On April 10th 2006, it was revealed in the Evening Times that a private property developer (Mr P.) had "[sic] donated £270,000 to keep Glasgow's museums open on Mondays". The news came after it had become apparent that Glasgow City Council would have to close museums on a Monday because of a budget crisis, following a freeze on council tax.
At the time critics condemned the pledge as an obscene gesture and an insult to local democracy; acceptance of the pledge was also opposed by opposition politicians across the city, but (future)
Culture and Sport Glasgow board member Steven Purcell couldn't help gushing:
"This is a fantastic gesture in keeping with the great tradition of benefactors working with the city to ensure Glasgow's cultural treasures are accessible and free to all.
It also shows, yet again, that we're willing to work with the private sector to develop and enhance public services.
We took our decision on the basis of making the most effective use of resources so young people could visit museums and theatres. I am very happy we can now do both."
Purcell (the leader of the council) apparently had good reason to throw caution to the wind in proffering the media an embarrassingly
obsequious tribute to the Mr P., who had only pledged (not given) the council £270,000 over two years (we didn't know it then, but Purcell was planning to hand control of
all museums to a quango controlled by rich, unelected businessmen).
Of course, the pledge came with - as it always does, and always will - certain conditions about exactly what the money could be used for and what it could not. Initially though, there appeared to be no problem with the Labour council leader accepting the money from the private property developer to ensure the continuation of core services. For his part, Mr P. was later eager to demonstrate the rigorous checks which Glasgow City Council had in place to make sure that there could never be any conflict of interest regarding private donations, or indeed the possibility of political mischief-making. Speaking in the Sunday Times following Purcell's
fawning gratification, Mr P. explained:
"I called the head of museums and said I would like to pay for this as a charitable donation, they asked whether I had any political sympathies and I told them I don't even bother to vote any more.
They said they'd take the money!"
Mr P. then went on to tell how, as a result of his pledge, he had been asked to advise on improving presentation and catering in Glasgow's museums, although he was keen to point out that he wasn't seeking remuneration.
However, by that time Mr P. had no doubt sent Purcell into a wee tizzy when he had clearly shown that, far from being free of any political sympathies, Mr P. was quite clear in his mind about the biggest political situation on the horizon, when he told The Herald:
"... I would rather my money be spent locally than used for the war in Iraq."
Purcell never again gave newspapers a comment on Mr P.'s pledge, but when The Herald revealed last month that - following Mr P.'s company going into liquidation - the council would not receive the £270,000 pledged, a council spokesman made it quite clear the degree of antipathy directed at Mr P., when he released the following widely-criticised terse comment:
"We're disappointed that Mr P. failed to honour his commitment to the people of Glasgow."
When you consider that this comment was aimed at a man who was suffering the loss of his company and very possibly a lot more, and who had so generously offered the city a huge sum to continue core services, you can see quite clearly how far removed Glasgow City Council is from the lives of ordinary - and not so ordinary - members of the public....
absolutely shameful!
gL.
A minor but interesting addendum to this story is a couple of quotes from the pledge announcement:
Trying to justify the closure of museums on a Monday, a council spokesman had said, "The decision to shut was taken because of traditionally low visitor numbers on Mondays", but when the Mr P. visited the Museum of Transport to talk about his pledge he innocently commented, "The Museum of Transport was absolutely
hoaching today. Imagine how many people would have been left disappointed if it had been closed".
There was also a prescient letter to The Herald at the time:
While acknowledging the generosity of property developer [Mr P.'s] £270,000 donation to the Friends of Glasgow in order to allow seven of Glasgow's museums and galleries to continue to open on a Monday, I must admit to having some reservations as to the adverse effect of such donations on local democracy.
The reason for the closure of such visitor attractions in the first place was a decision by the ruling Labour administration to save money in order to have a zero increase in council tax (a tax cut in real terms). Other cuts in service include the closure of two children's residential homes and a residential care home for the elderly; the meals on wheels service will stop providing freshly prepared meals and instead provide frozen meals (delivered once a week); cuts in the consumer advice service and in pest control. As a result of these cuts up to 350 jobs are under threat. It could be argued that the £270,000 might be better spent in preventing or alleviating the aforementioned cuts in service.
This is the main problem with such philanthropy (another example is the involvement of Tom Hunter in council-run schools); they are by their nature ring-fenced by the donor, therefore removing democratic accountability from the way council money is spent. The donor even mentioned himself that he was "amazed that some of the bigger firms in Scotland did not step in first".
Unfortunately, all that would be achieved by an increase in such philanthropy would be a form of privatisation by the back door, something that the council leader, Steven Purcell, appears not only to condone but actively encourage.
Such a right-wing, "Blairite" agenda is perhaps why New Labour has lost the last two council by-elections, in Kings Park and Milton, and will be further punished at the next council elections in 2007, where the only alternative is the left-of-centre SNP standing on a programme of progressive, social democratic policies.
A.B.
