The Guardian refers to them as the "bloodiest cull in half a century"

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2228648,00.html

The story of the Northcott is surely the most astounding... the Arts Council made funds available for a capital refurbishment of the building, yet is now to close it down before it's opened...     

What always makes me feel rather violent in situations like this is that the Arts Council operatives are forced to make mealy-mouthed "justifications" of their cuts on the basis of artistic quality, "static audiences" and so forth, when the truth of the matter is that the cuts would have been handed down as a matter of government policy, at which point someone has to invent arbitrary "criteria" by which those cuts are actually implemented. The rest is an exercise in moving unfairness from one place to another.

Any arguments about who's cut and who isn't should be seen in this context, given that subsidised arts are an extremely low priority for this odious government (and not only this one, of course) which at the same time is withdrawing its military presence from Basra after spending immeasurably more money achieving almost four years of death, fear and chaos.

The reality of cuts in Arts Council funding here in Brighton is that we have already lost one very important performance space this year - the Gardner Arts Centre at Sussex University - and a second, the Komedia, is now under threat:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/generalnews/display.var.1904009.0.funding_set_back_for_brighton_arts_centre.php

Both of these are (were?) popular, well-supported venues providing a real diversity of work.

I am sure that this picture is no different to that elsewhere in the country.  As Richard points out, the amounts are piddling compared to the sums being poured into the absurd grand-project of the Olympics, let alone into the illegal war in Iraq.   All this seems to me to be further evidence of deep fear and hatred of the arts in New Labour's psyche - something amplified by many of their statements on education.

And I do wonder what the ACE spends on the consultants who no doubt provide market-speak rationales for the cuts.

Philip Hensher in the GRAUNIAD today is in the mood for another broadside on Arts Council cutbacks.  However, the Govt has its eyes elsewhere, faced with the humiliation of having been caught with its trousers down in Afghanistan having "talks with the Taleban", and a revolt from its own backbenchers over "detention for 42 days".   Hensher is braving dissent with his newspaper's own editorship, however - they ran a "we should all be grateful for the crumbs under the Arts Council table" piece last week, in another Grauniad-suck-up-to-New-Labour editorial....

I'd heard about LMC (which is a travesty), but also the BMIC? Do you have any more information on this?

In fact, is there an online resource that gives full details of all the organisations that will have their grants cut?

This has so far been my correspondence with Graham Knight at ACE over the LMC cut:

17/12/07

Dear Mr Knight,

it has just come to my notice that the Arts Council England grant to the London Musicians' Collective, an organisation with a thirty-year history of supporting musical activities which otherwise "fall through the cracks" of the UK's musical institutions, has been cut to zero. Although one gets used to arts funding cuts following upon one another with monotonous regularity, this particular one came as a considerable shock to me, affecting as it does an organisation which operates on a tight budget to support and disseminate a wide range of music, produced by committed and creative musicians who otherwise receive very little support for their work.

I should be very grateful to hear what your justification might be for what seems to me like an ignorant and mean-spirited move on the Arts Council's part, and urge you to reconsider it.

Yours
Richard Barrett


17/12/07

Thank you for your email regarding London Musicians' Collective and Resonance FM.

As the national development agency for the arts we are looking to fund a portfolio of strong, effective organisations that collectively can help to deliver increased attendance and participation in high quality arts.

It has always been our intention to ensure that the majority of the organisations that we fund from 2008/09 to 2010/11 receive at least an inflation uplift in revenue funding of 2.7% on their 2007/08 funding level. As a result there are a number of organisations that will not have their funding agreements renewed, or whose funding will continue at a reduced level.

We are proposing that our funding agreement with London Musicians' Collective is not renewed when it expires on 31 March 2008. You will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the detail of how we have arrived at this proposal, however, I would stress that our priority is to invest in organisations which deliver strong value against our investment of public money.

While it is our intention not to renew funding to London Musicians' Collective from 1 April 2008, please note that this is not a final decision. The organisation is entitled to submit a response to our regional council outlining why they consider that our recommendation is wrong. The rationale for our decision was given in our funding letter of 14 December 07 to LMC. Any response  made by LMC will then be considered alongside our recommendation when our regional council meets in January.

However you will be pleased to hear that it is our proposal to increase funding by 2.7% to Resonance FM.

