You are here:   Art > Which Party Is Best For The Arts?

No cultural collapse: Visits to directly-funded museums like the National Gallery are rising (photo: Morio, via Flickr)

A couple of years ago an actress friend told me plainly that she voted Labour “because she was in the arts”. To her—and I suspect many like her­­—voting for any other party would be unthinkable. People in the arts vote Labour because they believe the party tends to give them money for their theatres, orchestras, films, galleries and dance troupes, whereas the wicked Tories offer only wicked Tory cuts. The supposition is that if the state doesn’t pay handsomely towards the arts there won’t be any arts—or at least as we know them—and that, as the arts are good for people, it is bad to support any party that won’t lavish money on them.

With an election imminent it is worth looking at what the main parties plan to do with our cultural life. On February 23 Ed Miliband said it was Labour’s intention “to put policy for arts and culture and creativity at the heart of the next Labour government’s mission”. Mr Miliband seems to have been concerned, and rightly so, at the fall in the number of children at primary school who learn a musical instrument and, in wider terms, of the small percentage of young people—just 8.4 per cent—who combine arts and science subjects at AS level. Mind you, it is only about a decade since a Labour Education Secretary, Charles Clarke—himself the beneficiary of a fine public school and Cambridge education—asked what the point was of Latin, seeming to imply that unless one studied something relevant to the use of computers one was wasting one’s time.

Labour boasts about trebling Arts Council funding when in power, but understandably says less about how funding had to be slashed by the present government to patch up the horrific mess Gordon Brown made of the economy. What the specifics of its policy will be we shall have to await the manifesto to discover. Last year Harriet Harman, who expects to be Culture Secretary if Labour wins the election, announced that there would be “a bold policy for the arts”—whatever that means. Chris Bryant MP, speaking on March 3 to mark the 50th anniversary of Jennie Lee’s policy to bring the arts within reach of everyone, told an audience in Birmingham that “I cannot stand before you today and promise the same doubling and trebling of budgets because we live in a different world at the moment.” He did however promise there would be “a time of love in a cold climate”—forcing the payment of the living wage to those working in the arts, ending zero hours contracts, doing more in education. He also promised an end to “artistic feast and artistic famine”, by which he meant that the arts are subsidised to the tune of £68 per head in the capital, but only £4.58 in the provinces: not a sensible comparison, given the concentration of national museums and other important institutions in London.

At least the Labour party has plenty to say on the subject. The Tories say very little, other than being judged on their record. And for all Miss Harman’s and Mr Bryant’s protestations, Labour cannot in all honesty promise to bring the gravy train out of the sidings. When, in January, the Tories accused Labour of being prepared to reverse the £83 million cuts to the Arts Council budget made as part of the deficit reduction programme, Labour flatly denied the charge—prompting its supporters in the arts world to howl with outrage.

View Full Article

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.