Differences in arts funding across the regions highlighted by Shadow Culture Minister Helen Goodman

Differences in arts funding across the regions highlighted by Shadow Culture Minister Helen Goodman

Differences in arts funding across the regions highlighted by Shadow Culture Minister Helen Goodman

First published in News by , Reporter (Barnard Castle & Teesdale)

THE way funding for the arts is distributed across the regions has come under fire from a leading opposition politician.

Helen Goodman, Shadow Culture Minister, highlighted the disparity in arts funding from one region to another when she opened a conference organised by the National Society for Education in Art and Design (Nsead) at the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, in Gateshead.

Mrs Goodman told delegates she had submitted Freedom of Information requests to every local authority across England asking them about their plans for spending on the arts this year.

“I have now received responses from a third of them and they’re telling me the overall reduction in arts budgets forced on local authorities is some 14 per cent.

“These cuts are correlated to the cuts they themselves face. Thus, Manchester’s 27 per cent cut in arts funding matches exactly the 27 per cent cut in central government grant.”

The Bishop Auckland MP added: “Of course, local authorities have choices. Westminster is cutting its arts budget to zero.

“Contrast this with Durham, which last year hosted the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Lumiere light festival, and a huge brass band celebration, or Hull, which has just become the next City of Culture.

“But perhaps Westminster can afford to spend nothing because the rest of us have given them an average of £6,300 per person from our Lottery tickets compared to the £551 per person received in Gateshead. That can’t be right.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:02pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Dear Helen,
Now work out how much tax those in the City of Westminster pay to fund those who live in Gateshead. You may then decide that the best thing for you to do is to be quiet.
VOR
Dear Helen, Now work out how much tax those in the City of Westminster pay to fund those who live in Gateshead. You may then decide that the best thing for you to do is to be quiet. VOR Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 4

8:50pm Sat 22 Mar 14

bambara says...

Now work out how much disposable income those in the city of Westminster have (posh boy bankers still getting bonuses and paying reduced tax rates under the tories, while the poor are squeezed to the point of needing food banks to be able to eat) compared to those in the northeast and maybe you will decide it is best for you to be quiet VOR?
Now work out how much disposable income those in the city of Westminster have (posh boy bankers still getting bonuses and paying reduced tax rates under the tories, while the poor are squeezed to the point of needing food banks to be able to eat) compared to those in the northeast and maybe you will decide it is best for you to be quiet VOR? bambara
  • Score: -3

10:00pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Voice-of-reality says...

If 'the poor' were responsible and spent their money (or rather that which they are given) on the necessities of life first, they would not need food banks. Everyone else has to cut their garment according to their cloth. You seem to suggest that the whole of the northeast is poor - not true - only the idle, the workshy, and those who refuse to embrace change, or have failed to apply themselves.
If 'the poor' were responsible and spent their money (or rather that which they are given) on the necessities of life first, they would not need food banks. Everyone else has to cut their garment according to their cloth. You seem to suggest that the whole of the northeast is poor - not true - only the idle, the workshy, and those who refuse to embrace change, or have failed to apply themselves. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 3

11:24pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Colcat says...

VoR - you really are a misinformed idiot.
VoR - you really are a misinformed idiot. Colcat
  • Score: -1

10:15am Sun 23 Mar 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Colcat, one must assume the following from your assertion.

1. That you believe that luxuries should be bought before neccessities.
2. That people should not 'cut their garment according to their cloth' but should just spend, spend, spend.
3. That either the whole of the north-east is poor, (which is hugley insulting to the hardworking), or that the idlde and workshy are not poor, (you may have a point on the latter given the extent to which they are subsidised).

If such views makes you 'informed' I am glad to represent the opposite opinion.
Colcat, one must assume the following from your assertion. 1. That you believe that luxuries should be bought before neccessities. 2. That people should not 'cut their garment according to their cloth' but should just spend, spend, spend. 3. That either the whole of the north-east is poor, (which is hugley insulting to the hardworking), or that the idlde and workshy are not poor, (you may have a point on the latter given the extent to which they are subsidised). If such views makes you 'informed' I am glad to represent the opposite opinion. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 3

12:29am Mon 24 Mar 14

Colcat says...

