June 2020: The political reality of funding

In recent weeks powerful arguments have been made for saving the theatre sector and protecting jobs, mostly focussing on the financial argument; for every £1 spent in public subsidy £5 apparently goes back to the treasury in VAT, tourism etc. This is not about a handout, the argument goes, but basic economics. The television and film industries benefit from the creative flow that starts with small-scale fringe companies and moves upwards towards National, RSC and West End. Cut away at any part of this creative ecology and you risk weakening the whole.

Now for the Minister of Arts, this could be a compelling argument but even the most out-of-touch politician is probably aware that theatre success is defined in bafflingly different ways. For example, War Horse was a huge hit for the UK earning millions but a critically acclaimed small-scale production that has people begging for tickets may only play to 1,000 people across its whole run. How about the opera revival that the critics sneer at but which attracts massive corporate sponsorship? Or the heavily subsidised open air street piece that causes a sensation but sells no tickets at all?

The problem is that if we argue that all of it is vital, then we have to find a way of controlling the division of public funding or the cake will be cut too thin.  We know that theatre encompasses participatory experiences, unpaid work in fringe, paid work in subsidised companies and sometimes glamorous commercial contracts. All parts can make powerful arguments for being included in the state handout and this presents a challenge to a sector that likes to play fair and is reluctant to identify one part of the ecology as more vital than another.

The crucial question is this: who regulates this sprawling landscape of theatre? Does it matter if one part becomes bigger than needed and affects the financial stability of the other parts? It is the case that London still gets a bigger share of Arts Council funding than the rest of England – 40% of NPO clients are based in London and as a result artists and practitioners are forced to live in the most expensive part of the country because they fear otherwise they won’t work. In the last 10 years at least 5 new theatres have been set up in London without presumably any agency questioning if there is room for them, so we can only assume that it’s OK for the market to decide.

Whatever happens over the next few months it seems urgent for there to be a plan for the theatre sector that identifies where subsidy is vital and where the commercial sector can look after itself. What we shouldn’t do is expect government to come up with the plan. There have been five Ministers for the Arts since 2017 and none of them has shown any special flair for the job. Politicians have no interest in culture; they don’t understand it, they suspect the public are resistant and they feel patronised by the cultural elite. They might have performed in school plays but they are certainly not planning to stay longer than necessary in the Arts department. DCMS officials might be capable but the sports and media parts of their brief are far more demanding and inevitably the responsibility for strategic change is pushed onto the Arts Council. But only part of our sector benefits from state funding so how can we sort out the interventions needed to preserve a healthy creative economy? Public funding is political; it depends on advocates making powerful, reasoned arguments which remind the politicians of the very good reasons why they should choose one project over another. There is little morality in this game, only the weighing up of how best to allocate the tax payers’ money and not lose votes.

It’s time for us to come up with the plan. We should start by recognising that the inevitable recession that follows the pandemic will impact hard on local authority budgets; Liverpool Council has already reported a shortfall of £44 million, Bristol Council £50 million. Their priorities will not include rescuing regional theatres or art centres, however desperate the case, as the cost of adult social care continues to drain their resources.

One solution might be to identify where government spending could be used more effectively. For example: UCAS currently lists 36 universities offering 3 year degree courses in Acting. That’s not including the conservatoires, or courses in more academic drama or theatre studies, just straight Acting. If each course takes 20 students that’s a potential cost of £11.4 million per year in fees and maintenance loans. The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that at least 45% of these student loans will never be repaid so around £5 million a year will go on students studying acting at university when they have (presumably) failed to get into drama school. Yes, they might choose another subject but this free market should be regulated and the money used more effectively.

There are other ways that the theatre sector could get its hands on some of the existing state support. Regional theatres could access some of the statutory education budget by tapping into the current enthusiasm for apprenticeships. Boris Johnson recently said that: “…young people in particular, I think, should be guaranteed an apprenticeship.” There’s talk of another Future Jobs Fund which Gordon Brown set up after the last recession and which provided employment subsidy of £1.3 billion for 18-25 year olds. Other third sector agencies are calling for the equivalent of a National Youth Corp. It’s evident that young people will suffer hugely from the looming unemployment and there will be schemes which theatres could access through consortia – especially if we mobilise and set up centralised training centres which could be based in the regional theatres and help pay the wages of front-of-house and admin staff.

It’s time to use our collective ingenuity; be open to new ways of working and seize a larger slice of the cake.