16 Bido Lito! <strong>May</strong> <strong>2015</strong> bidolito.co.uk
Bido Lito! <strong>May</strong> <strong>2015</strong> 17 GENERAL ELECTION <strong>2015</strong> Words: Phil Morris / @mauricedesade Illustration: Christian Davies / @christianbeardavies The time for poring over televised debates, exit polls and the BBC’s swingometer is nearly over: on Thursday 7th <strong>May</strong> the bluster stops, and we go to the polls for what will surely be one of the most closelycontested General Elections in recent history. But who is going to be pulling for our artists, musicians, performers, venue owners and creators? Phil Morris has climbed aboard our own pink battle bus to ask some questions and find out which political parties are making provisions for our independent creative sector. We’re constantly being told that the election battle lines are drawn over immigration and tax policies – but how do they affect the microeconomy that fuels our creative community? Over the five years of the last Con-Dem government, Arts Council England – one of the biggest funders of the arts – had its central funding cut by £459m. And while our booming “Northern Powerhouse” economy has been eulogised, especially for its contributions from creative sectors, funding remains highly disproportionate here compared to the capital – unjustly favouring the ‘nationals’ of opera, theatre and ballet. Who is sticking up for the regions’ allocations? Where are our champions? Against a backdrop of austerity and the looming threat of NHS privatisation, it seems odd that the <strong>2015</strong> General Election could well be dominated by socially divisive debates around immigration, EU membership and the state of the union. An unlikely anti-hero has emerged for those irrationally threatened by a newly-enfranchised Eastern-European contingent. Nigel Farage, a public school-educated former banker, has succeeded in shifting the boundaries of political debate from an ideological battle for our country’s most valued institutions, to a climate of xenophobic fear-mongering aimed at scapegoating immigrants. The cultural normalisation of their spouted bigotry has enabled the UKIPers to inflict damage on all major parties, not least the Conservatives. Simultaneously, an under-promising Labour party have had their hopes of a parliamentary majority all but extinguished by a resurgent SNP. As Ed Miliband remains a prisoner of his own aesthetic shortcomings, Nicola Sturgeon has galvanised the unifying optimism harnessed during last year’s Scottish Independence referendum. The erosion of Labour's partisan support has also continued south of the border: a blossoming Green party have presented a genuinely progressive alternative to the centre-ground status quo. No longer viewed as single-issue environmentalists, the Greens are now the third most popular UK-wide party (if any of the recent polls are to be believed). Predictably, support for the once conventional recipients of a protest vote, the Liberal Democrats, has also diminished. The tainted figure of Nick Clegg is odds-on to lose his Sheffield Hallam seat in sensationally karmic fashion. “Which One Of You Is The Arty Party?” One thing is clear, the British political landscape has never been so fractured. We are witnessing the end of two-party politics and embarking upon an era of unprecedented coalition. Despite Russell Brand’s infamous prescription of conscientious apathy, there are now a multitude of parties and policies compelling the electorate. You may, for instance, be attracted to Labour’s commitment to end exploitative zero-hour contracts; but also titivated by the Greens’ pledge of returning railways to public ownership. Presumably there are those, too, who want to reconcile UKIP's promise to legalise handguns, or with a desire to back the Conservatives' deficit elimination agenda. In an election grappling with the profound issues of our time, we’ve elected to look beyond polarising pledges and emotive soundbites, instead focusing our policy critique through the lens of Arts and Culture. The case for the vibrant, yet under-appreciated, sector is persuasive. The creative and cultural industries have boomed as a result of sustained government investment. Combined, they are the fastestgrowing industry, worth £71.4bn per year, amounting to 5% of the UK economy. Alongside their cultural and economic values, not only do the arts contribute to a flourishing society, they also play a pivotal role in education; teaching us empathy through creativity and understanding. The continued public funding of Arts and Culture is vital to safeguarding our local creative communities. To put that in a regional context: Liverpool Music Week, Sound City, The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society and Liverpool International Music Festival benefitted from just under half a million pounds of Arts Council funding in 2014. These are but a few local examples of the many who rely on cultural funding in order to enrich our lives and bring communities closer together. There is a genuine concern that funding cuts will not only undermine the worldclass quality of culture that Liverpool currently offers but also threaten to have a negative effect on our regeneration process. Liverpool’s model of culture-driven regeneration demonstrates how public spending on the creative and cultural industries plays an important role in re-energising the UK economy. Substantial returns are generated for the comparably modest amount of public investment offered to the sector – equivalent to 0.7% of total government spending. Our tenure as European Capital Of Culture in 2008 highlights this return, as it generated an economic impact of £753.8m of additional visitor spend in the region, and continues to help raise our profile internationally. Cultural investment has therefore been instrumental in making the city viable through its cross-sector effects on tourism, talent retention and attracting inward business investment. If Ed Balls is to be believed, the Conservatives are planning public spending cuts in the region of £70bn. The reality is that both parties that are able to form a government are committed to a programme of austerity by the Budgetary Responsibility Bill. Difficult decisions about what level of public subsidy for the arts is necessary and sustainable will have to be taken in the next parliament. Addressing the London vs regional funding imbalance is also a matter of urgency. The regions are struggling to maintain the arts infrastructure they have been building for generations. This is unsurprising when you consider current arts spending in the capital is £68.99 per person, compared with £4.58 in the rest of the UK. GUEST COLUMN Peter Shilton - Merseyside Arts Foundation Project Manager MERSEYSIDE ARTS FOUNDATION is an independent development organisation supporting engagement in the arts and creative industries. The next big record label may not be a record label. In times gone by record labels were the stewards responsible for overseeing the development of new music and the artists that produce them, sourcing the best new talent and backing them over the long term. Today, for the most part, it would seem the major labels are unwilling to invest and the independents are unable to. The result? An industry tendency to favour low-risk, high-yield music which rapidly reduces opportunities for emerging artists to promote and develop their work. Whilst there is a status quo of public investment in so-called “high arts”, the idea of making similar investment in UK popular music is somewhat alien, largely due to a pre-internet age of success where record companies actually sold music. But given its undoubted social and economic value, coupled with the seismic shift of its business model in a post-internet age, the question of giving parity to popular music in public investment terms is becoming increasingly pertinent. In other parts of the world such investment isn't even a question but is standard practice. Canada, through its Ontario Music Fund, for example, currently invests over $14m a year into grassroots music. Given that their national population stands at 35 million, that’s 40 Canadian cents for every man, woman and child invested in the music industry. Justifiable too, as it generates more than 80% of total music industry revenue. In Sweden, another country which has a large public investment in national music talent, their Kulturrådet is responsible for making the country one of only four worldwide whose net export of music exceeds their net import. And they didn't have The Beatles or The Stones. Clearly then, if the UK is to retain its enviable position in the global music marketplace the perceived success of its music industry must be revised along with our country's approach to investment in arts and creative industries. This is doubly difficult to imagine given the likelihood of forthcoming public spending cuts, but given the sector's contribution to our social and economic vitality it's a revision which demands to be made. Not least for the UK music industry when record labels won't or can't invest. Merseyside Arts Foundation is currently waiting on a funding application. merseysideartsfoundation.org.uk bidolito.co.uk
Change language