Surrey: Woking's Lightbox gallery receives new government funding
In total, Lightbox will receive £319,000 from the Museums Estate and Development Fund (Mend).Ms Brown said: "We are delighted to be awarded ACE Mend funding, which will allow us to carry out vital work on our landmark building that is approaching 20 years old and is now in need of urgent repair. "This funding is a real investment in the creativity and culture of Woking, enabling us to continue providing an inspiring and welcoming space for our communities and to make a difference to everyone's use and enjoyment of the Lightbox Gallery & Museum into the future. "
Under the new government plans, a new £85m fund will be created to support capital works to arts venues across the UK.Lightbox will benefit from part of the fifth round of Mend funding, worth £25m.In December 2024, Woking Borough Council announced proposals to stop subsidising the Lightbox in a bid to make £150,000 savings.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
a day ago
- Times
Why you should never rely on the state to fund your retirement
The past week brought another brutal reminder that we cannot rely on the state to look after us in retirement. The government is pressing ahead with plans to charge inheritance tax on pension savings and has opened the door to increasing the state pension age even sooner. In Britain there is a widespread, if not strange, belief that the state has a duty to provide and care for us in old age. Our free national health service and benefits system have lulled us into a false sense of security that there is some sort of Big Brother out there to help us in our hour of need. The problem is that while we are expected to plan for the long term, the rules continue to change with every prime minister, chancellor and pension/homes/health (delete as appropriate) minister at the helm. A cut here; a new tax there; even more policy reviews. Rule changes made by politicians today can in one fell swoop destroy long-term financial plans that have been carefully put in place. Take what's happened to those who piled their money into the property market as part of their retirement strategy. For years this was a smart move: landlords could deduct mortgage interest in full from rental income, there was little red tape and capital gains tax (CGT), which applies on additional homes, was not paid on inflationary gains. But that inflationary CGT relief was made less generous by Gordon Brown in 1998 and then scrapped completely in 2008 by Alistair Darling. Having to pay CGT on a property that has been owned for many years and risen considerably in value seriously reduces the amount you have left for your retirement. It also hasn't helped that the annual CGT allowance, the profit you can make without being taxed, has been reduced considerably — from £12,300 to £6,000 in April 2023 and again to £3,000 in April 2024. Figures crunched for The Sunday Times by the estate agency Hamptons showed that the typical landlord is making a loss for the first time since the financial crisis, thanks to higher interest rates and the government's tax crackdown. Owning a second property is no longer a sound retirement strategy. • Why the golden age of property investing is over And then we have the changes to the state pension. The likelihood is that pensioners in the future will get less in real terms than they do today. The pension triple lock is unsustainable and it will have to become less generous — it is a matter of when, not if. The other lever that the government is likely to pull is changing the state pension age sooner, bringing forward the increase to age 68 from the mid 2040s to the mid 2030s — the earliest it could happen because of the requirement to give ten years' notice. If you are forced to wait a few years extra before you can claim the state pension, you will either need to work longer or find tens of thousands of pounds more savings to plug the gap — the full new state pension is worth £11,973 this year. It's a lot to find and those more than a decade away from retirement may have to rethink their plans. Finally, making inheritance tax payable on pensions will also derail many families' plans. From April 2027 pensions will be added to the value of your estate for inheritance tax purposes, although they will remain exempt if left to a spouse or civil partner. • The inheritance tax raid on pensions will pile misery on grieving families But many people rely on an inheritance to fund a decent retirement. Having to potentially hand over 40 per cent of that to the taxman could result in some being unable to retire or finding it difficult to make ends meet. Changes made by short-term governments are wrecking families' long-term financial plans. It's impossible to have a savings strategy if politicians keep moving the goalposts. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves may be long gone by the time you retire, but their actions could shape your future. It's a reminder to take your own pension savings seriously — and, above all, never trust the state with your retirement. How are you changing your pension plans to ensure you have enough for retirement? Tell us in the comments below
Daily Mirror
5 days ago
- Daily Mirror
McLaren F1 chief gets his way after Red Bull complaints as FIA plans major rule change
