Further reflections on the funeral

[An_Inspector_Calls]

May I therefore respectfully suggest that you re-read RB's posts on this, more carefully and less selectively? They are not, after all, hard to understand.

May I suggest that you read my posts with a little more care as well before making such offensive claims?

RB has in large measure focussed on the appointment of Bazalgette. One man, in one organization does not prove institutional bias against the arts. Nor does it demonstrate to me any malevolent intent from the government towards arts funding, especially since the appointment is so recent. He has not proved that total funding for the arts has fallen (albeit, I suspect it might well have done, due to the economy) because lottery funding is set to increase by an amount that will match the Arts Council cut. RB complains I have no viewpoints, then spends a whole post refuting my viewpoint that I see no institutional bias!

This is hardly the place for an analysis of the present economic situation in this country but to claim that there are (comparable?) difficulties with arts funding at all times is absurd.

[Richard Barrett]

RB has in large measure focussed on the appointment of Bazalgette.

But you don't substantively address any of my other points either! I didn't think I had to "prove" that total funding for the arts has fallen, because it's pretty obvious. I've tried to justify my position with facts as far as I can muster them, but when you say you "see no institutional bias" you adduce precisely nothing in support of this view. As for these "difficult financial times", all I'll say here is that for most of the people who caused them they aren't difficult at all.

I reiterate my earlier remark that the German federal government's response to the current economic situation was to increase arts funding. I can't imagine a British government, certainly since Thatcher's, ever conceiving of such a notion. The difference here is a difference in the respective administrations' view of the benefits (ie. not primarily financial ones) which a vibrant cultural scene brings to the quality of life in a country. It isn't a question of "plots" - what else could you call it but what aeolium has called "governmental philistinism"?

[Serial_Apologist]

The difference here is a difference in the respective administrations' view of the benefits (ie. not primarily financial ones) which a vibrant cultural scene brings to the quality of life in a country.

Not to mention benefits in terms of national profile and exporting possibilities, given that we're forced to see all this in these terms.

[ahinton]

May I suggest that you read my posts with a little more care as well before making such offensive claims?

What "claims" are these? - and in what way are they "offensive"?

RB has in large measure focussed on the appointment of Bazalgette.

I've already answered that by countering your assertion, as indeed has RB himself.

One man, in one organization does not prove institutional bias against the arts.

But no one has said that it does!

Nor does it demonstrate to me any malevolent intent from the government towards arts funding, especially since the appointment is so recent.

Again, no one has claimed that it necessarily does, in and of itself (however questionable the appropriateness of the appointment) but, given that the very "malevolent intent" to which you refer had become endemic long before the appointment of Mr Endemol, that seems to me to be as unsurprising as it is irrelevant.

He has not proved that total funding for the arts has fallen (albeit, I suspect it might well have done, due to the economy) because lottery funding is set to increase by an amount that will match the Arts Council cut.

Do you have figures and other corroborative evidence in support of your apparent claim that lottery funding increases will more than cover the cuts in ACE and A&B budgets and enable at least what would have been enabled had implementation of those cuts not been announced?

This is hardly the place for an analysis of the present economic situation in this country but to claim that there are (comparable?) difficulties with arts funding at all times is absurd.

Perhaps it isn't, but I had thought that RB's point was that, however problematic British arts funding might have been in the past, it's gotten a whole lot worse since during and since the Thatcher years.

[ahinton]

Not to mention benefits in terms of national profile and exporting possibilities, given that we're forced to see all this in these terms.

Indeed - and there's nothing wrong with seeing all this in such terms insofar as it goes, provided that these are not the only or the primary terms in which it's seen.

That said, it might be argued that the last 40+ yeas of British government arts funding history is a quite large enough topic to warrant a new thread rather than remaining stuck in this one that's supposed largely to be about people's reflections on yesterday's Clementine / Pauline event; does anyone agree? If so, perhaps such a thread could be started, especially as it might well prove to be of more interest to members of this forum than said event.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Do you have figures and other corroborative evidence in support of your apparent claim that lottery funding increases will more than cover the cuts in ACE and A&B budgets and enable at least what would have been enabled had implementation of those cuts not been announced?

Yes, the figures are buried in previous posts. 30 % cut in ACE, 30 % rise in lottery.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

But you don't substantively address any of my other points either! I didn't think I had to "prove" that total funding for the arts has fallen, because it's pretty obvious. I've tried to justify my position with facts as far as I can muster them, but when you say you "see no institutional bias" you adduce precisely nothing in support of this view. As for these "difficult financial times", all I'll say here is that for most of the people who caused them they aren't difficult at all.

When I've said I see no institutional bias I'm referring to the data you provide which seems always to focus on ACE funding; that is insufficient data . And you never address your main claim as to number and scale of performances, but always attempt to shift the discussion to other ground. We ignored performance numbers, moved to ACE funding, then the appointment of Bazalgette (or was the order the other way round?).

