Art sell-off U-turn by council (From Daily Echo)

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

Have we still retained the BROWN FINGERS by PICASSO?

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

See, even Tories get into debt!!

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.

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.

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...

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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 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.

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!!

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

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.

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.
.