• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

As everyone in the sector surely knows, the Comprehensive Spending Review is looming fast. Its already becoming clear that this public funding settlement will have a serious effect on arts organisations across the UK and, for many, it will be an extremely difficult time. Easy times are never to be taken for granted of course particularly when it comes to talking the government out of its money but its fair to say that these last few months, from the Olympic mugging onwards, have been particularly hard on the art sector. So whats to be done? Shadow Arts Minister Ed Vaizey (p11) is circumspect, but thinks there may yet be brighter days ahead.
The Conservatives hope to bring the wisdom and experience of Sir John Tusa and his team to bear, and come up with ideas that trounce current Government thinking on the arts. One of those proposals may involve exploiting what many see as the huge opportunity to increase the amount of private giving to the arts. Echoing the recommendations of Sir Nicholas Goodisons 2004 report, which reviewed Treasury support for museums and galleries, Vaizey suggests that tax breaks making it easier for rich people to give directly to the arts, might be a way forward though he is honest enough to recognise that at this is simply another way of expressing public funding, as it denies the Treasury some tax income. But quite how a move towards this US-style funding model would benefit the many small arts organisations without any professional fundraising expertise the ones that constantly tread the grant-funded tightrope between solvency and insolvency is unclear. The Royal Opera House is well placed to attract high-value donations, and has recently felt the full impact of private funding with £10m from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. It may seem galling to the minnows that such organisations, which are able to raise massive private sponsorship, should continue to receive public funding at all, but by many European standards, even the ROH is hard done by from the public purse. We are told that Britain has more very wealthy people than at any point in its history. Furthermore, wealthy foreigners (like the late Paul Hamlyn) are interested in investing in our great cultural heritage. These people must be encouraged, but good words and gratitude will not be enough to tempt them. Tax breaks might.

Nick Jordan, Editor