Southampton City Council back track on art sell off plans for museum funds

Daily Echo: Art sell-off U trn by council Art sell-off U trn by council

THEY are axing jobs, taxing the dead, and making multi-million pound cutbacks.

Yet today the Daily Echo can reveal how Southampton City Council is prepared to go into debt rather than sell off prized artwork to fund a multimillion pound Sea City Museum.

The controversial great art sale has been dropped as a funding source for the museum.

It means much of Southampton City Council’s largely hidden £180m collection will remain languishing in the dark while the authority battles to raise the funds to pay for somewhere to show it off.

Councillors last night approved plans to raise the £15m needed to build the museum after agreeing a council tax rise of 2.5 per cent in a budget package that included axing 120 jobs, and making £8m of cutbacks.

Leisure and heritage boss councillor John Hannides admitted that they had backtracked on plans to sell off parts of the 3,700- piece collection to pay for the museum.

“The financial planning for the heritage centre does not depend on the sale of art.

Daily Echo: Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

“The assumption in our fundraising is that there will be no proceeds from the sale of art.”

Confidential documents obtained by the Daily Echo reveal finance chiefs are now banking on investment from other organisations and are in talks with “high net worth” individuals to help fund the City Council’s £5m contribution. They also plan to sell off any “surplus” land or other assets.

And if they come up short ruling Tories plan to borrow cash to make sure the museum can be built in time for the centenary anniversary of the sinking of Titanic in April 2012.

Another £5m is set to come from a separate fundraising and sponsorship drive, while a decision is expected next month on a £4.6m grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF).

The decision to sell a painting by British artist Sir Alfred Munnings and sculpture by French master Auguste Rodin sparked outrage in the art world and among local campaigners.

At the time council leader Alec Samuels issued the protestors with an ultimatum: “If we don’t sell some paintings we don’t get a heritage centre. “ Conservatives at the time also dismissed Labour proposals to borrow the money as a “reckless plan”

claiming it would lead to cuts in frontline services or higher council tax to meet repayments.

But Cllr Hannides insisted any borrowing would be for upfront short-term cashflow purposes and could not be otherwise used to pay for council services.

The controversial art sale was “suspended” in November to look for “alternative sources of funding”

amid fears the HLF bid could be in jeopardy.

Cllr Hannides said the sale would always have been a last resort and that it was the “only option at the time”

as various cultural projects and Government funding collapsed.

Labour heritage spokesman councillor Derek Burke accused Tories of failing to listen to objections and wasting valuable time, while admitting they may need to borrow after all.

He said: “The art sale is dead and buried. We asked them what was plan B. They said they didn’t have one. This is now plan C. It’s a climbdown.”

Only 200 works can be shown in the City Art Gallery at any one time and some works have scarcely seen the light of day in years.

The Sea City Museum will feature a cruise-liner inspired extension to the west wing of the Civic Centre, known as the pavilion.

The old magistrates’ courts will be transformed into two permanent exhibitions, entitled “Southampton’s Titanic Story” and “Gateway to the World”.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:30pm Thu 18 Feb 10

St.DaveH says...

This is good news - once gone can never be replaced....a levy on the next west quay developer should pay for the SCM....
This is good news - once gone can never be replaced....a levy on the next west quay developer should pay for the SCM.... St.DaveH
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Thu 18 Feb 10

themidfieldgeneral says...

Have we still retained the BROWN FINGERS by PICASSO?
Have we still retained the BROWN FINGERS by PICASSO? themidfieldgeneral
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Condor Man says...

let's hope more jobs don't have to go because of the debt. People seem to have a very complacent attitude to debt, we need to get back to the old values of thrift, especially in public services
let's hope more jobs don't have to go because of the debt. People seem to have a very complacent attitude to debt, we need to get back to the old values of thrift, especially in public services Condor Man
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Iw61 says...

See, even Tories get into debt!!
See, even Tories get into debt!! Iw61
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Common says...

I don't think the council has gone far enough. It should cancel all public services and sack all city council staff in order to go out and buy lots more art. Because poncy art is so much more important than working class people and taxpayers.
I don't think the council has gone far enough. It should cancel all public services and sack all city council staff in order to go out and buy lots more art. Because poncy art is so much more important than working class people and taxpayers. Common
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Thu 18 Feb 10

BrixtonSaint says...

