Do we need a Department of Culture, Media & Sport
Poll: Do we need a Department of Culture, Media & Sport
Total Members Polled: 147
Discussion
Yes we need this Department. In fact most departments have juristiction over many important areas even if they also look after pointless ones as well.
Talk to me about the Equalities Office in which women not only make up the vast majority of staff but are paid 8% more than men and we'll talk seriously about it.
Talk to me about the Equalities Office in which women not only make up the vast majority of staff but are paid 8% more than men and we'll talk seriously about it.
Since I've never run a museum, and the most recent figures I can find are from 2001 (£46m a year for the British Museum) I am speaking from a point of ignorance, but supposing we put £7bn in a trust fund to be administered by a group drawn from museums, galleries, theaters etc, could it do significantly less that DCMS does with this amount every year?
I'm utterly unconvinced by rural broadband etc
I'm utterly unconvinced by rural broadband etc
AJS- said:
Since I've never run a museum, and the most recent figures I can find are from 2001 (£46m a year for the British Museum) I am speaking from a point of ignorance, but supposing we put £7bn in a trust fund to be administered by a group drawn from museums, galleries, theaters etc, could it do significantly less that DCMS does with this amount every year?
If you take out the BBC/licence fee element and lottery grants its down to circa £2.8bn it total, and yes you probably can just run the museums, galleries, theatres and other essential areas for that. But without the DCMS you would then need a whole new layer of Quango's to oversee the funding and this is the layer that is supposedly already being reduced to save costs..........This also leaves all the other elements that the DCMS currently are responsible for. Even if 50% were just dumped that still leaves work for other existing depts to take back and carries a cost.
I think we all acknowledge greater savings are required that will affect a far wider range of existing services and public expectations.
Surely far more (easy) money could be saved by dealing with the poor procurement and contracting in the bigger depts - especially the MOD with their serial history of just buying so poorly.
AJS- said:
I'm utterly unconvinced by rural broadband etc
When this happens, it has the effect of spreading wealth around the country. It also means that businesses that aren't in That London have the opportunity of a broader reach and greater moneymaking potential.
Also, because costs and rents are so dizzyingly high in That London, businesses based elsewhere won't have to spend quite so much money on just staying afloat. That money can instead benefit their employees and the local community, which in turn helps keep more people employed.
However, it seems to me that some people living in That London and the counties surrounding it, despite the fact that they've got a monopoly on both the banks and the government, want to abandon the rest of the country as it 'isn't being productive'.
Whilst overlooking the fact that they're not exactly helping that productivity because they're so mind-bendingly greedy, selfish and short-sighted, unable to see beyond the end of their own wallets.
I know this because I live in a broadband dead zone. It's in the countryside, yes, but not too far from several major towns and cities. However, my internet speed is not much faster than dialup level. Doesn't matter much to me as I'm not dependent on it, but running a business that needed a website in my area would be near-impossible.
Edited by Twincam16 on Wednesday 10th October 14:46
Twincam16 said:
Improve the infrastructure in places other than That London, and business can establish or relocate to places other than That London.
And people can work from home - reduced pollution and load on infrastructure.And we can have 'tech' businesses in the sticks as well as just the other 'picking peanuts out of poo' trades people from That London like to imagine us provincial types doing.
Twincam16 said:
AJS- said:
I'm utterly unconvinced by rural broadband etc
When this happens, it has the effect of spreading wealth around the country. It also means that businesses that aren't in That London have the opportunity of a broader reach and greater moneymaking potential.
Also, because costs and rents are so dizzyingly high in That London, businesses based elsewhere won't have to spend quite so much money on just staying afloat. That money can instead benefit their employees and the local community, which in turn helps keep more people employed.
However, it seems to me that some people living in That London and the counties surrounding it, despite the fact that they've got a monopoly on both the banks and the government, want to abandon the rest of the country as it 'isn't being productive'.
Whilst overlooking the fact that they're not exactly helping that productivity because they're so mind-bendingly greedy, selfish and short-sighted, unable to see beyond the end of their own wallets.
I know this because I live in a broadband dead zone. It's in the countryside, yes, but not too far from several major towns and cities. However, my internet speed is not much faster than dialup level. Doesn't matter much to me as I'm not dependent on it, but running a business that needed a website in my area would be near-impossible.
Edited by Twincam16 on Wednesday 10th October 14:46
tubbystu said:
AJS- said:
Since I've never run a museum, and the most recent figures I can find are from 2001 (£46m a year for the British Museum) I am speaking from a point of ignorance, but supposing we put £7bn in a trust fund to be administered by a group drawn from museums, galleries, theaters etc, could it do significantly less that DCMS does with this amount every year?