VoR - your logic is dangerously, fatally wrong. Fatally because it is also being used by the Tories and many many people are dying because of it. To address your three points:

1. No, luxuries should NOT be bought before necessities; benefits should not be spent on tobacco, alcohol, televisions, games consoles etc.
2. People should limit their spending to their income,
3. It is ridiculous to suggest that everyone in the North East is poor,

I will go on to add:

4. It is fallacious to suggest that 'the poor' (as you describe them) are all spending any and all money they have on luxuries therefore requiring food banks. There will always be some who push the system, but to suggest that it all who do this is just stupid and naive.

5. It is plain wrong, and downright cruel, to suggest (as this present government does and you frequently seem to) that people who are classed (by themselves or by the state) as less able or unable to work, fall into one of two categories: laying comatose in a vegetative state or are perfectly healthy and are trying it on. It can be noted that those that actually are lying in a comatose state are still being harassed to justify it and being found fit for work, thousands - that's THOUSANDS - of whom have died, or are dying, after being declared fit for work!

6. It is completely wrong to suggest that those not in employment are all work-shy, as you do. The Guardian recently published an interesting article entitled "Telling a young person to 'Just get a job' is like going to the Sahara and yelling 'Just rain!'" Maybe you should look it up. It may be directly aimed at younger people, but it can easily be applied to anyone in society. It mentions a branch of Costa in Nottingham that received 1,701 applications for eight positions. That "underemployment is cleverly hidden by internships or zero-hour contracts, that an unprecedented number of jobs created are part-time. By October last year, long-term youth unemployment had risen to four times the 2004 figures (oh, and tripled in the first three years of the coalition)." A desire to work, a drive to work, an ability to work, more than likely now results in either endless rejections and/or a job that pays so little that they can't afford to feed themselves, let alone put shelter over their own heads. But you just claim they are work-shy scroungers and dismiss them out of hand.
7. It is wrong to make mass generalisations about people, especially in the negative as you always do! Some people, a few, are out to get as much as they can for themselves for as little effort as possible, that does NOT and NEVER WILL mean that everyone who finds themselves in a similar situation are like that. Most people who are claiming sickness/disability benefits genuinely can't work, that does not mean they are trying to scam the system. Of course there are some that will try the system, but to take actions that directly result in people starving, dying or being driven to commit suicide, just to stop those few is unbelievably short sighted, inhumane and disgusting. I therefore suggest that you, Voice-of-reality, are short sighted, inhumane and disgusting.