Personally I fail to see how £12-£15 million is going to build a landmark museum. If you look at what's been spent around the country on other museums, it is a drop in the ocean. I fear Southampton will yet again be left with a white elephant, done on the cheap, waste of money that no one wants to go to.
In fact, I don't dear it, I know it. Our city is a joke when it comes to attractions, yet it could have been so different. Fifty plus years of mis-management by successive councils of whatever hue have seen to that.
RIP Southampton as a tourist destination.
Personally I fail to see how £12-£15 million is going to build a landmark museum. If you look at what's been spent around the country on other museums, it is a drop in the ocean. I fear Southampton will yet again be left with a white elephant, done on the cheap, waste of money that no one wants to go to. In fact, I don't dear it, I know it. Our city is a joke when it comes to attractions, yet it could have been so different. Fifty plus years of mis-management by successive councils of whatever hue have seen to that. RIP Southampton as a tourist destination. BrixtonSaint
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Thu 18 Feb 10

sotonboy84 says...

Fantastic news!
SCC have done something good for once, although I can't help being cynical and thinking that it's a coincidence that it's coming up to the election...
Fantastic news! SCC have done something good for once, although I can't help being cynical and thinking that it's a coincidence that it's coming up to the election... sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Thu 18 Feb 10

RJCogburn says...

Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it?

Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.
Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative. RJCogburn
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Condor Man says...

RJCogburn wrote:
Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.
Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.
[quote][p][bold]RJCogburn[/bold] wrote: Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.[/p][/quote]Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Paramjit Bahia says...

Without seeing all the details it is difficult, but what appears on the web site appears to be step in the right direction.
But as I have said before if we can’t afford it then why go on building this museum and that too in the wrong location.
On the one hand Tories object to temporary borrowing for maintaining essential services, but on the other they are willing to put the mill stone of massive debt around our collective neck to build this Cllr. Hannidies House of Horror.
Without seeing all the details it is difficult, but what appears on the web site appears to be step in the right direction. But as I have said before if we can’t afford it then why go on building this museum and that too in the wrong location. On the one hand Tories object to temporary borrowing for maintaining essential services, but on the other they are willing to put the mill stone of massive debt around our collective neck to build this Cllr. Hannidies House of Horror. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Thu 18 Feb 10

RJCogburn says...

Condor Man wrote:
RJCogburn wrote: Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.
Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.
The people employed by the Council in these services are often on very modest salaries. The Council wastes huge resources on privatisations & flashy presentation that could otherwise be used in funding essential services.

Closures of the care homes are political choices and often not in the best interests of the people of this city.

I have no problem with a Titanic Museum, but fund that privately. Why couldn't they take on debt to invest in the care homes then? I expect the electorate would have had a lot more respect for a decision along those lines.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RJCogburn[/bold] wrote: Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.[/p][/quote]Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.[/p][/quote]The people employed by the Council in these services are often on very modest salaries. The Council wastes huge resources on privatisations & flashy presentation that could otherwise be used in funding essential services. Closures of the care homes are political choices and often not in the best interests of the people of this city. I have no problem with a Titanic Museum, but fund that privately. Why couldn't they take on debt to invest in the care homes then? I expect the electorate would have had a lot more respect for a decision along those lines. RJCogburn
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Thu 18 Feb 10

My View from the Hill says...

Condor Man wrote:
RJCogburn wrote:
Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.
Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.
"Privatisaton pays for itself"
privatisation means one thing and one only, price increases.

Once a private company takes over the care management in the city, they can charge people what they like, the council will have to pay the asking price because there is no alternative, that's why social services budgets have increased, to pay the private companies increases for caring the elderly.

The same goes for leisure, once the private companies fail to make money because no one will be able to afford to use the leisure facilities, they will do two things, close the leisure facilities (meaning more job losses) also they will go back to local council cap in hand to subsidise the service's they provide.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RJCogburn[/bold] wrote: Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.[/p][/quote]Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.[/p][/quote]"Privatisaton pays for itself" privatisation means one thing and one only, price increases. Once a private company takes over the care management in the city, they can charge people what they like, the council will have to pay the asking price because there is no alternative, that's why social services budgets have increased, to pay the private companies increases for caring the elderly. The same goes for leisure, once the private companies fail to make money because no one will be able to afford to use the leisure facilities, they will do two things, close the leisure facilities (meaning more job losses) also they will go back to local council cap in hand to subsidise the service's they provide. My View from the Hill
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Condor Man says...

