism do for you, and why, because capilism thinks of them selfs and them selfs only, it dont even care to much about of its own off spring.