Forum Topic

Stonehenge Visitor Centre

The co-allition's cuts frenzy reached a new pitch today with a whole raft of job creation and other schemes axed. Oddly free swimming for the under 16's and over 60's was added on.Less important than most in job terms but of real sadness to me was the scrapping of £4m funding for a new visitor centre at Stonehenge.Stonehenge is a must see for hordes of foreign tourists, coachloads visit every day. I took some Canadian relatives there 3 years ago and they were in awe...There have been arguments for years about re-routing adjacent roads and improving the currently awful visitor facilities. Some sort of concensus had been reached with a new visitor centre remote from the stones and new access arrangements explaining the wider setting. I presume this is now dumped.How many more bad decisions will flow from this lot who appear not to have learnt from the great depression and John Milton Keynes.Iain

Iain Muir ● 5937d9 Comments

"How many more bad decisions will flow from this lot who appear not to have learnt from the great depression and John Milton Keynes."John Milton Keynes?  Wasn't he the guy who took greatly-depressed unemployed people and set them to work building loads of roundabouts in Bletchley?  The town was renamed in his honour.  Or perhaps not ...:-)Talking of bad decisions, don't forget the millions thrown at various nice-to-have projects including Stonehenge last October by the previous government, spending money they didn't have.  You mention £4M, but I've seen £10M, £17M and £25M mentioned.  Most reports say it was a £10M contribution to a £25M project.

Richard Jennings ● 5937d

RichardBletchley is still called Bletchley and Milton Keynes is named after an ancient village of Milton Keynes, within the boundaries of the new town of milton keynes. Nothing to do with JM Keynes, although I appreciate you were joking.The argument the government is spending money it doesn't have could be applied to all government spendingI agree with Iain. Stonehenge is a really important national treasure. It attracts a tremendous number of visitors and deserves a better visitor centre. Personally I would pay the £10m contribution towards it and cut the £95 billion cost of trident plus £34 billion cost of a high speed rail link which will ruin the Chilterns. But the ConDems are mad and bad

Peter Todd ● 5937d

Oops...... my apologies, John Maynard Keynes, not to be confused with a small village.......As to spending money we don'thave, I thought that was the whole point!

Iain Muir ● 5937d

... and surely this would be a serious money-spinner? I remember the days when we were allowed to walk amongst the stones. Not very PC now I suppose but that sense of being so close to our ancestors... now feels like a real privilege.It does of course beg the question why those who are paid to make these decision never got off their backsides to do so before. I suspect the combined cost of salaries and consultants outstrips the project cost!

Len Worrall ● 5936d

I missed our art school trip to Stonehenge because I was ill, then on the BBC TV news that night saw my 16 yr old friend marching in druid costume amongst the stones! She'd been roped in for the cameras. I think she might even have been interviewed as a druid :-)

Becky Bell ● 5936d

I went about two weeks ago to see Stonehenge and had a lovely time, the weather was on our side. For lunch we headed back to salisbury so although perhaps it would be nice to have a brand spanking new visitor centre, would this mean less tourists visiting local towns for refreshments? I don't know the answer!With the budget deficit as bad as it is though, I see no other option but cuts. And there will always be unhappiness about the projects being shelved or cancelled! I only just applied for the 'number' needed to get free kids swimming, oh well!

Shao-Ying Ben-Nathan ● 5936d

Mothball Crossrail and there'll be no need to cut many more worthwhile projects across the country.

Chris Veasey ● 5936d

Or trident or unwinnable wars for that matter...

Sara Nathan ● 5936d

Or even better, AND rather than 'or'!

Chris Veasey ● 5936d