My View from the Hill wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
RJCogburn wrote: Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.
Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.
"Privatisaton pays for itself" privatisation means one thing and one only, price increases. Once a private company takes over the care management in the city, they can charge people what they like, the council will have to pay the asking price because there is no alternative, that's why social services budgets have increased, to pay the private companies increases for caring the elderly. The same goes for leisure, once the private companies fail to make money because no one will be able to afford to use the leisure facilities, they will do two things, close the leisure facilities (meaning more job losses) also they will go back to local council cap in hand to subsidise the service's they provide.
I can't afford leisure services now so whoever runs it it will make no real difference. The same applies for a lot of people on relatively low incomes who don't qualify for handouts.
[quote][p][bold]My View from the Hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RJCogburn[/bold] wrote: Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.[/p][/quote]Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.[/p][/quote]"Privatisaton pays for itself" privatisation means one thing and one only, price increases. Once a private company takes over the care management in the city, they can charge people what they like, the council will have to pay the asking price because there is no alternative, that's why social services budgets have increased, to pay the private companies increases for caring the elderly. The same goes for leisure, once the private companies fail to make money because no one will be able to afford to use the leisure facilities, they will do two things, close the leisure facilities (meaning more job losses) also they will go back to local council cap in hand to subsidise the service's they provide.[/p][/quote]I can't afford leisure services now so whoever runs it it will make no real difference. The same applies for a lot of people on relatively low incomes who don't qualify for handouts. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Thu 18 Feb 10

My View from the Hill says...

Condor Man wrote:
My View from the Hill wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
RJCogburn wrote: Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.
Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.
"Privatisaton pays for itself" privatisation means one thing and one only, price increases. Once a private company takes over the care management in the city, they can charge people what they like, the council will have to pay the asking price because there is no alternative, that's why social services budgets have increased, to pay the private companies increases for caring the elderly. The same goes for leisure, once the private companies fail to make money because no one will be able to afford to use the leisure facilities, they will do two things, close the leisure facilities (meaning more job losses) also they will go back to local council cap in hand to subsidise the service's they provide.
I can't afford leisure services now so whoever runs it it will make no real difference. The same applies for a lot of people on relatively low incomes who don't qualify for handouts.
I am in the same boat as you, but the thing is, just because I can't afford it does not mean I want everyone else to miss out, if it keep's fit and healthy them surely that will only reduce health risks, hospital waiting list, and NHS budgets.

Which is a good thing isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]My View from the Hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RJCogburn[/bold] wrote: Prepared to go into debt for a museum & throw money at privatisations galore but not prepared to fund care homes for the elderly, shutting Whitehaven Lodge & Birch Lawn. Sickening isn't it? Still,while we continue to let ballot box apathy rule, we won't see an alternative.[/p][/quote]Privatisaton pays for itself with the money saved from the council not directly employing people. As for the OAP homes both would have cost more to upkeep than they would have raised in grants so although difficult a decision to make in the long run it is better to sell them rather than paying for buildings that we can't afford.[/p][/quote]"Privatisaton pays for itself" privatisation means one thing and one only, price increases. Once a private company takes over the care management in the city, they can charge people what they like, the council will have to pay the asking price because there is no alternative, that's why social services budgets have increased, to pay the private companies increases for caring the elderly. The same goes for leisure, once the private companies fail to make money because no one will be able to afford to use the leisure facilities, they will do two things, close the leisure facilities (meaning more job losses) also they will go back to local council cap in hand to subsidise the service's they provide.[/p][/quote]I can't afford leisure services now so whoever runs it it will make no real difference. The same applies for a lot of people on relatively low incomes who don't qualify for handouts.[/p][/quote]I am in the same boat as you, but the thing is, just because I can't afford it does not mean I want everyone else to miss out, if it keep's fit and healthy them surely that will only reduce health risks, hospital waiting list, and NHS budgets. Which is a good thing isn't it? My View from the Hill
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Thu 18 Feb 10

goard says...

On local news 3pm a rather menacing bloke said 'No, we are not selling the art work - too many people opposed the sale'. He went on to say with a threatening voice - the outlay will come from pieces of land here and there to get the money we need and nothing will be taken from the public purse. Or similar words. We are indeed at odds with the so called 'i'm in charge brigade' to the point I feel they resent others who may disagree with them - do we need these self important and pompous blokes running this City? They should consult us, listen to us, THEN proceed or not!

goard
On local news 3pm a rather menacing bloke said 'No, we are not selling the art work - too many people opposed the sale'. He went on to say with a threatening voice - the outlay will come from pieces of land here and there to get the money we need and nothing will be taken from the public purse. Or similar words. We are indeed at odds with the so called 'i'm in charge brigade' to the point I feel they resent others who may disagree with them - do we need these self important and pompous blokes running this City? They should consult us, listen to us, THEN proceed or not! goard goard
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Lone Ranger says...

