Cuts in Museums, Libraries, Archives Council
I think the cuts of MLA are very disturbing. MLA has done a fantastic job allaying the fears of small museums that the demise of the old area museum councils would withdraw from museums the vital support the councils gave in support and in grants. They have provided continuity and support for London Museums
I think MLA London did a great job getting together a museums strategy and played their part in trying to get the Hub to understand the needs of smaller museums. This resulted in the London MDOS, but with a weakened MLA I fear that the Hub will not be forced to look wider than their own interests.
Also MLA London has become a really professional body in producing reports, implementing strategies etc and was becoming a useful body in London politics. Cutting back shows that the powers that be do not understand what a good job the MLA's have done.
To my mind they should have cut Renaissance and expanded the regional role of the MLA's. Renaissance is bloated, bureaucratic, focussed on rich well resourced museums, they spend most of their time on business planning and not so much making much of an impact.
So they have cut the thing that works, that is efficient, that delivers and left alone the thing that does not work, is inefficient and does not deliver.
The review of Renaissance that has just been announced also seems to me to be packed with supporters - is there anyone on the review body that is anything other than a supporter or in a position that means they have a vested interest to be a supporter? It will not deliver an independent review,
Finally the press release that announced all this was a disgrace of spin - it made a cut sound like a giant step forward and is worthy of newspeak.
I am not against a review of regional bodies and finding a structure that unites all the cultural industries but this reformation should take place without cutting the MLA's in advance of it.
I think the MA was wrong to force support of Renaissance in the first place, their coverage of the debate at the time was unbalanced and did not cover opposition to the structure of Renaissance - they should make sure they do not do the same thing this time.
I think MLA London did a great job getting together a museums strategy and played their part in trying to get the Hub to understand the needs of smaller museums. This resulted in the London MDOS, but with a weakened MLA I fear that the Hub will not be forced to look wider than their own interests.
Also MLA London has become a really professional body in producing reports, implementing strategies etc and was becoming a useful body in London politics. Cutting back shows that the powers that be do not understand what a good job the MLA's have done.
To my mind they should have cut Renaissance and expanded the regional role of the MLA's. Renaissance is bloated, bureaucratic, focussed on rich well resourced museums, they spend most of their time on business planning and not so much making much of an impact.
So they have cut the thing that works, that is efficient, that delivers and left alone the thing that does not work, is inefficient and does not deliver.
The review of Renaissance that has just been announced also seems to me to be packed with supporters - is there anyone on the review body that is anything other than a supporter or in a position that means they have a vested interest to be a supporter? It will not deliver an independent review,
Finally the press release that announced all this was a disgrace of spin - it made a cut sound like a giant step forward and is worthy of newspeak.
I am not against a review of regional bodies and finding a structure that unites all the cultural industries but this reformation should take place without cutting the MLA's in advance of it.
I think the MA was wrong to force support of Renaissance in the first place, their coverage of the debate at the time was unbalanced and did not cover opposition to the structure of Renaissance - they should make sure they do not do the same thing this time.
Comments