British Theatre Guide Blog

The Tories, says Jeremy Hunt, shadow culture secretary, are the natural party of the arts.

There was a time, even just a year ago, such a comment, if it didn’t draw derisive laughter, would have been ignored.  Jeremy who?  The Tories - and the arts?  Come on! 

This week, however, it has been widely reported and the meeting at the House of Commons at which he made his speech was attended by many theatre and arts luminaries.  So what’s changed?  Have the Tories suddenly become honorary luvvies?  Has the arts world had a road to Damascus conversion?

Of course not.  The answer is much simpler than that.  On the first anniversary of Gordon Brown’s premiership, when Labour is beaten into fifth place in a by-election behind the Greens and the BNP, the Tories are suddenly looking like the next government.  Indeed, if there were a general election tomorrow, David Cameron would be be getting ready to move into No. 10 the day after.

So it behoves all of us in the arts world to start taking a long and hard look at what the Tories are saying about their policies on the arts, because we could well be having to deal with them in the not too distant future.

A week, it was famously said in the sixties, is a long time in politics, so things could change before the country next goes to the polls, but it seems difficult to believe that Brown and his government can raise themselves out of the abyss into which they have sunk, so it might be a good idea to start getting used to the idea that Cameron and company might be holding the purse strings.

The first question that must be on the minds of everyone in the arts world is “Can we trust them?”  The devastation to the arts caused by Margaret Thatcher and her policies still looms large in the memory but Hunt (and Cameron) tells us that they have changed.  This is a new Conservative Party, with new policies for the 21st century, and the shadow culture secretary has laid out his vision for our artistic future.

It’s bright, but it’s the brightness of the sun shining through mist: luminous and attractive, but with all the detail obscured. 

• A “renewed” ACE, but quite how renewed we don’t know (except for the Tory mantra of “efficiency savings” - the answer to every economic ill)
• A new relationship between the Ats Council and the DCMS: he does support the “arm’s length” principle, but how long is this particular arm?
• Incentives for philanthropists (how very Victorian!) to give to the arts, but quite what they are we don’t yet know: it could be this, possibly that, or even the other
• Protecting the Lottery from “raiding” by politicans for “pet projects” by Act of Parliament - now that’s pretty clear: why do I keep thinking about the Dome?
• And he wants rid of the culture of target-setting and ticking boxes.  Remind me: who was it invented Ofsted?

And then he finds the idea of direct funding for major arts organisations by the government “interesting - indeed radical” - and doesn’t rule it out.  I can’t see Nick Hytner or Michael Boyd jumping with joy at that statement.  I’m certainly not.  He who pays the piper, and all that.  But of course it’s only an idea to be considered: it hasn’t been ruled in, but then it hasn’t been ruled out either.

The phrase “smoke and mirrors” comes to mind.

But I suppose we should be encouraged that the new Conservative Party feels it needs to cosy up to the arts world after the contempt with which it treated it in the Thatcher years.

And in case you think this is a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party, think again.  Yes, the arts are better off financially under Labour, but at a cost.  Whilst no one can quarrel with the principles of access for all and inclusivity, the pursuit of artistic excellence has been sidelined (by the goverment and, therefore, ACE - arm’s-length?) in favour of  using the arts as an instrument of social engineering.  There are those who would quite approve, but they are mistaken.  The arts should not be an vehicle for delivering government policy, no matter how worthy.  That way lies propaganda, Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin and Adolf Hitler. If an individual artist or group want to use their art to put a point of view, political or social, that’s one thing: it’s quite another for a government to do it.

The question should be: can we trust any of them?  And that’s depressing.