If we’re to have bread and circuses – we’ll need some acrobats!

Yesterday two things struck me – as they do sometimes.

The Riverside Studios in Hammersmith and the Derby and Exeter theatres were among the 206 theatre companies, galleries and arts venues who learned yesterday their government grants would dry up in 2012.

Others had their budgets significantly reduced, with the critically acclaimed Almeida Theatre Company in Islington, north London seeing their grant cut from £1 million this year to £700,000 in 2015 – a real terms drop of 39 per cent.

This was amongst announcements about funding from the Arts Council as part of an overall reduction (to £957 million) of 15% in grants to nationally-funded bodies.

At the same time I read this:

“Health experts are trying to see a shift in public eating habits which could add to improved general health. ASK is a unique Greater Manchester initiative to reduce the amount of salt added to food.

“Participating businesses display the ASK logo in their windows and use cards on tables to demonstrate their support. Most food cafes and restaurants already season their food adequately. For customers, reaching for salt has become a habit rather than it being a necessity.”

Now leaving aside the fact that salt does not cause hypertension (it is a risk factor for people who already have hypertension), this encapsulates the priorities of government to me. There may be a case for reducing funding of pleasure, animation and fun in a time of austerity but I am deeply offended when, at the same time as theatres close, art galleries reduce their hours and dance troops fold, we are spending money on scaring people about health risks.

On the back of other attacks on our simple pleasures – fags, booze, red meat, bacon – this speaks to me of a society obsessed with survival at the expense of pleasure. A place where the little tin gods of the medical profession suck up ever larger sums of other peoples’ cash to berate us with their “healthy living” obsessions.

All this while festivals go unfunded, arts groups fold and films aren’t made. A dour, dreary place filled with safety lectures, health concerns and a dread fear of anything that might seem a little untidy.

So here’s a little suggestion – let’s take all the cash we spend on nannying fussbucketry and spend it on having some fun! On plays, paintings, music, country walks, food festivals, markets – on animation and excitement. Surely that would do more to for mental health, for happiness and for health that all these dreary lectures from doctors and their pals.

After all, if we’re to have bread and circuses – we’ll need some acrobats!

....

Some thoughts about arts funding and football

The “cuts” debate has – perhaps unsurprisingly – brought about an agonised response from the arts establishment, the Theatres Trust and an eclectic collection of the cultural great and good who say:

“…to “cut us but don’t kill us,” warning that if belt-tightening was drastic and immediate, museums would cancel blockbuster shows, theaters would go dark, and 200 of 850 state-funded bodies would lose their subsidy.”

The problem is that – unlike other sectors – the lion’s share of arts funding doesn’t go to the grass roots but to the elite establishment run by those whining about how those cuts will damage them. There is no doubt that the way in which we support the arts needs to be changed – elite art should be able to pay its own way, indeed should contribute to the development of new art, the support of emerging artists and the encouragement of audience.

Art – and especially performing art – should learn from another part of our cultural sphere:

The Football Foundation was set up as a partnership to oversee youth development and football at the grassroots. Premier League chairman Dave Richards said: "This is an exciting and important moment for English football. "We have pledged over £7m to the Foundation for the rest of this year and £27.5m each year for three years from 2001 under the terms of the new TV deal - a total investment of almost £90m.”

And that funding continues today backed up by ongoing commitment from the Football Association and the active involvement of individual clubs and players. Without a single penny of taxpayers funding football supports the development and extension of the game.

Why can’t theatre do that? Or opera?

....

How the BBC licence fee amounts to subsidising middle class hobbies

****



I return to this matter of the free rider. But this time, I am stretching the thinking a little to look at the extent to which certain groups receive far more value from the BBC licence fee than others. It has seemed to me for some while that, despite its efficiency as a tax (it is after all a near universal poll tax), the license fee presents some issues of equity.

At the heart of this is use – whether or not we get value from the license fee depends on the extent to which we make use of the BBC’s services. As I noted before with cinema popcorn and service stations, there is an implicit cross subsidy within the BBC's business model. And, as with those situations the cross subsidy is intended to ensure that some ‘free’ goods are provided. In the BBC’s case, these free goods are what is termed ‘public service’ and provision for ‘minorities’ (or rather a selected group of minorities – we have an Asian radio station but no station for gypsies, for example). And the biggest minority benefit goes to elite arts and culture.

This all seems perfectly fine until you appreciate that my friends who slump before assorted soaps, televised sport and reality TV are forced to subsidise grand opera, symphony orchestras and ‘up themselves’ late night arts discussions (and frankly such folk are more likely to be annoyed by this than they are irritated by Jonathan Ross’s package). Because of the ‘public service’ requirement (and limiting broadcast restrictions), my friends are contributing to religious programming, to earnest current affairs analyses and the development of a vast internet empire. I suspect that, given a choice, these friends would choose not to cough up for any of this stuff.

Which brings us to the free rider problem. Bluntly, middle class arty-farty types like me are getting a brilliant deal from the BBC – vast subsidies for our narrow, minority interests are achieved by transferring cash from people forced to pay for the license fee who would never pay for subsidising a ballet company. And these people will make some observations about these subsidies – like the fact that their chosen preferences either are too plebby for subsidy (not a lot of public subsidy for the Northern club circuit, I notice) or else are more than capable for paying their own way without support – the BBC aren’t subsidising rugby league, country and western or snooker.

So those of us who enjoy minority music, who want to watch a bunch of smug people pontificate about books we’ll never read or who want to watch god being bothered get this on the cheap because people who don’t want that stuff are paying the same price. And the BBC gets a further economic benefit from all this as those benefiting from this cross-subsidy (which is, generally speaking, from poor to rich) provide an articulate, media-savvy, well-connected lobby aimed at persuading the government to maintain the current poll tax. Plus, of course, reminding the poor saps being ripped off just how important the poll tax is to maintaining these vital cultural institutions.

As a result we have an ‘elite’ arts and cultural sector that is de facto nationalised (this is especially the case with music) – so dependent on continued subsidy that its leaders simply cannot envisage a sustainable model based on the idea that people pay an economic price to watch or listen. The very business model that makes London theatre profitable and allows for the continued extension of aging rock stars’ careers wouldn't work for Philip Glass or Newsnight Review.

I do not think the licence fee should be scrapped rather that a gradual reduction of its significance to the BBC is needed. The BBC’s business model should seek to monetise all those aspects of provision that are not clearly and definably a public service. Over time the license fee should whither to a small amount directed to clearly described and limited purposes – everything else should be paid for by the user, through advertising, using sponsorship or through other charges. I can think of no rational or moral case for carrying on with taking poor people’s money to subsidise rich folk’s hobbies – however much I may like those hobbies.



....