If you look at the figures for growth in cultural funding over the last 15 years, a 25% cut in Treasury funds still leaves the sector with considerably more funds than it had previously. Good news.
But during this period of increase in funding, there was also a huge growth in costs. The National Lottery acted as a catalyst for unprecedented growth in the arts infrastructure. The subsidised sector grew hugely with many new organisations in new buildings. Many organisations also grew massively and have wonderful new buildings that cost an awful lot more to run (not least because utility bills have gone through the roof). This infrastructure growth is great for the arts and the public when there is an increase in public revenue funding to support this it. It’s less good news when you're facing cuts of 25% or more.
So isn't it obvious that all this Lottery-fed growth of the sector should now mean that any increased share of Lottery proceeds for the arts should be used to plug the gap in Treasury funding? I don't think it's that simple.
We argue in our manifesto that Lottery funding should have at least the same benefit for Lottery players as the rest of the country. Currently the principally less wealthy demographic that play the Lottery support arts provision that is principally enjoyed by a wealthier demographic that doesn't play. Is this right? If there is a (small) Lottery windfall for the arts, should it not be used to redress 15 years of imbalance and focus on activities that reach all communities, particularly those most likely to be buying Lottery tickets?
David Brownlee, Audiences UK
Comments
An interesting view. If the Arts Council are to receive an increase of Lottery good cause money going up to 20% as well as an increase in Lottery money after the 2012 Olympics then in theory there will be a significant boost, subject to Lottery ticket sales holding up over that time. However, will the Exchequer cuts be significantly more than the Lottery increase?
Does the argument still stand that too much arts Lottery money goes to Royal Opera House for example, compared with community arts. Certainly my experience has been for more and smaller awards and a focus on local community rather than the large national projects which as you imply can be elitist.
So as you say the picture is far from simple and there needs to be proper debate with people having the facts and trend in front of them.
The one positive aspect from austere times is the wonderful creativity that the situation seems to elicit in groups and communities to make the most of what they have. After all charities and community groups have always had to make the most of their resources.
______________________
As I understand it Mick, if Lottery sales held up the extra to be distributed to the arts in England would be substantial over time, but still less than 10% of ACE's current annual Treasury grant. With 25% cuts being talked about, this would fill part of the hole but certainly not all of it.
Absolutely - all we are saying is let's look at all the facts and have a rational debate rather than just assume that Lottery player's money should replace what's come from the Treasury.
David
Comment feed (What are feeds?)