She says that criticising the RHS is like 'hitting an aunty' and arguing that we as gardeners, benefit very much from the RHS 'advisory service and the plants and from the opportunity to go to the fantastic flower shows'.
Lady C then refuses to blame the RHS for the falling support for the Chelsea Flower Show but points her finger directly at the 'type' of clientèle that the show attracts and refers to the paying public, not as gardeners but, 'shufflers'.
She goes onto say that Chelsea's show problems are nothing to do with the RHS; apparently the shows demise is a 'social' problem and that visitors have turned the show into a 'spectacle'.
What planet exactly is this women on? The RHS have turned Chelsea into this 'spectacle' - If the RHS cannot use its vast resources to track social changes and provide an up to date show that caters for the gardener of today, then it deserves for the show to fail.
These 'shufflers' as Lady Skelmersdale calls them, are more than likely some of her clients and without them, Broadleigh Gardens couldn't survive - where does she think her mail order clients live - all in stately homes?
The RHS are too close to the BBC. Less 'sexed up' coverage of Chelsea would result in more visitors. Put gardening - not 'celebrity' - back on the agenda and the format might just work once again.
It's profit that is driving these businesses now and not demographics or audience's desires. The BBC have absolutely gutted Gardeners' World to such an extent, it has become an embarrassment, except, apparently, the BBC themselves.
Lady C also jumps in to defend departing chief executive, Inga Grimsey. 'The criticism about the cuts is unfair. People don't seem to realise (Inga) increased staff by 10 per cent, so it is not a cut at all, really.'
Let's add another spin - increasing staff into a devastating recession wasn't the right thing to do (where was the money and the market coming from) so she [Grimsey] was left with little choice but to make good what I could easily describe as an ill-timed and ill-advised decision.
Marvellous stuff, Phil, this gave me a really good chuckle.
Never mind "shufflers", you'll all be welcome at The hard Landscaping Show!
I particular like the concept of blaming the visitors for the show content, I think lady S. has a big future in Event PR!
Posted by: Steven Callaghan | Sep 28, 2009 at 03:31 PM
It should be noted that Inga's 10 per cent increase in staff consisted almost exclusively of new 'managers' at Vincent Square, all of whom are being paid much higher salaries than the horticulturists who are now facing the chop at Wisley et al. How in God's name can Lady C say that this doesn't equate to a cut? She needs to look beyond the numbers.
I haven't read the HW piece but from the above it seems that Christine Skelmersdale's views typify those held by those in the 'upper echelons' of the RHS – that modern society has gone to the dogs and that we're all damned lucky that we've got them to help give us some inspiration for our gardens. I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of wake-up call the RHS is going to get early next year when it realises how many more exhibitors have pulled out of Chelsea.
One final bit! I was interested to see a statement from the RHS in the 26 Sept issue of Amateur Gardening in response the Unite union's criticism of the planned job cuts. Here are the highlights: "The RHS is financially sound... we are forecasting a healthy surplus this year… so far this year we have seen record numbers of visitors to our gardens… while we are achieving some excellent results, the restructure is essential to our ongoing success, and the RHS remains committed to its strategy and change programme."
Funny how the RHS is beginning to sound like our greedy bankers.
Posted by: Kate Luff | Sep 29, 2009 at 12:49 PM