A philanthropic future
David Blackburn 6:43pm
There is barely a cigarette paper between Ben Bradshaw’s and Jeremy Hunt’s approaches to arts funding: it will almost certainly be cut. The Tories intend to plug the shortfall with National Lottery cash and Ben Bradshaw will fight to preserve his ‘miniscule’ budget but can give no guarantees.
The arts are integral to Britain. Their importance extends beyond the cultural sphere. The Treasury receives £5 for every £1 that it invests in the arts. And it isn’t only a competitive tax regime that attracts business to these shores; Deutsche Bank relocated to London specifically because it’s an almost unrivalled cultural and artistic hub.
This and the coming crunch has inspired Arts&Business and Alec Reed (founder of Reed Recruitment), whose launch I attended this morning, to encourage private philanthropy to protect the arts in the short term, and to propose a mixed funding model that balances public, private and corporate funds to increase arts funding without overstretching the nation’s purse in the future. The plans are radical. Private lump sums will be released only if arts institutions match the grant with their own private sources, forcing them to build a closer relationship with viewers.
Can it work? Getting hard-pressed people to donate large sums to, for instance, a local theatre will be tricky but not insurmountable. The real obstacle is the Byzantine tax system. Current legislation penalises substantial donations by UK domiciled taxpayers and the rubric of established provisions, such as Gift Aid, is so impenetrable that many cultural organisations do not use them, depriving them up to £85,000 a year. The tax system will have to be rationalised if philanthropy is to flourish.
Previous
JohnPage
March 23rd, 2010 6:54pm Report this commentthe rubric of established provisions, such as Gift Aid, is so impenetrable that many cultural organisations do not use them, which costs them up to £85,000 a year
They shouldn't get any taxpayers' money until they've made the most of their private donations.
John David Barnett
March 23rd, 2010 7:07pm Report this commentminuscule
SUSAN HILL
March 23rd, 2010 7:50pm Report this commentI`ve said it before, I will say it again. Other than some support for major orchestras, especially touring ones, and for major galleries, there is absolutely no justification for ANY funding for the arts. Abolish the Arts Council and all the Regional offices non-jobs and all props and stays to people who squander the money self-indulgently. If they can't make it pay, they should close.
TomTom
March 23rd, 2010 8:10pm Report this commentDeutsche Bank relocated its asset management business to London because it bought Morgan Grenfell - it is that simple - it's HQ is still in the twin towers in Frankfurt
Noa Zrk
March 23rd, 2010 8:40pm Report this commentThe Treasury receives £5 for every £1 that it invests in the arts"
Ahhhhhh, if only...I had £5 for every unmade bed created by the young Zrk females.
Susan Hill - absolutely. An art quango is still a quango.
Jean Monnet
March 23rd, 2010 9:41pm Report this comment"The Treasury receives £5 for every £1 that it invests in the arts." Whose figures are these?
And it's "minuscule".
Tom Pride
March 23rd, 2010 10:33pm Report this commentSomething here does not gel. Suppose current State spend on football is £nil and the Treasury take from football is £2 billion (a guess for illustrative purposes). Then next year a grant of £100 million is made. That would be £20 received for every £1 spent, clearly justifying the £100 million "investment" (all other variables conveniently ignored).
Where did this £5 for every £1 spent on The Arts come from? Ben Bradshaw on the Daily Politics this morning? An "evidence based" source or a shroud being waved?
Parliamentary Art Funding debates â“ the minister declares some magnificent sum to be 'invested'; the shadow minister declares the sum to be inadequate. (Normally they are both Old Etonians.) But, the cuts have to be made, and with Health, Education and Overseas Aid ring fenced, that means at least 20% off the Arts budget.
Rescomania
March 23rd, 2010 11:02pm Report this comment"The Treasury receives £5 for every £1 that it invests in the arts."
Source? These figures smell funny to me.
"Deutsche Bank relocated to London specifically because it’s an almost unrivalled cultural and artistic hub"
Ha ha ha. I work with commercial organisations the world over. The culture and artistic considerations are, way, way down the list. It would have been a financial decision.
Are you sure that this is not a Labour press release?
TomTom
March 24th, 2010 7:23am Report this commentGetting hard-pressed people to donate large sums to, for instance, a local theatre will be tricky but not insurmountable.
Use the BBC TV Tax - it certainly isn't being used for programme making. And sell off Channel 4 so the sanctimonious Bishop of Bilge Jon Snow and his smug sidekick Guru-Murthy can get a more 'market-oriented' pay rate
Swiss Bob
March 24th, 2010 8:33am Report this comment"The Treasury receives £5 for every £1 that it invests in the arts."
For that kind of return I'm sure we'd all be happy to invest in 'The Arts', just one small flaw, it's bollocks.
Adrian Sells
March 24th, 2010 9:25am Report this commentWhat a complicated issue this is. On the one hand, I'm instinctively drawn to Susan Hill's view and remain very suspicious of state sponsored art. On the other hand (as even Susan accepts) there are some things - orchestras, opera companies and the like - that could not function without support and our lives would be considerably diminished by their disappearance. Or is this just a little bit like Nimby-ism - I don't want the arts supported, except the arts I like?
Chuck Unsworth
March 24th, 2010 9:49am Report this commentBarely a fag paper, eh?
Rizla will be pleased.
So will the lovely Ben.
Philip Walker
March 24th, 2010 10:18am Report this comment'The Treasury receives £5 for every £1 that it invests in the arts.'
Others have picked up on this insane figure, but here's a thought experiment.
Offer the Treasury to go halves on the increase: lend them a tenner, and get thirty back next year. An easy twenty quid for the taxpayer. They'd bite your hand off. Wouldn't they?
THX1138
March 24th, 2010 10:28am Report this commentSusan so what you're saying is that the state should only subsidise art you like.
How about adding VAT to novels to pay for it?
We're a richer country because of the arts, I for one have no issue with a bit of my tax supporting lesbian modern dance in Brent or The National Gallery- I luv it all!
Noa Zrk
March 24th, 2010 7:27pm Report this commentTHX1138
"..I for one have no issue with a bit of my tax supporting lesbian modern dance in Brent or The National Gallery- I luv it all!..".
I think, inadvertently,you have the solution here THX... Make Arts funding a voluntary tax payment. If you want dancing lesbians in Brent you can pay for them. If thats not enough, then lets see how many punters will pay at the door.
In fact, lets extend the principle of voluntary tax to a few other things, like benefits for immigrants, NHS bureaucracy, EU contributions and MPs expenses.
.
Back to top