PMSL
.
Absolutely priceless. They didnt do it because of the pressure from the public. Its simple they were going to commit a potentially illegeal act by selling these treasures that they had no right to sell.
.
Come on Cllr's Smith and Moulton where is your original criticism of the Labour group when described as borrowing the money as "reckless".
.
You couldn't make it up !!
PMSL . Absolutely priceless. They didnt do it because of the pressure from the public. Its simple they were going to commit a potentially illegeal act by selling these treasures that they had no right to sell. . Come on Cllr's Smith and Moulton where is your original criticism of the Labour group when described as borrowing the money as "reckless". . You couldn't make it up !! Lone Ranger
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Condor Man says...

Lone Ranger wrote:
PMSL . Absolutely priceless. They didnt do it because of the pressure from the public. Its simple they were going to commit a potentially illegeal act by selling these treasures that they had no right to sell. . Come on Cllr's Smith and Moulton where is your original criticism of the Labour group when described as borrowing the money as "reckless". . You couldn't make it up !!
Are you the local politburo member doing the bidding of the Labour party by the constant smearing of the local council? I don't remember you on this platform when Bridle and co were racking up £millions of debt.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger[/bold] wrote: PMSL . Absolutely priceless. They didnt do it because of the pressure from the public. Its simple they were going to commit a potentially illegeal act by selling these treasures that they had no right to sell. . Come on Cllr's Smith and Moulton where is your original criticism of the Labour group when described as borrowing the money as "reckless". . You couldn't make it up !![/p][/quote]Are you the local politburo member doing the bidding of the Labour party by the constant smearing of the local council? I don't remember you on this platform when Bridle and co were racking up £millions of debt. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Iw61 says...

Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger wrote:
PMSL . Absolutely priceless. They didnt do it because of the pressure from the public. Its simple they were going to commit a potentially illegeal act by selling these treasures that they had no right to sell. . Come on Cllr's Smith and Moulton where is your original criticism of the Labour group when described as borrowing the money as "reckless". . You couldn't make it up !!
Are you the local politburo member doing the bidding of the Labour party by the constant smearing of the local council? I don't remember you on this platform when Bridle and co were racking up £millions of debt.
Calm down.
The current council dont need smearing. They just need to carry on as they are. They only serve as a platform for furthering the careers of Smith and Moulton.

Your understanding of privatisation of council services is all over the place. The council will be selling off council business which is accountable to the electorate to spivs and privateers who are accountable only to share holders.

As for you smear about Bridle and co, they were far from a 'left wing' council and were Labour in name only. They behaved like Tories but were far better than the rubbish we have now. The current council have now committed themselves to millions of pounds of debt to a Titanic museum.
That will sink as well!!
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger[/bold] wrote: PMSL . Absolutely priceless. They didnt do it because of the pressure from the public. Its simple they were going to commit a potentially illegeal act by selling these treasures that they had no right to sell. . Come on Cllr's Smith and Moulton where is your original criticism of the Labour group when described as borrowing the money as "reckless". . You couldn't make it up !![/p][/quote]Are you the local politburo member doing the bidding of the Labour party by the constant smearing of the local council? I don't remember you on this platform when Bridle and co were racking up £millions of debt.[/p][/quote]Calm down. The current council dont need smearing. They just need to carry on as they are. They only serve as a platform for furthering the careers of Smith and Moulton. Your understanding of privatisation of council services is all over the place. The council will be selling off council business which is accountable to the electorate to spivs and privateers who are accountable only to share holders. As for you smear about Bridle and co, they were far from a 'left wing' council and were Labour in name only. They behaved like Tories but were far better than the rubbish we have now. The current council have now committed themselves to millions of pounds of debt to a Titanic museum. That will sink as well!! Iw61
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Swalk says...

Come on Echo, that´s nonsense. It´s got nothing to do with choosing art over jobs or services - the council simply didn´t have the legal authority to sell the artworks because they don´t belong to them (they are part of the Chipperfield Trust). If the council (egged on by the Echo, which hadn´t done its homework either) had listened to those who told them that 6 months ago, they wouldn´t have wasted all this time
Come on Echo, that´s nonsense. It´s got nothing to do with choosing art over jobs or services - the council simply didn´t have the legal authority to sell the artworks because they don´t belong to them (they are part of the Chipperfield Trust). If the council (egged on by the Echo, which hadn´t done its homework either) had listened to those who told them that 6 months ago, they wouldn´t have wasted all this time Swalk
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Thu 18 Feb 10

soton1980 says...

