Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
burn it to the fucking ground.
not using taxpayer money as I think my sister thought, but still, get the gtfo.
The thread title and your comments seem to relate to something else.
are feeling pretty great right now.
You can avoid closing or cutting back.
is totally irrelevant in the context of taxpayer subsidised museums closing or having to make cutbacks.
The two are unavoidably linked. When you have a government championing the cause and the supporters of a museum devoted to a woman who sought to close down culture and and education and access to it, and at the same time forcing many instutions to close or reduce their ability to deliver, it's all part of the same philosophy.
Why aren't members of the government personally supporting the cause of all the museums now facing closure, like the Bradford Media Museum, or the York Railway Museum, in the same way that they are with this Thatcher museum?
Even if you don't think that the two are linked (which they are), you'd have to admit that Cameron is either politically naive or recklessly arrogant to make statements like this at a time when so much of the culture and education of this country is being boarded up, shut down or sold off.
Do we know where this thatcher museum will be?
tbf, westminster definitely needs the boost
Don't bother giving it to her home town or anything. Keep it in london CAUSE THATS ENGLAND
But it's only one minute past.
to a project that is not going to cost any public money is very different from an MP in goverment giving his personal support to something which relies on government subsidy for its ongoing ability to fund itself.
It would be poiltically naive for Cameron to back one taxpayer funded museum at the expense of others, but I don't think it is for him to say that he approves of a privately-funded venture.
BUT basically we hate him for the fact that he has given his backing to it...its an unpleasent, unsavoury aspect of his character
You're annoyed Cameron isn't publically championing loss making museums, where there would be a cost implication to do so? Sounds sensible to me. And even then he's allowed to have a preference over the kind of museums he likes. There's not 'arrogance' or 'political naivety' here from what I can see.
It must take a lot of effort to come up with something to criticise every time a Conservative politician says or does anything at all.
prided themselves on open-mindedness and empathy?
Okay, admittedly, they did govern like a neo-lib party of the right, especially when it came to the economy, but we're not that partisan.
"Party leader supports privately-funded museum dedicated to former leader of same party". Arrogance! Naivety!
[while implementing policies that directly lead to closures and cutbacks in other museums]."
There, fixed that for you.
Niche interest? Debatable, but so what if it is? Politically motivated? She was a political leader, pretty hard to disassociate the two, but still not a problem in itself.
I'm after the equality of attention and priorities. In making a personal recommendation of this museum over, say, the Media Museum in Bradford, or the Rail Museum in York, he just highlights were his priorities lie.
I'm just saying that it's bad politics.
you'd be having a cry that he wasn't also saying the same thing for the Rail Museum in York?
The Media Museum in Bradford would be all like "hey Dave, cool you think we should supported, bro. Can we have some money for that?" and the Rail Museum would say "woahhhh, if they're getting money we deserve money too, yeah" and Dave would be all like "fuck, bros, we don't actually have any money to give either of you" and the museums would be all "woah, dick move, bro, dick move".
but yeah, he's set a precedent now, and if he doesn't want to come across like an uncaring person with a brass neck, he really does need to follow it through and do the same with every single other museum in the country that is in need of private donations now.
if anyone gave a shit.
is going to lose votes?
like he is with this museum.
What makes this one special? What makes it more worthy of his time than the museums educating and informing children all over the country?
And what makes this one 'special' (if you must use that word) is that he has a personal attachment to its subject matter - which isn't an offence as far as i'm aware. Are you implying that he must praise all museums or none at all?
that if it were you trying to defend a position of such wafer-thin merit, you would be personally and vehemently insulted and people would call it trolling of the highest order.
while forcing lots of others into closure or hardship, it's going to look particularly odd if you don't do the same for those affected by your actions.
I'm sure he would be happy for all museums to be funded in this way.
Why is he not then supporting and backing the appeals for funding for those museums when he's being asked about them then?
in backing appeals for private funding to replace the state funding he removed?
for saying, "We can't afford to fund this museum publically, but I think it's a great museum and I support private funding of it"?
By you, for a start.
and you're saying that no one gives a shit about it.
Nor (so far as we are aware) has there ever been any suggestion that it would be.
Tories are so crass and obsessed with money.
its that he is the sort of person who has given his backing to something tasteless and unpleasent, because he is unpleasent.
Perhaps he can take Jeremy Clarkson with him when he visits it, there that would be a nice afternoon out wouldnt it?
(you could have actually taunted me that H Bonham Carter is freinds with Cameron, because that rankled me a bit)
and I'm reminded all over again what cunts they are.
I thought that was just an Itchy and Scratchy joke!
when it opens we can all go there all the time and talk really loudly and scuff up all the books and put them all in a different order and run up huge late fees and never pay them
Probably get turned into a Starbucks after a few months anyway
You'd have to be monumentally stupid not to recognise that, surely?
you seem to think that the 'context' here is a some underfunded museums closing down. I mean, that might be your personal prerogative, but I would assume the wider 'context' for DC is being seen to promote the ideals of his party which is currently worried about losing it's core voters, at a time when he is the Prime Minister and their most influential post-war leader has just died.
(although I think it's more likely that he's trying to shore up the support currently hemorrhaging to UKIP), but that just shows how limited his view of context is, really.
Two threads in two days in which CG is the person who articulates my position the closest.
He CAN still surprise you!
that had to close due to lack of visitors.
clubbing together to set up a similar museum to Clem Attlee, is there?
It's about the timing and the context of this, not about having an equivalent museum for the 'left'.
It'll just be one big wing with a one-way system. Because the museum of the lady is not for turning.
The SMG got a few headlines and probably got a few people going to these museums that wouldn't have normally, right-on people got to have another cry about something that isn't happening to tie in with the fully taxpayer-funded Thatcher shrine, everyone wins.
And dozens of others, plus libraries and cultural programmes are being closed.
What's your point, spaceman?
I think museums should be not-for-profit enterprises.
If the museums stay open, then it'll be things like staff pay, staff numbers, education programmes, acquisitions, restoration, research etc that will be cut back. Just keeping a museum's doors open for the public is one part of the work it does.