The Kiss Goodnight for English Heritage

[Dinosaur]

Why did EH stop selling tickets and ice-creams etc at Easby Abbey in Yorkshire a few years back, must be one of their most-visited sites? (and is actually quite good, too, loads better than e.g. Whitby where they charge you a fortune to look at nothing you can't see over the wall for free). Easby's packed on weekends/summer hols and all the coast-to-coast-footpath walkers stop in. Funny way of raising revenue! Suspect during the summer the ice-cream sales alone paid for the warden in the good ol' days :face-thinks:

[VGC]

Ooh, itching to join in this discussion, but I've been told that I'm not allowed to engage in discussion of the CSR in social media. Very frustrating....

Is a forum social media though>

[Wax]

Whats the betting that in the long term this Government contemplates selling off the National heritage collection. After all if they can generate income the are a going concern for an investor

I do understand the idea off splitting off the advisory role from the management of the collection but don't be fooled a one off endowment of £80 million is peanuts when you need to maintain historic buildings and landscapes. A couple of new car parks, visitor centres and a new roof or two and you will have easily blown the budget.


80 billion and I would belive their good intentions

[Dinosaur]

I'll bet the wad they bung the Queen every year for maintaining the royal palaces (at the risk of being topical -I won't do it again, honest!) represents better value for money than if it was done through a state-run agency (which people seem to forget would have to be done anyway, they'd also be national heritage assets, and some of the most expensive), too many committees discussing what grade of gold-leaf...and someone's even found a use for them! :face-stir:


[am now running for cover...]

[Wax]

Humm maybe there is some mileage in selling off our Heritage or giving it back to the aristos who use to own it. Don't forget the Royal family own a great deal of land and other property that generates a hell of a lot of revenue. Of course if it goes back to private hands they will do with it what they did before, run it into the ground, knock it down or gamble it a way. State run agencies might not be the most efficient way of doing things but in theory they are accountable.

[barkingdigger]

The question to ask is: if the Properties can generate enough to pay for themselves, why hive them off? EH had been deluding itself for several years with the idea that income from sites will increase and fill the gap left by ever-decreasing Govt Grant. (The "Proof" of this high-quality plan was the sacking of loads of folk a year ago after the cuts in the 2010 CSR!) Assuming the Properties could make more than they cost, then right now with the DCMS having to find another 7% these sites would be critical to propping up the EH budget. And if they can't earn enough to pay for themselves now, even with the previously-mentioned £22m a year injected by the Grant, what hope do they have on their own?

Pushing the sites out is essentially a "mercy kill" in which the current £22m tapers off and the charity founders - with no recourse but to get those kind folks at the Truss to take them in. Meanwhile, Govt Grant to "heritage" is reduced and some staff are taken off the Govt payroll (by transferring them to the new charity) - a result for Treasury and the PM, even if it is a long-term disaster for the heritage.

What we need to see now is exactly how much of the remainder of EH will be moved to this new NHPA. Will they still want the research teams? Or just the statutory types? Nothing like a well-consulted plan...

[Doug]

My personal opinion (this is what I think which may or may not be correct) is that EH saw the writing on the wall almost 40% cuts so far with the potential for up to 50% since 2010 (we find out when they release the numbers soon). EH is getting hammered with the cuts, which don't look to be stopping anytime soon. It is probably death by 1000 cuts. This way EH makes a move and gets 80m out of the gov. which as much as I hate to say it would probably not come otherwise. So they negotiate their way out for part of it. As for making the new EH able to survive-

Pushing the sites out is essentially a "mercy kill" in which the current £22m tapers off and the charity founders - with no recourse but to get those kind folks at the Truss to take them in. Meanwhile, Govt Grant to "heritage" is reduced and some staff are taken off the Govt payroll (by transferring them to the new charity) - a result for Treasury and the PM, even if it is a long-term disaster for the heritage.

I think you hit it on the head with the take staff off the govt payroll. I asked more questions of EH and got this response-

"You’re welcome Doug. Glad I have been able to clarify a bit. In answer to your questions there is no set timetable. New staff will be recruited on terms which are competitive in the visitor attractions market. The heritage protection service will certainly continue to give grants but just as now, the size of the grants budget will be dependent on the level of Government funding that we get. Last year English Heritage gave out £19.6 million in grants.

Hope that helps!"

Basically, as I read it (again, may or may not be what is intended) new EH will be a two tier workforce. The older legacy workforce with the same rights as before (because they will be transferred from gov or semi-gov) and the new workforce 'recruited on terms which are competitive in the visitor attractions market.' Given its the collection of most of the workforce is seasonal if there is a short fall, whenever that might occur they will be able to reduce costs fast by cutting wages.

I am not saying EH intends this to happen or plan for this to happen. This is my personal fear, what protection was offered by being employed by the gov. will be replaced what most of us deal with. I just happen to know that terms which are competitive in the visitor attractions market are a lot less than what competitive in the government sector is.

That's my fear. Maybe it will happen or maybe it won't. Time will tell.

[Wax]

"Visitor Attraction" how I hate the term but it sums up the current Government attitude. If it don't have a money making purpose then they dont want anything to do with it. Our heritage is more than the back drop for theme park Britain. I think Doug is right "Death by 1000 cuts".

So our heritage protection service is about to be cut just when the powers that be have decided to invest in large infra structure development. :face-huh:

[Weegie]

stef.s - that should have been social media and forums. Basically, we have to clam up at times like these.

[Unitof1]

Wonder who and how the eighty millions was worked out (or even why). Maybe throw it at some pension deficit. Will there be accounts to look at? I am always amazed by the national trusts membership scheme, maybe have a similar scheme.