British Theatre Guide Blog

So details of the Comprehensive Spending Review have now been revealed and the Arts have fared better than expected.  We were warned that the best we could expect was an increase in line with inflation but standstill funding and even a 5% cut were suggested as possibilities.  Indeed, the general feeling was that standstill was the best we could expect and government sources were mentioning a possible 5% cut in order to make standstill funding (which is, of course, essentially a cut in real terms) seem attractive.

But no, we have an increase in line with inflation  over the next three years in the funding to the DCMS and now the culture secretary has announced that the grant in aid which the Arts Council will receive will increase, over the three year period of the CSP’s life, of 1.1% above inflation.  That’s £28m over three years.

But let’s not get too celebratory too soon.  We still have the Cultural Olympiad to pay for, which means that ACE will not have all that money to spend as they wish.  Quite properly, the department has said that free entrance to museums and galleries will be protected, so spending there will increase by at least the rate of inflation, so the amount available for theatre will not be as much as first impressions may suggest.

It is still going to be a very tough period for theatre companies.  We have yet to learn how ACE will allocate its money: will RFOs (Regularly Funded Organisations) get a full inflationary increase?  If they do, then the amount available for the Grants for the Arts scheme, which is essentially project funding, will be reduced.

It’s a tough call.  Is it more important to fund ACE’s big clients or emerging companies which are asking for a lot less money?  I’m a trustee of a RFO, so obviously I want its grant to continue at as high a level as possible, but I’m also the artistic director of a company that depends on Grants for the Arts to be able to deliver our projects.  How can I choose between them?  How can ACE choose between them?  If both deliver the goods, how can one be called more important than the other?

One thing is sure: there are going to be some theatre organisations which are unhappy, but probably fewer than we feared would be the case.

The new Culture Secretary James Purnell has set out his vision for the arts today and there is no doubt he is making all the right noises, but what is particularly encouraging is his appointment of Brian McMaster to advise the DCMS on its relationship with the arts community.  There is no one better placed than McMaster to do the job. Not only is he a council member of ACE and a very successful director of the Edinburgh International Festival, he is also very well respected in the arts world.

For the minister to say that he wants “the frank opinion of experts” is also encouraging, for there are very many - Nick Hytner springs to mind - who have strong opinions and the experience to back them up and who will be, no doubt, more than happy to share those opinions and experience with him.  One hopes that the minister will not restrict his seeking for “frank opinions” just to Brian McMaster but will take advice from a wide range of people - something that, qute frankly, his predecessor was not famous for.

What encourages me most, however, is that the new minister not only has an genuine interest in the arts but is also one of the up-and-coming members of the government.  He will be hungry for success in his new post as it will stand him in good stead as he climbs the parliamentary ladder. 

It is good, too, to see the departure of David Lammy who, quite frankly, was more interested in pushing government dogma than fighting the corner for the arts.  We haven’t had a real, genuine arts enthusiast at the DCMS since Chris Smith.

It is also a good thing that the 2012 Olympics will not be the kind of major distraction for Purnell that it was for Tessa Jowell, who seemed willing to sacrifice the arts and heritage (and even groundroots sport) before the Olympic flame.  Now she is in a non-cabinet Olympics ministerial post, she will not be in a position to have a major effect on arts spending.

We know - if course we know: how could we not? - that the forthcoming delayed Comprehensive Spending Review will be, in Purnell’s word, “tough”, but I for one feel happier that we have someone at the DCMS who seems to have more interest in the arts than treating it as just another job.  Let’s hope that he will be a more fierce fighter for the arts than she who has departed!

And in particular for the European Regional Development Fund which has funded the development of the new Studio 7 in Leeds to the tune of almost half a million.

When we hear of the desperate straits some major organisations are in because of the savings that local authorities are having to make and other funding problems, it’s great to hear that it is still possible for new arts developments to get off the ground.

 Good luck to Studio 7 and I hope that the people of Chapel Allerton and Leeds 7 enjoy their new facility.