Quite frankly, discussing things with you, VoR, is like arguing with a Creationist. Basically, it's a waste of time. As I've said before: "Arguing with XXXXX (in this case VoR) is like playing chess with a pigeon. You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, $h1t on the board and strut around triumphantly."
VoR - your logic is dangerously, fatally wrong. Fatally because it is also being used by the Tories and many many people are dying because of it. To address your three points: 1. No, luxuries should NOT be bought before necessities; benefits should not be spent on tobacco, alcohol, televisions, games consoles etc. 2. People should limit their spending to their income, 3. It is ridiculous to suggest that everyone in the North East is poor, I will go on to add: 4. It is fallacious to suggest that 'the poor' (as you describe them) are all spending any and all money they have on luxuries therefore requiring food banks. There will always be some who push the system, but to suggest that it all who do this is just stupid and naive. 5. It is plain wrong, and downright cruel, to suggest (as this present government does and you frequently seem to) that people who are classed (by themselves or by the state) as less able or unable to work, fall into one of two categories: laying comatose in a vegetative state or are perfectly healthy and are trying it on. It can be noted that those that actually are lying in a comatose state are still being harassed to justify it and being found fit for work, thousands - that's THOUSANDS - of whom have died, or are dying, after being declared fit for work! 6. It is completely wrong to suggest that those not in employment are all work-shy, as you do. The Guardian recently published an interesting article entitled "Telling a young person to 'Just get a job' is like going to the Sahara and yelling 'Just rain!'" Maybe you should look it up. It may be directly aimed at younger people, but it can easily be applied to anyone in society. It mentions a branch of Costa in Nottingham that received 1,701 applications for eight positions. That "underemployment is cleverly hidden by internships or zero-hour contracts, that an unprecedented number of jobs created are part-time. By October last year, long-term youth unemployment had risen to four times the 2004 figures (oh, and tripled in the first three years of the coalition)." A desire to work, a drive to work, an ability to work, more than likely now results in either endless rejections and/or a job that pays so little that they can't afford to feed themselves, let alone put shelter over their own heads. But you just claim they are work-shy scroungers and dismiss them out of hand. 7. It is wrong to make mass generalisations about people, especially in the negative as you always do! Some people, a few, are out to get as much as they can for themselves for as little effort as possible, that does NOT and NEVER WILL mean that everyone who finds themselves in a similar situation are like that. Most people who are claiming sickness/disability benefits genuinely can't work, that does not mean they are trying to scam the system. Of course there are some that will try the system, but to take actions that directly result in people starving, dying or being driven to commit suicide, just to stop those few is unbelievably short sighted, inhumane and disgusting. I therefore suggest that you, Voice-of-reality, are short sighted, inhumane and disgusting. Quite frankly, discussing things with you, VoR, is like arguing with a Creationist. Basically, it's a waste of time. As I've said before: "Arguing with XXXXX (in this case VoR) is like playing chess with a pigeon. You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, $h1t on the board and strut around triumphantly." Colcat
  • Score: 0

1:29am Mon 24 Mar 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Colcat,
I am glad that we have agreement on the first three points – perhaps there is more middle ground on the others as well.

4. I would agree that not ALL the poor (as I described them in I think citing someone else) spend all of their money on luxuries and thus rely on foodbanks. However, there is a general movement that people wish to live in their own houses (whether p-rented, c-rented, housing association etc). Quite simply, there is a proportion of people who cannot afford to do so – and they need to realise it. Their own housing is a luxury that they (and the state) cannot afford.
Rather than giving such people a weekly allowance I would rather that they are provided basic food and shelter by the state with the rest of their spending being monitored – a form of government hostel if you will – until such a time as they are back on their own two feet.

5. I would agree with you – the system of fit to work is more complex – a) there are those who should not be working (the terminally ill who are too sick) – as opposed to the terminally ill who, though terminally ill are in themselves healthy (I think of the long term HIV patient for example whose illness is terminal but may, in the short term be able to work), b) the healthy/trying it on – whom I think we would both like to rid the system of, and c) those who need temporary help. If the second category can be slimmed down then there is more money to support the other two.
On the other point I would query whether they are dying because they are ‘back to work’ or whether they would have died at the same time anyhow – alas the state, does not have the money to allow those ‘near to death’ to not contribute – I would agree that it is not ideal – but that is where personal insurance needs to come into play – I would be happy to see it mandated for all.

6. I accept that there is youth unemployment and that many wish to work. However, in my comments, (and I will accept that I do not differentiate on this sufficiently – then again long posts are often frowned upon), there are families and whole areas where the over-riding culture is not to work – and it is an ingrained culture. Long term youth-unemployment is rising – but some of that is false hopes and expectations, some of it is a failure to adequately train them (not all need a university degree) far more need apprentices –and it is only now, after decades of neglect that the full value of the old apprenticeship model seems to be being realised (by politicians of all hues). Perhaps I have been very lucky – but can it be purely luck that since the age of 16 I have never been out of work or training? Or is there also a cultural/personal aspect to it. I have loathed some of the poorly paid jobs but I have still gotten on with them. I also note that you comment that many of those jobs do not give the young person enough money to put a roof over their head – again you are correct – but once again, if they cannot afford to move out of home (or shared accommodation) there is no ‘absolute right’ to have your own place at 18 – many of us have had to wait many more years.