Best regards.

Graham Knight
Music Unit
Arts Council London
2 Pear Tree Court
London
EC1R 0DS
graham.knight@artscouncil.org.uk
0207 608 4198


18/12/07

Dear Mr Knight,

no, I can't say that I do "appreciate that it would be inappropriate" for you to comment on the detail of how you have arrived at this "proposal" (which word is driving euphemism beyond its limits if you ask me). Why should the Arts Council not be held accountable for its decision-making? If not, one is forced to draw the conclusion that there are indeed nothing but arbitrary criteria set up in order to "justify" funding cuts handed down from above. I do appreciate that the responsibility for these cuts ultimately lies with the government rather than with an organisation such as yours, but I cannot help wondering whether the money spent to have bureaucrats dream up criteria of "strong value" would not be better spent on artistic activity itself. I would find it very difficult to deal with my conscience if my job was to make "proposals" such as this.

yours
Richard Barrett


20/12/07

As set out in our letter to them, London Musicians' Collective have a right to respond to our proposal if they consider our rationale, and the evidence on which it is based, to be wrong. This is not an appeal process, because no final decision has yet been taken. It is for LMC to respond.

We have been entirely transparent about the process we have employed so far, our priorities and what we hope to achieve, and have considered carefully the implications of our proposals for the arts and audiences - regionally and nationally. To reiterate, our priority is to invest in organisations which deliver strong value against our investment of public money. We have had concerns about London Musicians' Collective (LMC) in this regard for some time, which we have raised repeatedly with them through our regular monitoring processes. However, given the organisation's right of response to what remains a proposal - and not a final decision - we do not consider it appropriate to share the detail of these concerns publicly.

Minutes of our regional council meetings are published on our website as a matter of course. Those of our December council meeting will be published in January 2008.

While Resonance FM was initially a project set up by LMC, they have operated as two entirely separate organisations since 2005/6 and have been funded as such by the Arts Council. Our intention to renew our funding to Resonance FM as part of our visual arts portfolio therefore has no bearing on our proposal in respect of LMC.

Please be assured that we remain committed to investing in a diverse range of high quality music in performance, including work from the new, experimental and electronic music sectors.

Graham Knight
Music Unit
Arts Council London
2 Pear Tree Court
London
EC1R 0DS
graham.knight@artscouncil.org.uk
0207 608 4198


...to which I shall be replying today. As you see, both of these "replies" have been form letters.

I'm sure you're right, Reiner. But, as promised,

27/12/07

Dear Mr Knight,

I see that your second "response" to me is another form letter.

To reiterate, our priority is to invest in organisations which deliver strong value against our investment of public money.

This explains precisely nothing. I, and no doubt many of your other correspondents, should like to know what is meant by "strong value" in this context. I do not see at all what is "transparent" about jargon like this. Quite the opposite: it seems calculated to be so flexible as to mean whatever you decide it is going to mean.

Please be assured that we remain committed to investing in a diverse range of high quality music in performance, including work from the new, experimental and electronic music sectors.

I am not in the least assured about this. Reinstating the funding of the LMC would go a little way to convincing me and many others that ACE's main aim at present is to support diversity and creative thinking in artistic activity, rather than simply to implement government cuts and to obfuscate this fact by appealing to undefined marketing-speak. These areas of music-making you mention are not "sectors", they are (simplified) descriptions of endeavours carried out by musicians, artists, people who are committed to widening our view of what their art is and could become.

Putting things in those terms is perhaps uncomfortably far from what ACE at this time is "about". So: what are the criteria which do matter to your organisation? and how do they specifically apply to LMC? This must surely be a simple question to answer.

yours
Richard Barrett

If there is to be a co-ordinated effort to try and get this proposal overturned maybe LMC themselves might be prepared to say something about the discussions they have been having with ACE and what ACE's 'concerns' actually are? I can see there is an argument for ACE not unilaterally disclosing the details of their concerns about LMC without the latter's agreement so perhaps LMC might like to give that agreement?

Without knowing the ins an outs of all this I assume (but for those that do know, please put me right if necessary) it is something to do with LMC declining to join in with the BMIC/SPNM/Contemporary Music Network/Sonic Music Network amalgamation?