[Richard Barrett]

And you never address your main claim as to number and scale of performances, but always attempt to shift the discussion to other ground.

My "main claim" is that decreasing funding for music and the other arts since the Thatcher years is a reality and has resulted in a decline in activity.

I have drawn attention to the cuts made during Thatcher's time and the current round of cuts being made by Cameron. I've also mentioned that these cuts have resulted in the disappearance of many arts companies up and down the country, especially outside London. Here you can download Fin Kennedy and Helen Campbell Pickford's report on the present state of theatre in the UK, conceived in response to remarks from Ed Vaizey (with whom you'd presumably agree) that funding cute are having "no effect" on the number and quality of performances. This document, which makes very depressing reading, was recommended to Vaizey in an open letter signed by sixty-odd leading figures in British theatre, which can be read here together with Vaizey's non-answer. I don't know whether a similar survey has been carried out for music but I am assuming that the situation is not dissimilar. I have explained why I mention ACE funding and why I think the appointment of Bazalgette is significant.

Regarding the National Lottery: Section 12 of the Lottery Act (2006) states that "proceeds of the National Lottery should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to made available by (...) a Government department [or its equivalent in the devolved administrations]." The principle is that the government's funding decisions should not be influenced by the lottery's contributions, which according to an ACE spokesperson are "to fund something additional, not to fund core running costs of organisations." In other words it is explicitly part of the Lottery's brief that it isn't there to make up for a shortfall in government funding. Moreover I don't think the figure of a 30% increase in lottery funding has much basis in reality. The increase in lottery spending on the arts is due to increase by £55m in real terms between 2010/11 and 2014/15, while ACE funding is due to decrease in real terms over that same period by £137 million. (fullfact.org)

If that isn't enough for you, and I'm sure it won't be, I shall just say I am too busy trying to earn my living as a musician to pander to someone whose responses show no equivalent commitment to marshalling facts.

[vinteuil]

[ I've opened a separate thread to discuss Arts Funding, in case interested observers don't think to look for it under this Funeral thread... ]

[Richard Barrett]

Thanks Vinteuil, but I don't think this one is getting anywhere...!

[Flosshilde]

I don't believe you have any proof of nepotism at work here;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-mark-thatcher-affair-arms-deal-triumph-for-batting-for-britain-steve-boggan-examines-the-history-of-the-biggest-weapons-agreement-ever-struck-between-two-countries-1441987.html

[An_Inspector_Calls]

RB
Since we're at last establishing new main claims, mine would be that there is no evidence of a fall in number of MUSIC performances since the 70s, counter to your original first point to me.

Your references to fall-off in theatre going has been mentioned before and I have replied to that point previously; there's no new ground there.

The fullfact.org paper gives us the data which indicates a shortfall of 5 % in real terms between the sum of ACE and lottery money. Sad that it's a fall, not surprising given the circumstances, but all the same, not very large. There's a valiant attempt with creative accounting to make it appear worse which fails to convince me (and I'm quite capable of handling compound inflation calculations). Still nothing on projections of corporate funding, or funding from the BBC. I don't see a crisis here (a difficult patch, perhaps), nor do I see institutional bias against the arts.

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1441987.html

[Ian Thumwood]

Even if this is said in a tongue-in-cheek, post-modernist, ironic sense, it's still completely unacceptable.

Flosshilde

Don't understand how you can be offended by my comment as given the recent record of that political party even if you are of a sandals & sock-wearing persuassion. It's a pretty opaque statement and could infer all sorts of permutations, many of which, I woud suggest, are probably pretty relevany considering the recent news post-Saville.

It's perfectly acceptable to be ironic or "post-modern" and I see no reason why the invectic can't be turned upon our beardy chums in the Liberal Party as it has, quite correctly, been directed at Margaret Thatcher. I assume by your comment that you are probably a school teacher.

Never mind - no pleasing some sorts!!!

Cheers

Ian

[jayne lee wilson]

Flosshilde

Don't understand how you can be offended by my comment as given the recent record of that political party even if you are of a sandals & sock-wearing persuassion. It's a pretty opaque statement and could infer all sorts of permutations, many of which, I woud suggest, are probably pretty relevany considering the recent news post-Saville.

It's perfectly acceptable to be ironic or "post-modern" and I see no reason why the invectic can't be turned upon our beardy chums in the Liberal Party as it has, quite correctly, been directed at Margaret Thatcher. I assume by your comment that you are probably a school teacher.

Never mind - no pleasing some sorts!!!

Cheers

Ian

It's the use of the word "deviant" Ian, which IS unacceptable. Care to define what categories of humankind you'd include under that term? Slightly uncomfortable exercise...

JLW, a proud and raving deviant!