Smith is the best of a pretty uninspiring bunch, but free entry to museums and galleries was a mistake: ultimately responsible for the slow-moving crisis in the sector.
Interesting - do you have any data that backs that up? The main museums seem in good health to me, though I'll fully admit it's not my area of speciality, so happy to hear evidence against.
The plus sides do seem pretty huge. Living in London, it was extremely nice to be able to just pop into somewhere for an hour (and it also makes it much easier to visit them with young children, who don't always have the most stamina). And charging for exhibitions seems a good way of still getting money from those who are willing to pay.
So, there are two separate angles here, one for which there is plenty of hard data and the other for which there isn’t (but it’s hard to think of what it would look like).
1) The decision made small/provincial/local museums even more dependent on LA funding than before and that has been a disaster for them, because councils have no money and museums are at the bottom of the list anyway. Hundreds of these closed, especially after about 2011.
The Museums Association did a report in (?) 2021 which wrapped quite a bit of this up and found that LA funding had fallen by about 1/3rd in real terms 2010-2020. The situation hasn’t got any better and we’re now in a position where major ‘local’ institutions, with important collections, are at real risk (Birmingham and Derby spring to mind, but they’re not alone).
2) Harder to quantify, but … talk to anyone in the sector. The post-Smith funding landscape put serious financial pressure even on the big national institutions and it basically forced them to prioritise big, blockbuster exhibitions over anything else. They responded by holding wages down (people would be shocked by how little even quite senior people in museums are paid), which has led to a flow of good people out of the sector, but also by neglecting other core responsibilities: research on their collections, cataloguing, basic maintenance. Museums in effect borrowed against their futures. You can make inferences from the fact that what happened at the British Museum happened there - in one of the handful of institutions even our philistine state has a vague sense might be important.
I love being able to go into random museums for a spare fifteen minutes and I entirely take the point about children. But the model only works if foregone ticket revenues are actually made good otherwise - I just don’t believe any modern government is actually going to do that.
Completely agree - hence comment below about Browne. They achieved extraordinary things at Tate (and now under his chairmanship at the Courtauld) against huge funding headwinds.
As in this chancellor election, as in so many things in life: people seem attracted to the things like “let’s make everything free!”, rather than putting in the hard work to find real practical solutions. Incidentally, the point in the post about Smith being appointed and reappointed at the EA by different governments made me laugh, as if it is some kind of distinguishing feature. Browne was asked by Gordon Brown to review student fees, and then reappointed by the Coalition government…
Really interesting - thank you. I take your point on the sector feeling pressured, as well as some of the trade-offs. However, I've also got a few points of disagreement.
a) Smith's decision only affected the big national museums. The issues you highlight with local museums aren't connected to this (and are probably more to do with the way local authority funding has been increasingly diverted to SEND and social care, with everything else being slashed).
b) I've looked up a few of the national museums and their budgets are now bigger in real terms than in 2000. There have been ups and downs (the latter especially post-2010) but overall most (inc. the Tate, as it was mentioned below) are up since 2000 - including both grant in aid and other contributions. I appreciate they feel stretched, but actually their foregone ticket revenue has been made up, and I'm not that sympathetic to publicly funded organisations saying 'our budgets need to continually increase above inflation because we've made up new things we think are important.'
c) The gain is really massive - after 10 years the visitors to those had become free had gone up from 7 million a year to 18 million a year. That's massive.
d) I appreciate there are trade-offs in terms of the push for blockbuster exhibitions. But if I had to choose a model of free core entry and expensive exhibitions, or paid core entry and averagely priced exhibitions, I'd choose the first. Appreciate this is an area people can disagree on.
e) Agree there do seem to be some serious issues of mismanagement and failed prioritisation at the British Museum.
I have a vote and have reached the same conclusion as you. Chris Smith also used to be my MP and I knew him slightly in connection with a local arts charity. It’s very disappointing that no more impressive female candidates have come forward for election, and I would not vote for either Miller or Toksvig. Both have been involved with start up political parties that have had short lives and limited appeal, quite apart from anything else
Have you actually read the Browne Report? It’s worth reading in full to understand the difference between what was recommended and what the government implemented.
And it was easy for Smith to wave a hand and make gallery admission free; much harder for people like Browne as chairman of Tate to then get to work and raise the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to keep these places afloat.
That’s all to say that I agree with your analysis up to the hugely simplistic conclusion which is based on impression rather than engagement with the facts or analysis of the real qualities needed in this role.
Very fair point that the Coalition essentially used Browne as political cover to raise fees, without actually implementing all his recommendations. Very similar to what May did with Auger (having pushed through the ill-considered 2017 act).
I have read the Browne report. His idea for a levy on universities charging over £6k was a good one, and it's a shame it wasn't interested, but his core idea of high fees, high debt and maximal student choice to fund university expansion is very bad.
Thanks for sharing that piece. I think he just doubles down on his errors here: wanting more money for the sector on the back of taxpayers and graduates and no recognition of the harms the quasi-market has done, the huge variability in quality between universities, the mass of low quality degrees and the fact that we have far more people going than we should. He also says 'Claims of a “free speech problem” in UK universities are undoubtedly overblown.'
