John Clark wrote:

> Interesting that closing the museum is first on the list of options (the
> options aren't listed alphabetically or in order of money saved, so why is
> it first?).  Come to that, why such an odd list of possible cuts?  Is
> everything else ring-fenced?

If you look at the figures given in the survey regarding the percentage of
expenditure for the endangered services you can see that there is a sort of
omission in the calulations.

According to the survey the museum cost 129,000 p.a. to run which is 2.2%
of the council tax revenue. However this does assume that the museum is
entirely paid for by council tax and not included in the revenue from the
government which amounts to 56% of the council's total revenue.

If we include the revenue from the government in the pool for financing the
museum and other services, which I think should be the case, the percentage
the museum takes is only about 0.8%.

Why the manipulation of figures?