If you take out the BBC/licence fee element and lottery grants its down to circa £2.8bn it total, and yes you probably can just run the museums, galleries, theatres and other essential areas for that. But without the DCMS you would then need a whole new layer of Quango's to oversee the funding and this is the layer that is supposedly already being reduced to save costs..........This also leaves all the other elements that the DCMS currently are responsible for. Even if 50% were just dumped that still leaves work for other existing depts to take back and carries a cost.
I think we all acknowledge greater savings are required that will affect a far wider range of existing services and public expectations.
Surely far more (easy) money could be saved by dealing with the poor procurement and contracting in the bigger depts - especially the MOD with their serial history of just buying so poorly.
AJS- said:
Why do we need a whole new layer of quangos to do something that we have just deemed not worthy of a government department?
Somebody has to negotiate with the treasury as to the level of funding available and then be responsible for how those tax funds are distributed amongst those who are eligible or applying for funding. How else did you envisage the process ? A tombola at the Treasury summer fete ?
tubbystu said:
AJS- said:
Why do we need a whole new layer of quangos to do something that we have just deemed not worthy of a government department?
Somebody has to negotiate with the treasury as to the level of funding available and then be responsible for how those tax funds are distributed amongst those who are eligible or applying for funding. How else did you envisage the process ? A tombola at the Treasury summer fete ?
AJS- - what exactly do you want?
There's a 'small state' and there's 'no state at all'. Sounds like you won't be happy until there's absolutely nothing left. What do you tolerate your money being spent on, exactly? Because at the moment all you're wanting to do is smash, destroy, cut, demolish etc with the blank-minded glee of a remedial kid with a mallet.
Seriously, what kind of government do you want? Because I suspect that in the form you're aiming at it'd be so minimal it wouldn't have any authority or ability to support itself, effectively handing the governance over to completely unaccountable businessmen.
There's a 'small state' and there's 'no state at all'. Sounds like you won't be happy until there's absolutely nothing left. What do you tolerate your money being spent on, exactly? Because at the moment all you're wanting to do is smash, destroy, cut, demolish etc with the blank-minded glee of a remedial kid with a mallet.
Seriously, what kind of government do you want? Because I suspect that in the form you're aiming at it'd be so minimal it wouldn't have any authority or ability to support itself, effectively handing the governance over to completely unaccountable businessmen.
AJS- said:
Growing out of another thread, this seems like one of many pointless government departments. We are focast to have a budget deficit of over £100m next year, and this department takes about £7bn. A drop in the ocean, but as good an example as any.
The way I see it we could cut it all we like, but all that will ever produce is civil servants increasing their fund grabbing efforts to ensure their own slice of the pie. Scrap the whole thing and it's gone, £7bn to the good.
Further more, I find the notion that our having a culture, a vibrant media or entertaining sports depends upon having government direction and funding to be foolish and insulting. We had all of those things long before we had such a department.
So let's just scrap the whole thing?
(And it was nearly a week since I'd done a poll!)
Most of the £7bn spend would just get sent to another department though. So you might actually end up creating more cock-ups, hence more waste.The way I see it we could cut it all we like, but all that will ever produce is civil servants increasing their fund grabbing efforts to ensure their own slice of the pie. Scrap the whole thing and it's gone, £7bn to the good.
Further more, I find the notion that our having a culture, a vibrant media or entertaining sports depends upon having government direction and funding to be foolish and insulting. We had all of those things long before we had such a department.
So let's just scrap the whole thing?
(And it was nearly a week since I'd done a poll!)
Twincam16 said:
AJS- - what exactly do you want?
There's a 'small state' and there's 'no state at all'. Sounds like you won't be happy until there's absolutely nothing left. What do you tolerate your money being spent on, exactly? Because at the moment all you're wanting to do is smash, destroy, cut, demolish etc with the blank-minded glee of a remedial kid with a mallet.
Seriously, what kind of government do you want? Because I suspect that in the form you're aiming at it'd be so minimal it wouldn't have any authority or ability to support itself, effectively handing the governance over to completely unaccountable businessmen.
Topic for another thread really (and another poll?) but my idea of a good state is one that provides the framework for people to interact freely, form such institutions as they deem useful and behave as they wish within the bounds of a universally respected sanctity of the individual and his property, and otherwise stay the hell out of the way.There's a 'small state' and there's 'no state at all'. Sounds like you won't be happy until there's absolutely nothing left. What do you tolerate your money being spent on, exactly? Because at the moment all you're wanting to do is smash, destroy, cut, demolish etc with the blank-minded glee of a remedial kid with a mallet.
