The Radio 3 Boards Forum from myforum365.com
11:40:06, 02-12-2008 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Whilst we happily welcome all genuine applications to our forum, there may be times when we need to suspend registration temporarily, for example when suffering attacks of spam.
 If you want to join us but find that the temporary suspension has been activated, please try again later.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

The Radio 3 Boards > General Chat > News And Current Affairs > Meantime in Britain, the true scale of Arts Council cuts becomes clear...
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
« previous next »
  Print  
Author Topic: Meantime in Britain, the true scale of Arts Council cuts becomes clear...  (Read 2453 times)
George Garnett
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3855
« Reply #90 on: 08:37:47, 01-02-2008 »
... which, in turn I think, takes us back to Brian McMaster's interesting (IMHO) report to the Government which unfortunately seems to have got sidelined as a result of the shambles of the ACE 2008-09 grants round and the change of Secretary of State.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2008/mcmaster_supporting_excellence_arts.htm

(Good to see Ian speaking up for 'Art for Art's sake' by the way  Wink )
« Last Edit: 08:41:59, 01-02-2008 by George Garnett » Logged
George Garnett
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3855
« Reply #91 on: 16:16:32, 01-02-2008 »
Here is the Arts Council England 'reprieve' list: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/pressnews/press_detail.php?browse=recent&id=1063, and here the full list of regular grants: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/regularfunding.php

Some very welcome news on the theatre side (Bush, Bristol Old Vic and Northcott in particular). Good news on Birmingham Opera* but nothing else, it would seem, on the music side has been reprieved. 

* Well the Press Release implies that the Birmingham Opera Company has had a reprieve but I'm blowed if I can find it on the list.  Huh
« Last Edit: 16:55:10, 01-02-2008 by George Garnett » Logged
Antheil
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 3206
« Reply #92 on: 16:27:30, 01-02-2008 »
And from deepest, darkest Wales Arts Council Wales, there is this:

http://www.artswales.org.uk/viewnews.asp?id=765

Note at the end this statement:

However, ACW estimates that its funding from the National Lottery will reduce by a third between 2007/08 and 2011/12 as a result of the 2012 Olympic Games. ACW has therefore had to refocus its priorities.
Logged
Reality, sa molesworth 2, is so sordid it makes me shudder
...trj...
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 518


Awanturnik


WWW
« Reply #93 on: 16:43:29, 01-02-2008 »
Quote from: George Garnett on 16:16:32, 01-02-2008
Here is the Arts Council England 'reprieve' list: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/pressnews/press_detail.php?browse=recent&id=1063, and here the full list of regular grants: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/regularfunding.php

Some very welcome news on the theatre side (Bush, Bristol Old Vic and Northcott in particular). Good news on Birmingham Opera but nothing else, it would seem, on the music side. 

That's depressing reading. Nothing for Early Music Network, London Mozart Players or the London Musicians' Collective (of the organisations I know about who were threatened with cuts). Birmingham Opera is at least something.

Nothing for Dedalus press either, I notice.  Sad
Logged
Propaganda
martle
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 6685
« Reply #94 on: 16:52:28, 01-02-2008 »
Nothing for City of London Sinfonia, either. Although I notice African and Carribean Music Circuit get a reprieve. They were one of the organisations originally lumped in with spnm/bmic etc., but who dropped out at quite an early stage. So they've had at least two years to stare the cuts in the face - they must have come up with some pretty compelling argument!
Logged
Green. Always green.
Antheil
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 3206
« Reply #95 on: 16:59:35, 01-02-2008 »
Oh, I see the Fishguard Folk Club come up trumps  Grin

http://www.artswales.org.uk/listgrants.asp
Logged
Reality, sa molesworth 2, is so sordid it makes me shudder
...trj...
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 518


Awanturnik


WWW
« Reply #96 on: 18:43:18, 01-02-2008 »
The Times has a list of all those organisations hit by cuts.

