The importance of the DCMS and its shadows in the opposition parties is ever-growing: recent initiatives in the creative industries and the increasing realisation of their importance to the economy has seen radical, though gradual change. Only a couple of decades ago, the heritage ministry was outside the cabinet, and was generally given as a plum to a grandee on the verge of retirement. “You never got Trade and Industry, old boy, but at least we’re giving you free tickets to the Opera and a box at Wimbledon.” Now the culture portfolio is heaving with keen, dynamic and relatively young politicians who may actually see the DCMS as a step towards Trade and Industry – or, as it’s now known, the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (and which one sounds more fun?). They still get the free tickets, but they have to work harder for them. Andy Burnham and Margaret Hodge are currently in post for Labour, but Jeremy Hunt (the Shadow Culture Secretary) and Ed Vaizey (the Shadow Arts Minister, who turned 40 last week) are snapping at their heels. The Triumph of Boris has no doubt allowed them to dream of power coming sooner rather than later, and they are clearly stepping up their efforts (p3). In the new world of creativity politics, it is not surprising that they have much of interest to say, but the arts sector will no doubt feel that they have to check their facts if they want to be taken seriously. We know that the Tories have at least one excellent arts researcher on their books, but Jeremy Hunt’s attack on the Lottery distributors sprays the target with the same lack of discrimination shown by the ageing Rambo in the paddy fields of Myanmar. Accusing Arts Council England of mis-spending Lottery money on press officers, staff costs and National Health projects shows a major lack of understanding of how the funding of our very own quango works, never mind what it actually does. A little digging would have revealed, for example, that the Arts in Health scheme was nothing to do with statutory NHS provision. Better inside knowledge of the system is required before a loosely written report (‘Labour’s Lottery “Good Causes”’) turns into a loose cannon.
Catherine Rose, Editor