Please sir, may we have some more?

They're all coming out of the woodwork now: from The Evening Standard:

Arts and cultural leaders (1) today issued a warning that Britain's economic strength could be “shattered” if funding to the sector is cut....

Samuel West, currently starring in the West End hit Enron... said maintaining arts funding was a “no-brainer”. Speaking at the launch of a joint manifesto for the future of culture, he said: “The arguments are so clear, economically, socially, aesthetically, that the only possible reason to reduce the total amount of money available for the arts in this country is censorship.”(2)

The arts generate £2 from philanthropy, sponsorship and their own business ventures and box office for every £1 of public subsidy (3). Sir Nicholas Hytner stressed that the subsidy was what created successes like the National Theatre hit War Horse. “Public investment means we can take risks we would otherwise be unable to take,” he said (4).

The manifesto says investment has created a huge appetite for culture and generated billions for the economy....(5)

Right.

1) Here's their manifesto. Here's the list of members:

Arts Council England
Association of Independent Museums
Cultural Learning Alliance
English Heritage
The Heritage Alliance
Heritage Lottery Fund
Local Government Association
Museums Association
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
National Campaign for the Arts
National Heritage Memorial Fund
National Museum Directors’ Conference
Society of Archivists
Society of Chief Librarians
The Art Fund
The National Archives
Visit England

I'd guess that most of those organisations are either state-backed or state-funded, or if not, are lobby groups for businesses which are partly state-funded.

2) No, my friend. It's when the government gets involved in arts funding that we end up with censorship. Withdrawing funding and leaving people to their own devices is the opposite of censorship. it's called 'freedom of speech' or 'freedom of expression' or something.

I'd like to add that there are three "creative industries" in the UK that are completely beyond the pale and infra dig as far as these luvvies or the government are concerned and which receive neither subsidies nor tax breaks nor interference, but which despite that - or more probably, because of that - generate a lot of income for the UK and in which we punch above our weight. They are: pop music; West End musicals; and computer games.

UPDATE: As AC points out, a tax break-sum-subsidy for the video game creators was proposed in The Budget. Ah well, that's another UK industry doomed to wither and fade, unless the next lot reverse it.

3) False comparison. If funding were halved, then all things being equal, they'd generate £4 for every £1 of public subsidy. So?

4) You'd like to 'take risks' with other people's money? Hmmm. A bit like banks?

5) If the 'investment' shows such a positive return, why wouldn't private investors be prepared to step in?

OTOH, it is quite possible that subsidies to certain things, like free museums or galleries are a net boost to London's tourist industry and show a positive return (I love those free museums myself, excellent value) but if anybody should be subsidising them, it's land and property owners in central London, who ought to be allowed to vote, democratically, on how much subsidy there should be, and to whom, and then pay for it themselves via a precept on their Business Rates or Council Tax. This is not an issue for central government or the taxpayer generally.

Quangoes of the week (2)

From The Metro:

Official bodies making cultural, sporting and arts grants have been urged to improve efficiency, after an MPs' report found that it costs up to 35p to deliver £1 worth of support. The nine principle grant-making organisations sponsored by Andy Burnham's Department for Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) spent a "hefty" £200 million between them in awarding grants worth £1.8 billion in 2006/07, said the MPs.

So ... that's £200 million wasted, with the balance of £1,800 million ... er ... wasted as well?