£50 million quid for cycling?
- Thread starter Brixton Hatter
- Start date
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Well, as a keen cyclist I am really pleased Sustrans won.
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Given that alternative transport is in theory on the Government's agenda, it shouldn't need lottery funding for it. They should be providing it from central funds.
For £50m, surely the powers that be can come up with something that is:
1) Unique
2) Accessible
3) Popular
4) Innovative
5) Long-lasting
Or has the money all been spent on consultants?
In anycase, good to see that something nationwide has won.
For £50m, surely the powers that be can come up with something that is:
1) Unique
2) Accessible
3) Popular
4) Innovative
5) Long-lasting
Or has the money all been spent on consultants?
In anycase, good to see that something nationwide has won.
snowy_again
Slush
the up side is that it ticks the DCMS public consultation boxes, so they (BIG) can claim to have achieved /attained that in a year. *
Were there really only a quarter of a million votes? The local people's millions had more phone votes than that, but then I guess that comes with added local voting pride.
* The Givt alternative to this is tick boxes on lotto tickets ear marking funds to certain causes. From public consultation, the most popular causes are in the realms of Donkey Sanctuary, Cancer Research etc. topics hardly short of cash themselves.
Were there really only a quarter of a million votes? The local people's millions had more phone votes than that, but then I guess that comes with added local voting pride.
* The Givt alternative to this is tick boxes on lotto tickets ear marking funds to certain causes. From public consultation, the most popular causes are in the realms of Donkey Sanctuary, Cancer Research etc. topics hardly short of cash themselves.
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
I suppose the committees that chose the allocation of funds were pretty closed shops and this does make it a bit more transparent.
Still not sure how they got to that short list?
Even at 140million on a National scheme, its really is peanuts and will make little difference to anyone.
Still not sure how they got to that short list?
Even at 140million on a National scheme, its really is peanuts and will make little difference to anyone.
snowy_again
Slush
In the past members of the general public were on the grant committees (chosen randomly by deed poll, but then interviewed, which evidently carries an element of bias), so there has been some level of public involvement. i'm not sure if that still happens today. The other seats on those committees are "open", in the fact that thye're advertised and people apply to be on them.
People's Millions was two stage application process - any charity / vol org / SE / LA etc was able to apply with an outline project and these were assessed to work out the more feasible ones. A shortlist is then given time (and £) to work up the full bid.
Some add their own considerable financial clout to the marketing - Eden was employing people to hand out flyers in Bath last weekend apparently, as well as through press.
I'm not overwehlemed by the process, but it does mean that there's not tick boxes on the back of tickets (which is clearly a bug bear of mine).
People's Millions was two stage application process - any charity / vol org / SE / LA etc was able to apply with an outline project and these were assessed to work out the more feasible ones. A shortlist is then given time (and £) to work up the full bid.
Some add their own considerable financial clout to the marketing - Eden was employing people to hand out flyers in Bath last weekend apparently, as well as through press.
I'm not overwehlemed by the process, but it does mean that there's not tick boxes on the back of tickets (which is clearly a bug bear of mine).
snowy_again
Slush
jusali said:Be thankful Labour haven't got their hands on it then!
Well indeed. Despite the lottery being a Tory beast, the blairite nature of lots of it is quite obscene.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
Poor Sherwood forest 
eta: although a lot of the money was going to go on building an utter monstrosity of a visitor's centre and not on actually replanting the forest.
eta: although a lot of the money was going to go on building an utter monstrosity of a visitor's centre and not on actually replanting the forest.
snowy_again
Slush
Sunray said:
It wasn't so much the in the grant making, but the desperate attempts at career progressions people were doing to ingratiate themselves into the rising New Labour at the time. Buying season tickets at certain football (unsuccessful) clubs knowing that influential mandarins were sat in certain rows for example, when they blatantly had no interest in a pie and a hot bovril at half time. That's hardly an interesting anecdote, but the rest I have are too incriminatory to post here - the lottery sector being small and incestuous.
I'd support about 99% of the grants the Community Fund made (the predecessor to BIG), as the voluntary sector did set the agenda on how demand led grant making worked and what the priorities within the grant making were. As a funder it was good at making access to funding more equitable, more transparent, a lot more equitable and tended to avoid the Jasper type allegations going on currently as the audit trail was publicly available.
There are a couple of interesting and ultra vires grants to organisations working with failed asylum seekers, which tipped the balance and that's when the Home Office knives came out and Community Fund was no more... but that's another story and more one for Private Eye.
I did visit one capital project for a regulatory five year visit to find that the charity had wound it up and were happily living in it as their family home...