BrixtonSaint wrote:
Personally I fail to see how £12-£15 million is going to build a landmark museum. If you look at what's been spent around the country on other museums, it is a drop in the ocean. I fear Southampton will yet again be left with a white elephant, done on the cheap, waste of money that no one wants to go to.
In fact, I don't dear it, I know it. Our city is a joke when it comes to attractions, yet it could have been so different. Fifty plus years of mis-management by successive councils of whatever hue have seen to that.
RIP Southampton as a tourist destination.
I couldn't agree with you more! A Titanic museum has the potential to attract tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of tourists (especially the Americans), but this planned museum will fall far short of that potential. It will be a half-arsed attempt done on the cheap and tourists will choose to visit the superior museums in Portsmouth. I don't understand why SCC can't entice a company to build a decent museum for them and run it as a commercial venture, independent of the council. The council could offer the £15 million as a grant or interest free loan, then the company could add their own money to this to create a decent museum!

A decent, world-class Titanic museum combined with smart advertising would poach tourists from Portsmouth/London. This would also benefit the city's other museums as tourists on a day trip would visit them too. Sadly the council are too incompetant to realise this.
[quote][p][bold]BrixtonSaint[/bold] wrote: Personally I fail to see how £12-£15 million is going to build a landmark museum. If you look at what's been spent around the country on other museums, it is a drop in the ocean. I fear Southampton will yet again be left with a white elephant, done on the cheap, waste of money that no one wants to go to. In fact, I don't dear it, I know it. Our city is a joke when it comes to attractions, yet it could have been so different. Fifty plus years of mis-management by successive councils of whatever hue have seen to that. RIP Southampton as a tourist destination.[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree with you more! A Titanic museum has the potential to attract tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of tourists (especially the Americans), but this planned museum will fall far short of that potential. It will be a half-arsed attempt done on the cheap and tourists will choose to visit the superior museums in Portsmouth. I don't understand why SCC can't entice a company to build a decent museum for them and run it as a commercial venture, independent of the council. The council could offer the £15 million as a grant or interest free loan, then the company could add their own money to this to create a decent museum! A decent, world-class Titanic museum combined with smart advertising would poach tourists from Portsmouth/London. This would also benefit the city's other museums as tourists on a day trip would visit them too. Sadly the council are too incompetant to realise this. soton1980
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Thu 18 Feb 10

Lone Ranger says...

Condor Man wrote:
Lone Ranger wrote:
PMSL . Absolutely priceless. They didnt do it because of the pressure from the public. Its simple they were going to commit a potentially illegeal act by selling these treasures that they had no right to sell. . Come on Cllr's Smith and Moulton where is your original criticism of the Labour group when described as borrowing the money as "reckless". . You couldn't make it up !!
Are you the local politburo member doing the bidding of the Labour party by the constant smearing of the local council? I don't remember you on this platform when Bridle and co were racking up £millions of debt.
CM your problem is that you see nothing wrong with any Tory decision particulary this Council. The waste and spin by this council is unequalled. Their sole aim is to get Moulton and Smith into a Tory government and i for one will object every step of the way and do my best to expose them for what they are.
.
Its ironic that you mention " racking up £ millions of debt" when you supprt the Tory boys for doing exactly the same on this project.
.
This council is ful of soundbites, they want to use their powers on residents leaving bins out....yes an easy touch.
How about "using their powers" recently when a dodgy club wants a late licence...no its too confrontational.
.
Their very expensive Tory spin doctor does a good job at the cost of my tax.....more soundbites again.
.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger[/bold] wrote: PMSL . Absolutely priceless. They didnt do it because of the pressure from the public. Its simple they were going to commit a potentially illegeal act by selling these treasures that they had no right to sell. . Come on Cllr's Smith and Moulton where is your original criticism of the Labour group when described as borrowing the money as "reckless". . You couldn't make it up !![/p][/quote]Are you the local politburo member doing the bidding of the Labour party by the constant smearing of the local council? I don't remember you on this platform when Bridle and co were racking up £millions of debt.[/p][/quote]CM your problem is that you see nothing wrong with any Tory decision particulary this Council. The waste and spin by this council is unequalled. Their sole aim is to get Moulton and Smith into a Tory government and i for one will object every step of the way and do my best to expose them for what they are. . Its ironic that you mention " racking up £ millions of debt" when you supprt the Tory boys for doing exactly the same on this project. . This council is ful of soundbites, they want to use their powers on residents leaving bins out....yes an easy touch. How about "using their powers" recently when a dodgy club wants a late licence...no its too confrontational. . Their very expensive Tory spin doctor does a good job at the cost of my tax.....more soundbites again. . Lone Ranger
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree