Nothing left to cut

If Osborne misses his new target, there really is nothing left to cut

Hmm, from the same newspaper:

The British Film Institute (BFI) is to lose £1.3m of its government funding over the next four years, it has been announced in the 2015 Autumn statement and spending review.

The BFI – which is the UK’s lead agency for film and is responsible for funding film production, as well as maintaining the national film archive, a network of cinemas including the BFI Southbank, and film education programmes – will have its grant-in-aid payment reduced by 8%. This is on top of a 10% reduction for the current 2015/16 financial year.

Looks like there’s still more that can be cut to me.

6 thoughts on “Nothing left to cut”

  1. “responsible for funding film production, as well as maintaining the national film archive, a network of cinemas including the BFI Southbank, and film education programmes”: only the archive is conceivably a legit claim on the taxpayer. Scrap the rest. The see whether you can privatise the archive.

  2. DearieMe – “Only the archive is conceivably a legit claim on the taxpayer.” The cost of maintaining the archive, generally reckoned to be the largest in the world, is around £16 million a year. The annual Grant in Aid to the BFI (i.e. the direct cost to the taxpayer) is around £20 million. So the net annual cost of the BFI to the taxpayer is around £4 million. By way of comparison, the net annual cost to the taxpayer of British Library is well over £90 million. But maybe you think that should be sold off, too.

    Diogenes: The actual archive is not funded by the Getty family, effectively or otherwise, but is funded by a grant from the Government (see above). The associated Film Conservation Centre, which specialises in restoring and conserving film and tape materials primarily on behalf of the National Archive, was, however, originally established by the benefaction of J. Paul Getty Junior, after whom it’s named. Its continuing costs are borne by the BFI.

    Boring stuff, eh? But, hey, why let the facts get in the way.

  3. Could the taxpayer apply pressure to sell BFI Southbank to a property developer and move the archive to somewhere properly affordable like Redcar, where the running costs would be say £8 million a year, and where more than two-thirds of the locals are British.
    We apply LHA rates to encourage people who are state dependent to move to affordable places, so why not museums and archives.

  4. @Andrew Carey:

    The BFI can’t sell its current SouthBank premises to a property developer for the simple reason that it’s not the owner of the site.

    The mass of the archive is stored in a purpose built facility in Gaydon, Warwichshire, on the site of a Second World War airfield. It cost £12 million to build, and was constructed around the same time as the British Library which cost £445 million. I cannot see how closing the current facility and building another one elsewhere could possibly save money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *