The government are threateneing to close the National Railway Museum

[Bunbaker]

Nooo!

No, not the gvt. The people who run several science museums, including The London Science Museum have to reduce their bloated budgets next year. They have come up with a great ruse - threaten to close a Northern Museum and just watch everyone holler. They could have looked at alternative ways to make savings, but this was the best way to get everyone agitated, and whining about the evil government, instead of the jobsworth museum board.No reason why they couldn't have eg got sponsorship for the Media Museum from - err the media?. But no, push the buttons and watch the sheep bleat.

I'm bleating. I would happily pay to visit the Railway Museum and I'm sure a lot of other people would.

oh bloody hell. How much is govt. insisting the museums cut - what proportion of their budget?

Are their budgets bloated? They are huge museums: we have visited the Media Museum, MoSI and the Science Museum in the past six months and they are all fantastic institutions, world class museums that cost a vast amount of money to run. I don't know if this is scaremongering on part of the museum director but I can see how a reduction of another 10% in their budget, which comes, he claims, after 25% cuts in real terms would make it impossible to run museums of this type on the scale that they are run.

The article doesn't make it clear where this figure of 10% comes from.

Catherine, you're making no sense.

Watch the sheep bleat about what? Closing a museum? Do you think people shouldn't complain about that?

The point is, they have chose to announce this because they know it will be emotive, and people will protest. They could improve their sponsorship and keep it open, but easier to sit back and let people blame 'the government' as usual.

Why should they have to go cap in hand to sponsors? They won't pay from the goodness of their hearts, they will want influence and what if that contradicts the public interest?

They are willing to go cap in hand to taxpayers. The taxpayers have other priorities.

You'd know, would you?

The public good of museums is a better use of "taxpayers' money" than many other things on which it is spent, IMHO.

Relaxedandhappyperson

Why should they have to go cap in hand to sponsors? They won't pay from the goodness of their hearts, they will want influence and what if that contradicts the public interest?

Public sector money comes without 'influence' and is in the 'public interest' but private sector money is bad and they always want something?

What a bizarre statement which flies in the face of all the evidence.

I think I'd be happier for museums to be run by independent bodies receiving money from central government than run the risk of them being nobbled by commercial interests. What for example would happen if the Science Museum was sponsored by Coca-Cola and wanted to run an exhibition on healthy eating. It's that (admittedly far-fetched) example among other things that makes me nervous of corporate sponsorship.

lalalonglegs

I think I'd be happier for museums to be run by independent bodies receiving money from central government than run the risk of them being nobbled by commercial interests. What for example would happen if the Science Museum was sponsored by Coca-Cola and wanted to run an exhibition on healthy eating. It's that (admittedly far-fetched) example among other things that makes me nervous of corporate sponsorship.

Doubtless you're also the sort of person who complains how evil businesses are and how they never give anything back.

Central government is famed for its independence and impartiality. They never lie or deceive or cheat or bend the truth.

I can answer lalalonglegs question on where the 10% figure comes from if it helps?

All govt depts are currently modelling 'what if' scenarios for the next budget settlements and have been asked by the Treasury to model how they would implement a 10% cut. That's not to say that is what is expected - they're also modelling what's calld 'flat cash' ie no change in money terms.

And most depts have asked their grant recipients to model the same. So for DCMS they will have asked the museums to do some modelling on that basis. So that's where the 10% figure will have come from.

I don't for a moment think that all business is evil but I do think many lack impartiality and, having worked in jobs where advertising was a large part of revenue, I can see how business can be allowed to lean on impartiality. I'd be very worried about there being similar pressures involved in any sponsorship.

I don't think central government is perfect but generally they are several hands removed from deciding what museums should be displaying/what exhibitions are suitable/the general tone of the musuem - most of the money is distributed by quangos and so on that have guidelines rather than straightforward commercial gain to use as a yardstick. I'm not against corporate sponsors being brought in for special exhibitions - say, the Media Museum were to run an exhibition on animation sponsored by a big animation company or film distributors - but if the whole museum were to be run by Dreamworks, would there be the same breadth of content?

Thanks for the explanation about where the 10% figure came from BeckandCall.

"What for example would happen if the Science Museum was sponsored by Coca-Cola and wanted to run an exhibition on healthy eating."

• Not that far-fetched - the Energy gallery was sponsored by BP for its first few years, and the education programme still is.... Science Museum retain editorial control but still...

The group has made 89 redundancies on the back of the 25% cut they have already absorbed. They took on MOSI when the govt withdrew direct funding to 'non-national museums'.

I think they're fair enough to point out that if a further 10% is cut something has to close - museums have been dying a death by a thousand cuts since around 2009 but the people working in them have so far kept most of the impact away from the public gaze as they try to do as much as they can with so much less because they are aware they are not healthcare, education or disability benefits and are far down the priority lists.