I see COMA (London)'s on the list too  Cry Is that another victim of "The New Organisation", Martle?
Logged
Propaganda
martle
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 6685
« Reply #97 on: 19:07:47, 01-02-2008 »
They're a victim of ACE, Tim, not TNO. They were on board for quite a way into the process, but then decided it wasn't for them. So they would have known this was coming at least two years ago. I'm certainly not endorsing ACE's behaviour in the matter, but at least they gave those particular organisations quite a bit more warning than others seem to have had.
Logged
Green. Always green.
...trj...
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 518


Awanturnik


WWW
« Reply #98 on: 19:10:43, 01-02-2008 »
Beg pardon - that was hastily written: "another victim of the creation of 'The New Organisation'" is more what I meant.

But you answered my question anyway.
Logged
Propaganda
martle
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 6685
« Reply #99 on: 19:20:56, 01-02-2008 »
One aspect of all this hasn't really been mentioned. It was quite striking during initial discussions about TNO the different degrees to which each organisation was 'beholden' to ACE for its funding. One or two of them could see themselves folding if ACE funding was withdrawn. Others, the larger ones principally, would be hurt, but far from fatally. Most had a mix of income streams - foundations, private sponsors, membership subscriptions etc. etc., so it was/is quite a complex problem.
Logged
Green. Always green.
Reiner Torheit
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3391



WWW
« Reply #100 on: 11:08:20, 02-02-2008 »
Sir Christopher Failing has been forced to reprieve 17 organisations he had planned to throw to the sharks.  The seventeen who are reprieved are those who mounted the most prominent campaigns highlighting his gutless mendacity.

In a Press Release of monumental self-delusion, Failing claimed that the reprieve has had nothing to do with the storm of protest which questioned his professionalism and integrity,  nor was it a u-turn or a climbdown (which, of course, it is).

As reported in The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reprieve-for-arts-groups-threatened-with-funding-cuts-777192.html

Perhaps Sir Christopher may now be in the running for an Award for Fiction?
Logged
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
-  Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
...trj...
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 518


Awanturnik


WWW
« Reply #101 on: 12:29:20, 02-02-2008 »
Quote from: Reiner Torheit on 11:08:20, 02-02-2008
Perhaps Sir Christopher may now be in the running for an Award for Fiction?

He'll have to be quick - there won't be many small presses left to publish it at this rate.
Logged
Propaganda
David_Underdown
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 346
« Reply #102 on: 13:26:34, 05-02-2008 »
Quote from: increpatio on 14:58:53, 31-01-2008

(Oh, the Arts Council have an official document about the freedom of information act and funding proposals here. The quote salient to our previous discussion is:

Quote
However, during the assessment process, we do not release any information about
applications as this may interfere with the process.
I don't know how this interacts with the actual FoI act, but I have no particular gripe with it, as I've explained earlier.)

George is I think the real expert on FOI here, but I can tell you that:
*section 41 of the Act allows an exemption for "Information provided in confidence"
*section 43(1) for "Trade secret"
*section 43(2) for "Commercial Interests"

Which would be the likely exemptions to apply in this case - the document you linked to specifically say that if information marked as confidential is included in the application it will not be disclosed (at least until after the planned end date for the activity).

During the application process it's only fair that no bidder can get information about what other bidders have asked for.
Logged
--
David
George Garnett
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3855
« Reply #103 on: 13:57:02, 05-02-2008 »
I'm sure you are right, David. It's probably S.41 of the Act that they are principally basing this on and possibly also (given the wording that incre quotes about 'interfering with the process') with an added dash of S.36 'Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs"  -  though I must say that looks a weaker argument to me.

I agree that Arts Council England's FOI policy document doesn't look unreasonable in principle. They did imply in the exchanges with Richard that they would not object to the grant applicants themselves providing the information if they so wished (which, again, makes it look like S.41 they are basing this on).
« Last Edit: 13:59:29, 05-02-2008 by George Garnett » Logged
increpatio
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2544


‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮
« Reply #104 on: 16:22:28, 05-02-2008 »
Quote from: David_Underdown on 13:26:34, 05-02-2008
During the application process it's only fair that no bidder can get information about what other bidders have asked for.
Ah, right, that's a reasonable-enough way of framing it.
Logged
‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to: