Sorry it's been a really long time - I'm now working as a political journalist intern at Tremr.com! This is one of the first articles that I wrote for my new position and thought you might be interested in reading it.
It is actually a very important topic in terms of the impact it has on arts students but it also highlights the problem with having a government based in London, making decisions that only benefit London.
Enjoy!
____________________________________________________________
The news this week of plans to build a new runway at Heathrow has caused the term 'London centrism' to be bandied around a lot, but what does it actually mean?
I thought rather than simply trying to give a hypothetical explanation, I would tackle the issue in relation to how Arts Funding is varyingly distributed across the UK.
But first, my attempt at a definition.
London Centrism: the idea that every decision, political or otherwise, in this country is designed with our capital in mind, disregarding the lives and welfares of the rest of the population.
Funding
A report published in October 2013, named "Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital", revealed there were more than a few little discrepancies when it came to the distribution of funding by Arts Council England (ACE). It seems that the combined spending amounts of ACE and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2013 amounted to just £4.58 per head outside of the capital, compared to a whopping £68.99 per head inside.
Not only does unfair distribution cost the artists themselves - it also cost tax payers and National Lottery players: the donors of ACE's funds. The report highlighted that County Durham's total contribution to the arts lottery was, at the time, £34m, whilst they had received only £12m. Westminster, on the other hand, has made a total contribution of £14.5m, but has received a shocking £408m. Of the £317m the Arts Lottery accumulated in 2012/2013, ACE distributed 45% to London alone. Just one city received £142.64m, leaving the rest of the UK with the remainder to spread out.
In the last few years, London-centric funding distribution has threatened artistic venue closures across the North, including Scarborough Futurist theatre, famous for showcasing The Beatles, and The Arches music venue in Glasgow.
It would seem however that London is reluctant to change anything. Munira Mirza, Deputy Mayor of Education and Culture under Boris Johnson was highly critical of Peter Stark, Christopher Gordon and David Powell's report, calling it "shortsighted and disappointing". She also stated:
"To propose further funding cuts to arts in the capital, with the aim of redistributing it amongst the regions, is simplistic at best and dangerous at worst. It would seriously undermine London's status as one of the great world cities for culture, whilst bringing marginal benefits outside the capital."
Where's the mention of Manchester, whose massively diverse music scene could give London's a run for its money any day? Of Scotland's world-class conservatoire, RCS? Of Durham's excellent choral music programmes? But more importantly, what about all of those young and aspiring musicians, who aren't able to learn an instrument at school due to lack of funding? Or artists who cannot go to art classes because there isn't the funding to set them up? There's nothing marginal about the £396 million difference between the funding in Westminster and that of County Durham.
Not only is the Deputy Mayor against changes to the current distribution pattern, but it would appear the Mayor himself is also against the idea. In November of last year, Boris Johnson made it clear that he did not think cutting arts funding to London in order to re-distribute was a good idea.
"Sacrificing this particular golden goose for a bit of glib London-bashing will do little to improve cultural provision in the regions and would be an act of sabotage for one of our country's greatest assets." - Boris Johnson
Once again, cities in the 'desolate, barren North' have been swept aside, in favour of the superior capital. Mirza perpetuates the problem, by clearly not wishing to see a fairer re-distribution system that would mean more young people could contribute to the arts. The only logical explanation for this situation is that, the 'powers that be' reside in the capital, making their decisions in London, for London. This means they cannot see the staggeringly unfair distribution of wealth they are embroiled in, even when it is pointed out to them. What's more, they see no reason to even try to change the current situation whilst the capital prospers.
There may, however, be a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Channel 4's potential relocation to Birmingham or Manchester could mean the beginnings of a re-distribution of major media outlets across the country. Not only that, if George Osbourne's plans to change the economic imbalance between the North and South, by establishing a 'Northern Powerhouse' are actually put into effect, Northerners could start feeling like they're actually part of the country again.
It really is no wonder that Scotland, and indeed some parts of Northern England feel disillusioned with the government's running of the country, and feel like decisions are made without any consideration for them. Although I do not claim that arts funding forms the majority of this disillusionment, it certainly is a factor when considering the ever-growing North-South divide.
The "Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital" report can be found below.
http://www.gpsculture.co.uk/rocc.php
No comments:
Post a Comment