Last week culture minister David Lammy did nothing to allay fears that the Lottery might be raided yet again to fund the Olympics.  In a Commons debate on the topic, the LibDems culture spokesman Paul Holmes asked him to confirm that there would be no more money taken from arts and heritage but the minister ignored the request.  He also ignored calls for guarantees that the arts and heritage could have first call on the money raised from the sale of Olympic assets when the Games are over.

He did say “It is true that for a limited period of about four years, some Lottery projects that might have gone ahead will have to be postponed or will be unable to go ahead.” However he denied that it “has shattered the country’s arts fabric.”

It does show what a caring, listening government we have.

Although obviously the loss of any jobs is a blow to the people concerned and to the economy in general, I doubt that there’ll be universal weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over the proposals to unite all of ACE’s support services in one place with the possible loss of twenty jobs (as we report today), instead of duplicating these services all over the country.

The saving of around £800,000 is significant: it’s a considerable sum and will be able to fund quite a number of projects and goes a little - a very little - way towards making up for the loss of the £35m which the government is stealing for the Olympics.

It also makes sense for finance, grant management, IT, human resources, office services and customer enquiries departments (all of which are affected and currently employ 160 people throughout England) to provide a central service to all local offices rather than reduplicate facilities in every region.

But it also makes me - who am, it has to be said, management-phobic - breath a small sigh of relief - assuming, of course, that the new support services department is capable of a swift response to local needs.  Proper management is necessary - of course it is, he tells himself - but a large management/admin department brings with it its own inertia and a tendency to regard its own procedures as more important than the things they are in place to support.  As, for example, in education the filling in of the correct forms is becoming more important than what happens in the class room.

£800,000?  That’s 160 small (i.e. £5,000 or less) grants for the arts projects - 17.7 projects for every one of ACE’s regional offices.

Mind you the loss of the £35m to the Olympics means the loss of 7,000 small projects, so we still need to make the government aware of our anger at the loss of all this funding.  So sign the petition now - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/lotteryolympics/ - and write to your MP!

Hands up those who are surprised that, as we report today, there will be very little money available for the so-called Cultural Olympiad, except for the mandatory ceremonies.

No one?  What a shock!

After the jubilation at London’s securing the 2012 Olympics, we have been treated to the usual govermental incompetence, half-truths and, let’s be blunt, downright lies.  The arts, heritage, sport at grassroots level are all going to suffer serious damage year on year, both before and, I suspect, after the Games, for the greater glory of… who? the politicians who see the Olympics as a way of bolstering their tarnished reputations?  Who else?

And now we hear that one of the so-called mandatory ceremonies is an evening of entertainment to welcome International Olympic Committee officials when they arrive in London - and you can bet that won’t consist of an amateur operatic company singing songs from the shows and a finger-buffet in a town hall committee room!

Sickening!

In answer to a question in the House of Commons on Monday 16th April, David Lammy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport) said, “The role of culture in (urban) regeneration has recently been strengthened by a joint agreement signed by the Department for Culture Media and Sport, the Department for Communities and Local Government and a number of non-departmental public bodies.”

Hardly the clearest of answers, to non-parliamentarians at any rate, but it is yet another governmental nod in the direction of the importance of culture.

We’re getting pretty used to them: the government is very keen on pointing out that it recognises the importance of culture and the arts, that it knows that the cultural industries are amongst the most important in the country, that culture plays an important role in the regeneration of communities, that the arts are an important ingredient in its inclusivity strategy, that artists are wonderful people and everyone in government loves them dearly.

Well, perhaps not the latter, but this is a government which makes all the right noises.  It has now brought to the fore its plans for a four year Cultural Olympiad between 2008 and the actual London Olympics in 2012.

Isn’t it exciting?

Well, no.  It would be exciting if it was prepared to put its money where its mouth is, but it’s only a week or thereabouts since we heard how the National Lottery Grants for the Arts and the regular Arts Council England grant-in-aid are to be cut - to pay for the Olympics.  Perhaps they’re going to give us some of that back - and then tell us how generous they’re being:  “Yes, we had to take some money from you to pay for the Olympics, but look at the new money you’re getting for the Cultural Olympiad.”

This government has perfected the art of renaming its various pots of money and calling them new.  Same money (but almost certainly reduced) but put in a new pot.

Do they really think we are so stupid that we can’t see what they’re doing?