Seriously, what kind of government do you want? Because I suspect that in the form you're aiming at it'd be so minimal it wouldn't have any authority or ability to support itself, effectively handing the governance over to completely unaccountable businessmen.
AJS- said:
But I don't l I've in that London. I did for a while, but it was a dead loss. FWIW I come from a small village 30 miles out of Newcastle. I now live in Bangkok, but that's by the way. Small Northumbrian village had broadband about 8 years ago. Anyone who goes and sets up a business dependent on a fast Internet connection anywhere more remote than that needs their head read, not a government subsidy.
What about existing rural businesses that increasingly need broadband access to communicate with their customers? Farms, B&Bs, seafood markets, distilleries and countless other rural businesses exporting produce to global customers?Anyway, what's all this "we" about if you're living in Bangkok? You certainly appear out of touch.
CDP said:
The Orkney example is a pretty good one too. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there's a cost effective way of doing it but it probably won't involve running fibre.
Shetland and Orkney already have fibre links thanks to a new interconnect to SHEFA-2, which links the Faroes to Scotland. It was actually a Shetland Islands Council project, which, in the few short months it has been in operation so far, more than made a return on their investment. Oil service companies in Sullom Voe are lining up to get access as are local exporters.Incidentally the bandwidth that supports "HD streams" is also supporting telehealth access, which is reducing healthcare costs. It will also enable Shetland Coastguard to monitor the Coastguard Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres that the government are closing in other parts of the country as a cost-saving measure.
martin84 said:
I love it when people talk constantly about the problems of a country in which they do not live, while still using the term 'we.'
It's like when I meet people who describe themselves as 'proud Welshman' which is odd because when I meet them they're living anywhere but Wales.
Don't even get me started on people who use "we" as a term for the football team they support!It's like when I meet people who describe themselves as 'proud Welshman' which is odd because when I meet them they're living anywhere but Wales.
Just because I don't live there it doesn't make you any more right. I'm British, I have friends and family there and I may well go back there at some point.
I live here because it suits me at the moment, but I don't see what that has to do with my views on UK politics? Though it does make it a bit easier to see that our government is badly bloated (your government if you prefer) and that countries don't fold up and die the moment they cut off funding to every well meant pet project.
I live here because it suits me at the moment, but I don't see what that has to do with my views on UK politics? Though it does make it a bit easier to see that our government is badly bloated (your government if you prefer) and that countries don't fold up and die the moment they cut off funding to every well meant pet project.
AJS- said:
Topic for another thread really (and another poll?) but my idea of a good state is one that provides the framework for people to interact freely, form such institutions as they deem useful and behave as they wish within the bounds of a universally respected sanctity of the individual and his property, and otherwise stay the hell out of the way.
Any examples of how this anarchist ideal is actually workable or feasible? Seems to me that like most idealists you have a philosophical position but no idea of how to implement it.
A bit like communism really.
Colonial said:
AJS- said:
Topic for another thread really (and another poll?) but my idea of a good state is one that provides the framework for people to interact freely, form such institutions as they deem useful and behave as they wish within the bounds of a universally respected sanctity of the individual and his property, and otherwise stay the hell out of the way.
Any examples of how this anarchist ideal is actually workable or feasible? Seems to me that like most idealists you have a philosophical position but no idea of how to implement it.
A bit like communism really.
But a couple of real world examples, since you asked so nicely:
Hong Kong is massively better for the people who live there than is the PRC next door.
Switzerland works better than it's much larger neighbours.
The defining feature of both is surely that they have small but stable and consistent governments, who uphold property rights.
AJS- said:
It's not a utopian vision - most countries are successful to the extent that they follow these principles, and start to go wrong where they diverge from them, usually in pursuit of some abstract greater good.
But a couple of real world examples, since you asked so nicely:
Hong Kong is massively better for the people who live there than is the PRC next door.
Switzerland works better than it's much larger neighbours.
The defining feature of both is surely that they have small but stable and consistent governments, who uphold property rights.
Hong Kong, granted. It is better than China. Hardly a ringing endorsement though. Get chlamydiae. It's a less bad STD than AIDS! But a couple of real world examples, since you asked so nicely:
Hong Kong is massively better for the people who live there than is the PRC next door.
Switzerland works better than it's much larger neighbours.
The defining feature of both is surely that they have small but stable and consistent governments, who uphold property rights.
I'm intrigued by what you mean in the swiss example.
They have subsidised health care, which is actually very similar to that in Australia.
Education is generally canton based, so equivalent to county or maybe state based.
Public museums exist and are some of the oldest in Europe.
Yep, they have a smallish public service, but swiss post, for example, is a government organisation.
Besides, as Orson Welles said, "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed – but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff