The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:29 am
Leading arts figures (of whom nobody has ever heard) are angry that the British government is no longer handing them sufficient cash taken from lowly taxpayers:
Leading arts figures reacted with fury yesterday after the government announced a �30m cut in funding in real terms – the first such setback to the arts since the Labour victory in 1997.
John Tusa, managing director of the Barbican, described the decision as a “slap in the face” and a return to “the bad old days”. He said that those involved in the arts had been “namby-pamby” in their dealings with the government, and advised them to get “rough”.
English arts weenies getting �rough�. This I would pay to see. Oh, the slapping!
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport announced that its allocation of funding to Arts Council England would be frozen at its 2005 level of �413m until 2008. Taking into account Treasury inflation estimates, the grant will be worth �10m less in the financial year 2006-07 and �20m less in 2007-08, meaning a total shortfall of �30m in real terms.
They get �413,000,000—four-hundred and thirteen million pounds—every year. And they�re complaining.
The composer Michael Berkeley called for Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, to “consider her position”.
Consider yours, tax bandit.
The reason Sir Simon Rattle had abandoned Britain for Berlin, he said, was that the conductor could not “face fighting the system year in, year out and talking about money rather than music”.
He added: “This country produces great performers and creators, and these cuts abuse their gifts. What are we – and history – to make of a socialism that freezes the creative sap of an entire generation?”
Frozen saps. That�s your British arts scene summed up in ten letters.