spyguy Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Not sure about your Greater London figure (22 million???), but it's certainly the case that huge numbers commute into London to work, from towns outside. Would they find work to the same degree if the work in London disappeared? According to wikipedia, the population of Great London is 8m The population of Stoke is 240k. Not sure about the commuting claim. That reminds me of working in Bracknell. The council used to make claims like 'Bracknell has the highest number of higher rate tax payers in the UK ... why dont we have a vibrant nightime economy?' The answer was wage earnings are recorded where you work, not where you live. All those high earners lived somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Not sure about your Greater London figure (22 million???), but it's certainly the case that huge numbers commute into London to work, from towns outside. Would they find work to the same degree if the work in London disappeared? No, but that's a symptom of all the work having gone to London, leaving it unviable for there to be much elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 No, but that's a symptom of all the work having gone to London, leaving it unviable for there to be much elsewhere. ....like having a multi million pound home complete with servants and chefs in a road of social housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trampa501 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 According to wikipedia, the population of Great London is 8m... Well exactly, which is why I didn't understand your "Greater London accounts for ~35% of the UKs population." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 ..................Would they find work to the same degree if the work in London disappeared? ..no...they live in dormitory towns ...towns and villages whose existence depends on London being there........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 ..no...they live in dormitory towns ...towns and villages whose existence depends on London being there........ That's all a bit of a mess. They've become dormitory towns because most of their business has upped and gone off to London, and if they weren't near London (or a few other large cities) they wouldn't be able to get by even as that. That's why beware anyone clamouring on for "better" transport infrastructure, it merely exacerbates that effect, although it might mean a few places with nothing can now become dormitories instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Would be good to see benefit spend in London too, the housing benefit epicentre of the country. Ask google and ye shall receive: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/London_region_spending.html According to that - London has a total Welfare spend of about 30bn (which is about 27% of the overall UK total spend on Welfare of 112bn) Seems very high to me for a region which only has about 13% of the national population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Ask google and ye shall receive: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/London_region_spending.html According to that - London has a total Welfare spend of about 30bn (which is about 27% of the overall UK total spend on Welfare of 112bn) Seems very high to me for a region which only has about 13% of the national population. Yeah but your forgetting about all the other nation's populations whose citizens receive benefits in London ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie_George Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Small beans in comparison, but London gets the lion's share of arts funding. [in 2012] 51% of ACE’s £322m public funding budget was spent on London, and of the further £450m used by the DCMS to direct-fund 16 major cultural organisations, an estimated 90% went to London. As a result, Londoners benefited from £69 of cultural spending per head, compared with just £4.50 in the rest of England. In addition, ACE committed 45% of its £317m arts Lottery funding to London, meaning that Lottery players across the country funded the arts to the tune of £17.41 per person in London, but only £3.90 in the rest of England. http://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/new-figures-reveal-true-extent-londonregions-divide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Small beans in comparison, but London gets the lion's share of arts funding. http://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/new-figures-reveal-true-extent-londonregions-divide To be fair I think that's quite a good use of money as it's more than earned back in attracting foreign tourism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 To be fair I think that's quite a good use of money as it's more than earned back in attracting foreign tourism Up to a point. It seems reasonable for London to get a greater share of arts funding per capita than Little Mudhole, but as much as that? It may be that the numbers do add up reasonably (how many small organisations and places can you fund for the price of one of international standing, and the latter will not unreasonably probably be in London?) although the numbers look different enough to make it hard to accept that on face value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Up to a point. It seems reasonable for London to get a greater share of arts funding per capita than Little Mudhole, but as much as that? It may be that the numbers do add up reasonably (how many small organisations and places can you fund for the price of one of international standing, and the latter will not unreasonably probably be in London?) although the numbers look different enough to make it hard to accept that on face value. London is heaving with tourists 365 days a year - you can't do London cheaply (as anyone who lives in it knows), so it rakes in an absolute fortune Small arts projects are all very laudable, but no tourists are ever going to venture up to the midlands to see a community theatre version of Waiting for Godot interpreted in freeform jazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 To be fair I think that's quite a good use of money as it's more than earned back in attracting foreign tourism Yes but in a log list of fckups, Brown make museums and art galleries free. So UK tax payer is subbing (again) foreign people leisure activity. And denying an important market signal i.e. popular places get more gate money, less popular get less. Not that Im biitter having to queue for 1h to get into the Nat History museum at half time, behind loads of non British tourists. Thats Brown - is there anyone he's not splashed with UK tax payers cash? Other than the tax payer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 London is heaving with tourists 365 days a year - you can't do London cheaply (as anyone who lives in it knows), so it rakes in an absolute fortune Small arts projects are all very laudable, but no tourists are ever going to venture up to the midlands to see a community theatre version of Waiting for Godot interpreted in freeform jazz I was agreeing with you on that, but only up to a point (and how self-fulfilling is the London gets all the tourists part?) it's a valid argument for London receiving more per capita than elsewhere, but not