Zak Brown has been a vocal critic of the Formula 1 system which allows for organisations to own more than one team at a time, noted as a direct attack on Red Bull by the McLaren chief The FIA is set to tighten to rules on multi-team ownership in Formula 1 from 2026. That impending change comes after McLaren Racing chief executive Zak Brown criticised the system allowing for one organisation to own multiple teams on the grid. In an open letter published in December 2023, Brown called for an outright ban on multi-team ownership. He did not mention Red Bull directly but, as the only organisation on the grid which owns two separate racing outfits, it was a clear direct attack on the energy drinks firm. "Most other major sports prohibit the ownership of two teams within the same league because of the obvious potential damage that it does to competition. It's an unhealthy situation because it impacts decisions made both on and off the track," the American wrote – an opinion shared by former F1 champion Damon Hill. "Whether it's a case of having access to more data, sharing components/personnel, or even having influence over a strategic vote, it's not in the spirit of the regulations. It's important to stand up for independence, competition and fairness. "I'd like to see changes in the regulations to ensure that in future, they stop influence spreading from one team to another through strategic alliances and especially through ownership. Formula 1 should be true to its brand, and every team - except power units - should be totally independent of each other." While Brown is unlikely to get his wish of a full ban on multi-team ownership any time soon, he will be pleased with a planned move to further limit collaboration between outfits from next year. The Race reports that the new rulebook for the 2026 season is set to include tighter restrictions on how closely teams can work together. Relationships between teams will continue to be allowed, and are vital to the health of F1 considering there are several outfits which are engine customers of others on the grid. For example, championship leaders McLaren are direct competitors of Mercedes, but also use power units supplied by the Silver Arrows. But Nikolas Tombazis, single seater director at the FIA, said: "We are working on clarifying more how teams, let's call them A- and B-teams, operate in terms of putting in provisions that stops those that have some sort of close relationship from helping each other or collaborating. "We are putting some provisions on the IT side, to make sure that IT systems are segregated, so they cannot share designs, or anything like that. And there will also be physical segregation and what details of what provisions need to be respected. "Through the years we've got involved at various times with various situations emerging, and we've frequently had to give clarifications or responses. We're trying to formalise some of these things into some regulatory structure, so teams can't play different games. We also want to satisfy the teams that don't have any affiliation, that the key teams that do have a relationship of some sort do not gain an unfair advantage."
Reuters
6 days ago
- Reuters
Canadian boycott of US spirits hurts broader alcohol sales, trade group says
July 22 (Reuters) - Canadian provinces' boycott of U.S. spirits amid a trade dispute with the United States has caused a sharp drop in sales of American imports, as well as other imported and domestic spirits across the nation, a Canadian liquor trade group said on Tuesday. Sales of U.S. spirits in Canada dropped 66.3% between March 5, when provinces announced they would stop carrying the products in retail stores, and the end of April, according to an analysis by Spirits Canada. The group, which represents Canadian manufacturers and marketers of distilled spirits, said total spirits sales in Canada fell 12.8% during the same period. "The North American spirits sector is highly interconnected, and the immediate and continued removal of all U.S. spirits products from Canadian shelves is deeply problematic for spirits producers on both sides of the border," said Cal Bricker, president and CEO of Spirits Canada. Several Canadian provinces pulled U.S. spirits from liquor stores in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's imposition of a 25% tariff on certain imports. Most recently, Trump's threat to impose a 35% tariff on Canadian goods starting August 1 has raised concerns about an escalating trade war and spurred a "Buy Canadian" movement among consumers and businesses. In early March, Jack Daniel's maker Brown-Forman Corp (BFb.N), opens new tab called the removal of American bourbon and whiskey from Canadian liquor stores worse than Canada's retaliatory tariffs and described it as a disproportionate response to Trump's levies. According to Spirits Canada, sales of U.S. spirits in Ontario, Canada's largest market for spirits, plunged 80% after the products were removed from shelves. Two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have since resumed selling U.S. spirits, the group said. The decision to pull U.S. spirits has hurt American distillers, as well as Canadian revenues, consumers and hospitality businesses, Spirits Canada added. Currently, U.S. tariffs are suspended on imports from Canada that comply with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Spirits produced in Canada fall under this trade pact.
