Arts Council England’s new budget leaves London arts institutions fighting for funding

This past week, the British Arts Council revealed their controversial budget for the coming year, which will remove funding from London art organizations in order to support suburban areas. 

‍

The basis for this shift has been in the works over the past year. The previous culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, who stepped down from the position this past September, had initiated the “Levelling Up” program, which seeks to bring suburban areas up to the cultural standards set by London. After taking on the role of culture secretary in November of 2021, Dorries described this plan in an interview with BBC: “Everything we do in the department, every policy, every decision we take, has a filter laid over that decision, and that is, does this policy help those from socially deprived areas, to access both arts and culture and sport?”

It is under this “filter” that the new budget was developed. Dorries was able to increase the overall Art Council funding by $50 million. This, in addition to $36.8 million cut from London’s funds, will all be going into suburban arts and cultural institutions.  

‍

As a means to decentralize London in the arts scene, the Council also will push institutions to move from the city. The English National Opera, for example, was given an ultimatum: lose all government funding, or move from London to Manchester. Even if the ENO agrees to this, they will still only receive $17 million over the next three years from the Art Council rather than their usual annual $14 million. The additional decrease in funds to other London opera groups has led journalists, opera fans, and actors to describe the Arts Council’s decision as declaring a “war on opera.”

‍

While the decision has received widespread opposition throughout London, outside of the city this reallocation is a much needed show of support from a government that had been previously negligent. The Council will fund 276 new institutions across 78 towns and cities, bringing the total number of arts and cultural organizations receiving government support up to 950. 

For smaller towns, this is an incredible development. North Lincolnshire, a small borough historically overlooked in terms of funding, was thrilled to receive their million-dollar grant from the Arts Council. Rob Waltham, leader of the North Lincolnshire Council, expressed their gratitude:

“Hosting more world class exhibitions will be a massive boost to the local economy and enable us to showcase North Lincolnshire as a visitor destination…The cash will be used to help our fantastic cultural offer reach even more residents.”

The Council is additionally prioritizing marginalized communities in the art world with this new budget. “Unlimited,” a Yorkshire organization that funds and supports disabled artists, also received $1 million from the council. The director Jo Verrent told the Yorkshire Post “I can’t say the extraordinary amount without catching my breath. It’s amazing, it’s a surprise, we are delighted, but it’s not just for us, most of it will go to the disabled artists we commission.”

With these stories in mind it is difficult to paint the Arts Council as the enemy. But what the Council has done, however, is create a culture war, pitting the rural and the urban against each other. Many have pointed out that “Levelling up” is no longer an apt term for the project, for while it is working for rural areas, this is only at the cost of London having been “Levelled down.”

The current head of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications, and Theatre Union (Bectu), Philippa Childs, addressed this in her response to the Art Council’s announcement: 

“While we always welcome genuine investment in creative economies across the country, these short-sighted decisions are instead robbing Peter to pay Paul. Increasing regional access to arts and culture should not come at a devastating cost to the nationally significant institutions that London is home to, creating anxiety for their employees and for the thousands of freelancers who rely on them for work.”

‍

It is undeniable that good will come from the investment in small towns and cities. But at a time where art is more valuable than ever as a cultural force and more vulnerable than ever in a post-pandemic economy on the edge of a recession, taking away funds from any art institution is a grievous mistake. Many of these institutions are still reeling from a three year-long mass decrease in admissions, and have already had to lay off numerous employees. “These cuts could not have come at a worse time” London mayor Sadiq Khan noted. “Arts organizations already face a triple whammy of spiraling operating costs, soaring energy bills, and the impact of both the pandemic and the cost of living crisis on audience figures.” 

‍

As London organizations continue to push against the decision, the Arts Council has shown no intention to revise their verdict. While the increasing diversity of government-funded institutions should certainly be celebrated, without another dramatic increase in the budget it is safe to say that the London art scene has a tough road ahead.

‍