London: Still a cut above the rest

From circus acts to museums and library projects, the Arts Council England’s (ACE) funding affects people all over the UK. Following the release of the much anticipated ACE funding decisions on July 1^st last week, there has been uproar around the UK with the same story we’ve been hearing for a number of years: not enough money to go around. The North East have been most disappointed as the area hit hardest with the least funding. It is a great shame, but fact is that geographical location can very much limit your involvement and opportunities within the arts.

The main issue raised among organisations who applied for funding, successful or not, was that the funding outside of London was increased by a very small amount. In fact it was only raised by 2% keeping the arts industry concentrated in a small area of the UK. As many people view London as the cultural capital of the UK, they are quick to jump to conclusions and blame London for inhibiting other regions from receiving a bigger increase in funding, limiting regional funding throughout the rest of the country. However Peter Bazalgette, head of the ACE, blames the funding crisis on cuts to local authority budgets rather than the assumed over funding in London.

Arts funding is only 0.05% of the Government’s annual expenditure, a far cry from the 17% spent on welfare, or 20% spent on pensions. Although these do rank higher in terms of importance and urgency, we must consider how little the arts sector receive in comparison, which demonstrates how arts is being pushed aside as a partially irrelevant matter. With only £340 million a year, the ACE must attempt to fund 670 Arts groups, and although less than the 703 funded last year, many projects still end up with a disappointing final sum or nothing at all.

The National Lottery has increased its funding year on year and has allowed the number of organisations that have received funding to almost double. It is then even more shocking that the Government’s direct budget is in fact only willing to fund under 400 arts organisations, meaning that the over 200 organisations are not even supported by the Government.

The arts offer so much to society as Joanna Reid, executive director of Coventry’s Belgrade Theatre, expressed. She said that it ‘gives such a massive economic and social return to communities throughout the country that continuing to cut arts and culture… makes no sense.’ I engage completely with Reid’s statement. Arts is defining of our culture, and our culture ultimately represents our society, allowing us to socialise and relax as well as making crucial socio-political  arguments in a form that is accessible to many people. These are some of just the reasons why the lack of arts funding should not and cannot be ignored.

Considering the minimal size of the arts budget, it can stretch quite some way for a select number of organisations, yet others feel the brunt of the cuts and fall short year on year. For example one of the top 5 recipients of ACE funding, the English National Opera, was hit by a cut of 29%. Whereas museums were put in the spotlighting for the coming year with an increased total of £22 million being invested, with the addition of a further £13 million for strategic development of these museums, whose heritage are so vital to the preservation of our culture.

It is difficult for the ACE to guarantee a certain level of funding to organisations as their own budget granted by the Department of culture, media and sport is uncertain. ACE have guaranteed funding for three years for the chosen organisations, but cannot say if the grant they receive annually will stay the same or decrease. It seems many things are out of the ACE’s control and more needs to be done to assert the importance, authority and respect that the arts, which is so heavily under threat, deserves.

We have long passed the time where spending was predictable and stable in any aspect of government finance. Original intentions can change, just as the ACE’s original 2014 budget did, decreasing by 12%. This puts the arts in the firing line and its future is at great risk in a time of economic uncertainty, where it is rarely seen as a priority.