To be clear, he'd still be my third choice. I've no doubt he genuinely believes this; I think he's incorrect, not evil, and I don't want him hounded out of public life or anything. But nor do I think he should be rewarded with the one of the most prestigious roles in the HE sector.
Lord Smith referring to a "dangerous world of misinformation and “fake news"" seems worrying, given that these terms lack an empirical basis and are typically used to shut down debate. On the other hand his statement that "a genuine commitment to freedom of speech is so important" is, of course, good. What should we conclude about his overall views on the area?
Absent more information El-Erian's generic statements about academic excellence, strong finances, and academic freedom seem preferable.
I agree that there's some ambiguity from all of them on the Free Speech question, with none of them as clear as one might like (i.e. a clear stated position on some of the matters of contention). I was though somewhat encouraged by Smith's remarks in the Independent yesterday:
"Free speech isn’t about comfort. It’s about courage. It means saying what’s right, not what’s easy. That principle applies in politics, in journalism, and perhaps most vitally in universities.
As I stand for the role of chancellor at Cambridge, I’ve been reflecting on that more than ever. At their best, our universities are not echo chambers or political tools: they are places where ideas are tested, debated, challenged and refined. They are engines of intellectual freedom. And when that freedom is under threat, someone must be willing to speak up."
Honestly not sure! Brian Blessed didn't win last time, so I don't think the electorate purely goes for celebrity value - but this time the 'sensible' vote is more split and I worry the 'establishment' candidate is Browne who will be polarising to many.
I'd probably guess either Toskvig or Smith, but am prepared to be surprised.
They've used AV which greatly reduces the splitting problem. (Good insight on Brian last time. I think Toksvig's brand aligns better to Cambridge than Brian's, and that online voting invites more casual voters who will be more brand name led. Still her statement is off putting, and her appeal is in fundamentally the same mould as Brian.)
You're right that the different electorate will be the big issue. But as well as more casual voters it will also bring in a lot more international voters, who are probably not avid watchers of Bake-Off!
footnote 2 - significantly and over should either get a room, or have a bit of space put between them.
footnote 4 - either of them should be any of them.
Thank you for the extremely niche election commentary I was looking for. I will be voting for Lord Smith.
Excellent! And typos fixed.
Smith is the best of a pretty uninspiring bunch, but free entry to museums and galleries was a mistake: ultimately responsible for the slow-moving crisis in the sector.
Interesting - do you have any data that backs that up? The main museums seem in good health to me, though I'll fully admit it's not my area of speciality, so happy to hear evidence against.
The plus sides do seem pretty huge. Living in London, it was extremely nice to be able to just pop into somewhere for an hour (and it also makes it much easier to visit them with young children, who don't always have the most stamina). And charging for exhibitions seems a good way of still getting money from those who are willing to pay.
So, there are two separate angles here, one for which there is plenty of hard data and the other for which there isn’t (but it’s hard to think of what it would look like).
1) The decision made small/provincial/local museums even more dependent on LA funding than before and that has been a disaster for them, because councils have no money and museums are at the bottom of the list anyway. Hundreds of these closed, especially after about 2011.
The Museums Association did a report in (?) 2021 which wrapped quite a bit of this up and found that LA funding had fallen by about 1/3rd in real terms 2010-2020. The situation hasn’t got any better and we’re now in a position where major ‘local’ institutions, with important collections, are at real risk (Birmingham and Derby spring to mind, but they’re not alone).
2) Harder to quantify, but … talk to anyone in the sector. The post-Smith funding landscape put serious financial pressure even on the big national institutions and it basically forced them to prioritise big, blockbuster exhibitions over anything else. They responded by holding wages down (people would be shocked by how little even quite senior people in museums are paid), which has led to a flow of good people out of the sector, but also by neglecting other core responsibilities: research on their collections, cataloguing, basic maintenance. Museums in effect borrowed against their futures. You can make inferences from the fact that what happened at the British Museum happened there - in one of the handful of institutions even our philistine state has a vague sense might be important.
I love being able to go into random museums for a spare fifteen minutes and I entirely take the point about children. But the model only works if foregone ticket revenues are actually made good otherwise - I just don’t believe any modern government is actually going to do that.
Completely agree - hence comment below about Browne. They achieved extraordinary things at Tate (and now under his chairmanship at the Courtauld) against huge funding headwinds.
Interesting! I had missed that - thanks for pointing out.
As in this chancellor election, as in so many things in life: people seem attracted to the things like “let’s make everything free!”, rather than putting in the hard work to find real practical solutions. Incidentally, the point in the post about Smith being appointed and reappointed at the EA by different governments made me laugh, as if it is some kind of distinguishing feature. Browne was asked by Gordon Brown to review student fees, and then reappointed by the Coalition government…
Agree that all of the top three, including Browne, pass the non-partisan test.
This distinguishes Smith from Miller and Toskvig, not from Browne.
