26th January 2007, 05:17 PM
Fair point Tom. It was one of these middle of the night thoughts, having got up to let the dog out! The difference I would say between archaeology and the professions that you mention is that, in general, people somewhere WANT to pay for their services at some point - to make sure their building stays up, to get their own back on the man who moved the fence two inches, etc. The vast amajority of commercial archaeology is effectively forced on developers, most of who would bulldoze it quite happily if they didn't have to comply with PPG 16 - it would be equally valid to give all archaeologists a subsidy and let them get on with the job, in the same way that farmers can apply for subsidies to make up for the shortfalls in their income caused by the way the market is operated in Britain.
I too object to food being dumped on third world countries - but paying dairy farmers less than the cost of production for their milk won't stop that. What might stop it is removing all production subsidies and paying farmers for benefits to the environment as is happening with the Environmental Stewardship scheme - however flawed it may be in its early years.
People don't get handouts to repair buildings 'just because they are old'. Each application is assessed on the historic interest of the building, the wider public benefit and the impact on other elements of the environment such as landscape and ecology. People visit areas of landscape as tourists for a variety of reasons - viewing swathes of derelict countryside and abandoned buildings doesn't come too high up the reasons for visiting. It is the case that there needs to be change in the landscape and perhaps we would be better to demolish or let fall down the redundant buildings - but the Yorkshire Dales, for example, would look very different if the lost the field barns and miles of drystone wall that make up an essential part of their character.
Only a tiny proportion of buildings repairs would be carried out without grant aid, and most of them would be carried out using modern materials.
I too object to food being dumped on third world countries - but paying dairy farmers less than the cost of production for their milk won't stop that. What might stop it is removing all production subsidies and paying farmers for benefits to the environment as is happening with the Environmental Stewardship scheme - however flawed it may be in its early years.
People don't get handouts to repair buildings 'just because they are old'. Each application is assessed on the historic interest of the building, the wider public benefit and the impact on other elements of the environment such as landscape and ecology. People visit areas of landscape as tourists for a variety of reasons - viewing swathes of derelict countryside and abandoned buildings doesn't come too high up the reasons for visiting. It is the case that there needs to be change in the landscape and perhaps we would be better to demolish or let fall down the redundant buildings - but the Yorkshire Dales, for example, would look very different if the lost the field barns and miles of drystone wall that make up an essential part of their character.
Only a tiny proportion of buildings repairs would be carried out without grant aid, and most of them would be carried out using modern materials.