Sometimes the juxtaposition of news items simply can't be ignored.
A snippet on Today (Radio 4) this morning caught my attention: A couple in Cambridgeshire were being burgled, and phoned 999, only to get a text message from the local police instead of an actual Bobby.
Next item up was Nicholas Penny, director of the National Gallery, asking the nation to stump up £100 million to buy a couple of paintings. Well, they're Titians, and I'm sure they're fabulous. But they're owned by the Duke of Sutherland and they've been on loan from the Duke of Sutherland's estate since 1945. Is the guy really so hard up that he needs to cash in his family heirlooms? I doubt it.
Normally I wouldn't join the chorus who cry for 'money for nurses/schools' [insert pet issue of your choice], mainly because the sums involved in such cases tend to be trifles in the overall scheme of government spending (and as a former civil servant I know that a million quid doesn't go very far).
Nicholas Penny said that buying the pix would "end decades of anxiety about them being sold overseas". Doesn't the man realise that one of the many things people do when they holiday abroad is visit famous galleries to see famous painting? I could take him a tiny bit more seriously if he was wanting to save something from destruction, but overseas? What's the big deal?
Sometimes public spending is a case of 'what goes around comes' - e.g. give civil servants a 4% pay rise and they'll have a tiny bit more spending power in the high street and the VAT will dribble into the Treasury's coffers. In this case, though, I can't see it happening. Do we really think the Duke will stump up the Capital Gains from his 'car boot sale'?
On the other hand, £100 million (or even half of that - which is what he's likely to get) would buy quite a few bicycles for the Bobbies of Cambridgeshire, and if it's a choice between fighting off burglars rummaging through my drawers and keep a couple of paintings on home turf, I think I know which I'd choose.
[Sorry; links are to Daily Telegraph (top when I Googled), as BBC website has gone temporarily awol.]
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I'm no fan of the landed gentry/aristocracy but I think it's fairly true these days that most are actually pretty hard up. Whenever some earl dies, his heir gets clobbered with inheritance taxes, plus the costs of upkeep for the crumbling pile, I mean stately home, are horrendous.
Also, I think there is a strong case for raising the cash to keep the paintings here, whatever the state of the Duke of Sutherland's finances. If the paintings go abroad, there's no guarantee they'll end up in the Louvre, the Prado or Uffizi. The chances are far higher they'll go into the private collection of a Texan oil billionaire or Russian oligarch and may not be seen by the public for decades. That would be a real shame. So while I too would like to see more money going on essential services, I'd also like the general public to have the opportunity to see great artworks for free here in the UK and get pleasure in the process.
I wouldn't object to an old-fashioned fundraiser to keep the pics here; it's the idea of such a huge sub from the government that gets me. I'm definitely in favour of supporting the arts - I go to galleries, concerts (and theatre, if I get the chance); and I'm passionate about getting children involved in these - but this is a lot of money all at once for just two paintings.
It was the juxtaposition of items that really got me going, though, and I was happy to hear over the weekend that this factor had been picked up by "Any questions", and various other current events outlets.
And don't get me started on inheritance tax…
Post a Comment