Really interesting - thank you. I take your point on the sector feeling pressured, as well as some of the trade-offs. However, I've also got a few points of disagreement.
a) Smith's decision only affected the big national museums. The issues you highlight with local museums aren't connected to this (and are probably more to do with the way local authority funding has been increasingly diverted to SEND and social care, with everything else being slashed).
b) I've looked up a few of the national museums and their budgets are now bigger in real terms than in 2000. There have been ups and downs (the latter especially post-2010) but overall most (inc. the Tate, as it was mentioned below) are up since 2000 - including both grant in aid and other contributions. I appreciate they feel stretched, but actually their foregone ticket revenue has been made up, and I'm not that sympathetic to publicly funded organisations saying 'our budgets need to continually increase above inflation because we've made up new things we think are important.'
c) The gain is really massive - after 10 years the visitors to those had become free had gone up from 7 million a year to 18 million a year. That's massive.
d) I appreciate there are trade-offs in terms of the push for blockbuster exhibitions. But if I had to choose a model of free core entry and expensive exhibitions, or paid core entry and averagely priced exhibitions, I'd choose the first. Appreciate this is an area people can disagree on.
e) Agree there do seem to be some serious issues of mismanagement and failed prioritisation at the British Museum.
I have a vote and have reached the same conclusion as you. Chris Smith also used to be my MP and I knew him slightly in connection with a local arts charity. It’s very disappointing that no more impressive female candidates have come forward for election, and I would not vote for either Miller or Toksvig. Both have been involved with start up political parties that have had short lives and limited appeal, quite apart from anything else
Browne has written a piece here which addresses your criticism: https://lordjohnbrowne.com/news/the-uk-must-not-neglect-its-universities/
Have you actually read the Browne Report? It’s worth reading in full to understand the difference between what was recommended and what the government implemented.
And it was easy for Smith to wave a hand and make gallery admission free; much harder for people like Browne as chairman of Tate to then get to work and raise the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to keep these places afloat.
That’s all to say that I agree with your analysis up to the hugely simplistic conclusion which is based on impression rather than engagement with the facts or analysis of the real qualities needed in this role.
Very fair point that the Coalition essentially used Browne as political cover to raise fees, without actually implementing all his recommendations. Very similar to what May did with Auger (having pushed through the ill-considered 2017 act).
I have read the Browne report. His idea for a levy on universities charging over £6k was a good one, and it's a shame it wasn't interested, but his core idea of high fees, high debt and maximal student choice to fund university expansion is very bad.
Thanks for sharing that piece. I think he just doubles down on his errors here: wanting more money for the sector on the back of taxpayers and graduates and no recognition of the harms the quasi-market has done, the huge variability in quality between universities, the mass of low quality degrees and the fact that we have far more people going than we should. He also says 'Claims of a “free speech problem” in UK universities are undoubtedly overblown.'
To be clear, he'd still be my third choice. I've no doubt he genuinely believes this; I think he's incorrect, not evil, and I don't want him hounded out of public life or anything. But nor do I think he should be rewarded with the one of the most prestigious roles in the HE sector.
Lord Smith referring to a "dangerous world of misinformation and “fake news"" seems worrying, given that these terms lack an empirical basis and are typically used to shut down debate. On the other hand his statement that "a genuine commitment to freedom of speech is so important" is, of course, good. What should we conclude about his overall views on the area?
Absent more information El-Erian's generic statements about academic excellence, strong finances, and academic freedom seem preferable.
I agree that there's some ambiguity from all of them on the Free Speech question, with none of them as clear as one might like (i.e. a clear stated position on some of the matters of contention). I was though somewhat encouraged by Smith's remarks in the Independent yesterday:
"Free speech isn’t about comfort. It’s about courage. It means saying what’s right, not what’s easy. That principle applies in politics, in journalism, and perhaps most vitally in universities.
As I stand for the role of chancellor at Cambridge, I’ve been reflecting on that more than ever. At their best, our universities are not echo chambers or political tools: they are places where ideas are tested, debated, challenged and refined. They are engines of intellectual freedom. And when that freedom is under threat, someone must be willing to speak up."
What's your prediction for who wins? I reckon Sandi Toksvig on sheer brand name recognition.
Honestly not sure! Brian Blessed didn't win last time, so I don't think the electorate purely goes for celebrity value - but this time the 'sensible' vote is more split and I worry the 'establishment' candidate is Browne who will be polarising to many.
I'd probably guess either Toskvig or Smith, but am prepared to be surprised.
They've used AV which greatly reduces the splitting problem. (Good insight on Brian last time. I think Toksvig's brand aligns better to Cambridge than Brian's, and that online voting invites more casual voters who will be more brand name led. Still her statement is off putting, and her appeal is in fundamentally the same mould as Brian.)
Good point on AV!
You're right that the different electorate will be the big issue. But as well as more casual voters it will also bring in a lot more international voters, who are probably not avid watchers of Bake-Off!
I was thinking QI might be more Cambridge's jam. (Or her News Quiz hinterland. Toksvig is pretty prolific)