necessarily for the difference to be as big as it is. If the community benefits from the community theatre then it's just as deserving of some money (but not as much), even if no-one from elsewhere turns up. The London theatre may (I don't know) work out as self-financing if you untangled all the paths and the Midland one not, but I don't see that as a reason to not spend any elsewhere. Just not as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 I was agreeing with you on that, but only up to a point (and how self-fulfilling is the London gets all the tourists part?) it's a valid argument for London receiving more per capita than elsewhere, but not necessarily for the difference to be as big as it is. If the community benefits from the community theatre then it's just as deserving of some money (but not as much), even if no-one from elsewhere turns up. It's all about "bang for buck" though isn't it when you fund this stuff centrally. Sub a London museum / project and you get a lot more visitors than you would if you subbed the same amount to an equivalent project somewhere else. How else are you going to measure success if you are an ACE/DCMS bean counter? An alternative (possibly fairer) approach would be to split the funding up amongst the regions according to population size Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) I was agreeing with you on that, but only up to a point (and how self-fulfilling is the London gets all the tourists part?) it's a valid argument for London receiving more per capita than elsewhere, but not necessarily for the difference to be as big as it is. If the community benefits from the community theatre then it's just as deserving of some money (but not as much), even if no-one from elsewhere turns up. The London theatre may (I don't know) work out as self-financing if you untangled all the paths and the Midland one not, but I don't see that as a reason to not spend any elsewhere. Just not as much. It's all about "bang for buck" though isn't it when you fund this stuff centrally. Sub a London museum / project and you get a lot more visitors than you would if you subbed the same amount to an equivalent project somewhere else. How else are you going to measure success if you are an ACE/DCMS bean counter? An alternative (possibly fairer) approach would be to split the funding up amongst the regions according to population size Dare I ask the question that in an age of cutbacks/austerity/foodbanks etc, should we be spending a penny on the arts? The good stuff (british museum etc) can fend for itself so the unsustainable indulgent vanity projects (think Solihull Battered Women's Therapy Theatre production of Silas Marner in contemporary dance) can just shut up shop or produce something commercially viable If the foreign aid budget can be looked at long and hard (which i think it needs close examining) an arts budget should be just as vulnerable Edited July 13, 2016 by knock out johnny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 Dare I ask the question that in an age of cutbacks/austerity/foodbanks etc, should we be spending a penny on the arts? To paraphrase the bible "man cannot live by bread alone"... There's probably a debate to be had around the right level of funding, but I personally wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't value and invest in the arts and culture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Dare I ask the question that in an age of cutbacks/austerity/foodbanks etc, should we be spending a penny on the arts? The good stuff (british museum etc) can fend for itself so the unsustainable indulgent vanity projects (think Solihull Battered Women's Therapy Theatre production of Silas Marner in contemporary dance) can just shut up shop or produce something commercially viable If the foreign aid budget can be looked at long and hard (which i think it needs close examining) an arts budget should be just as vulnerable A penny, and more than that. As EssKay said there's a debate to be had about the level, which may well have to be less, and precisely what it has to be spent on, but not about it at all. What money needs spending on is what makes peoples' lives better, and since we've got more than enough on the practical front and seem to be going backwards in every other area... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 To paraphrase the bible "man cannot live by bread alone"... There's probably a debate to be had around the right level of funding, but I personally wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't value and invest in the arts and culture Not sure. I socialise with someone who Id put at bordering on a regional luvvie - he works for a small acting troupe. He does work long hours - mainly due to the flakiness of his co-workers. Most of the art spend goes on salaries of people who, even being very generous, you would not want to employ. Current Arts funding is bit twilight zone-ish. The Art council, in all its Islington wisdomness, decided that rather than cut spending to match its reduced funding income, it would run down its reserves - after all these Cons will soon be voted out, Labor voted in and the free money continues... UK politics did not work out like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyguy Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Its a bit like the BBC license fee. I watch a lot less telly now. So do my kids. We cherry pick with neflix. Maybe the arts spending just needs to go different people and bodies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 There are definitely some silly projects that get funded It's the same problem with all central funding- how do you stop "public servants" / quangos feathering their own nests and misallocating public funds? Scrutiny usually helps. Maybe we should insist on more transparency around where the money goes and (gasp) that the public has a say in it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agentimmo Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 How do you stop quangos misallocating funds? Simple : Abolish them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 How do you stop quangos misallocating funds? Simple : Abolish them. They keep making half hearted attempts to do that (the last being around 2010 when a couple of hundred were abolished) but the larger ones always tend to make it through the "review" pretty much unscathed - funny that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knock out johnny Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) There are definitely some silly projects that get funded It's the same problem with all central funding- how do you stop "public servants" / quangos feathering their own nests and misallocating public funds? Scrutiny usually helps. Maybe we should insist on more transparency around where the money goes and (gasp) that the public has a say in it? Projected costs audited with a subsidy at 15% maximum - and I'm being generousAny more and you're dead in the water and shouldn't exist - you're the arts equivalent of millwall fans - no one likes you and no one cares Edited July 14, 2016 by knock out johnny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssKay Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Yep - that'd work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.