7. I would agree that the majority who claim sickness benefit are truly ill – I would also, however, argue that all the time that there are job vacancies in a given area – there is lot excuse for them not to be filled – it may not be the job you want, it may not be the job you believe you deserve – but it is a job by which you can have self respect by earning.

Finally, and on this I know there will be no agreement – the world is overpopulated, there are not enough resources (either monetarily, environmentally or politically), and at some stage, whether through disease, poverty, or natural disaster we have to accept as a global society that more people simply must die or never be born – we cannot all live to 130 and I am sure that many would not wish to (even with medical advances) – so at what stage do we stop ‘propping up’ those who, had it not been for the last 70 years of welfareism and antibiotics would have perished (either at homeor abroad) years ago.
Colcat, I am glad that we have agreement on the first three points – perhaps there is more middle ground on the others as well. 4. I would agree that not ALL the poor (as I described them in I think citing someone else) spend all of their money on luxuries and thus rely on foodbanks. However, there is a general movement that people wish to live in their own houses (whether p-rented, c-rented, housing association etc). Quite simply, there is a proportion of people who cannot afford to do so – and they need to realise it. Their own housing is a luxury that they (and the state) cannot afford. Rather than giving such people a weekly allowance I would rather that they are provided basic food and shelter by the state with the rest of their spending being monitored – a form of government hostel if you will – until such a time as they are back on their own two feet. 5. I would agree with you – the system of fit to work is more complex – a) there are those who should not be working (the terminally ill who are too sick) – as opposed to the terminally ill who, though terminally ill are in themselves healthy (I think of the long term HIV patient for example whose illness is terminal but may, in the short term be able to work), b) the healthy/trying it on – whom I think we would both like to rid the system of, and c) those who need temporary help. If the second category can be slimmed down then there is more money to support the other two. On the other point I would query whether they are dying because they are ‘back to work’ or whether they would have died at the same time anyhow – alas the state, does not have the money to allow those ‘near to death’ to not contribute – I would agree that it is not ideal – but that is where personal insurance needs to come into play – I would be happy to see it mandated for all. 6. I accept that there is youth unemployment and that many wish to work. However, in my comments, (and I will accept that I do not differentiate on this sufficiently – then again long posts are often frowned upon), there are families and whole areas where the over-riding culture is not to work – and it is an ingrained culture. Long term youth-unemployment is rising – but some of that is false hopes and expectations, some of it is a failure to adequately train them (not all need a university degree) far more need apprentices –and it is only now, after decades of neglect that the full value of the old apprenticeship model seems to be being realised (by politicians of all hues). Perhaps I have been very lucky – but can it be purely luck that since the age of 16 I have never been out of work or training? Or is there also a cultural/personal aspect to it. I have loathed some of the poorly paid jobs but I have still gotten on with them. I also note that you comment that many of those jobs do not give the young person enough money to put a roof over their head – again you are correct – but once again, if they cannot afford to move out of home (or shared accommodation) there is no ‘absolute right’ to have your own place at 18 – many of us have had to wait many more years. 7. I would agree that the majority who claim sickness benefit are truly ill – I would also, however, argue that all the time that there are job vacancies in a given area – there is lot excuse for them not to be filled – it may not be the job you want, it may not be the job you believe you deserve – but it is a job by which you can have self respect by earning. Finally, and on this I know there will be no agreement – the world is overpopulated, there are not enough resources (either monetarily, environmentally or politically), and at some stage, whether through disease, poverty, or natural disaster we have to accept as a global society that more people simply must die or never be born – we cannot all live to 130 and I am sure that many would not wish to (even with medical advances) – so at what stage do we stop ‘propping up’ those who, had it not been for the last 70 years of welfareism and antibiotics would have perished (either at homeor abroad) years ago. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree