Why Are We Funding Arts Council England’s Woke Nonsense?
Did you know that the taxpayer is charged £445 million per year for Arts Council England (ACE)?
ACE claims to invest “in artists and organisations that make and deliver exceptional, inspirational work for our communities”, but I’m not convinced taxpayers will agree after seeing some examples of what it funds.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If tax payers were consulted they would not fund this crap. I wonder how far up the chain the approvals go?
The Arts Council – Another institution marched through, captured and paraded for decades.
In the great Cultural Revolution up in the sky, The Chairman looks down approvingly.
DOGE it all. Destroy the leftist gravy train and they will no longer be able to function. They are leeches on the hard-working taxpayer
Remigration!
Your Taxes Wasted on Woke
The state should not give money to “the arts” in any shape or form, irrespective of how woke or not the art is. Tax money is demanded with menaces and must not be used for “nice to have” things. If people want art they can pay for it themselves.
I totally disagree. The arts are very beneficial to both mental health and physical health, as well as beneficial to communities and the economy. Without funding from taxpayers, a lot of beneficial arts projects could not exist, and any money saved would have to be spent on the increase in mental health needs, and also physical health.
The arts should not be something that only the rich and privileged are able to pursue.
The same goes for sport, and it would be inconsistent to fund sport and not the arts. Fund neither and we have grey working class communities with many individuals having nothing to enjoy in their lives
I imagine that a lot of this funded stuff is mainly appealing to middle class people.
But regardless of that, I don’t want my money stolen to fund things that don’t benefit me. I’m not a socialist – I guess you are.
It only appeals to people who are ignoramuses regarding art.
I expect state funded art is on a spectrum from what I would consider worthwhile to what I think is utter rubbish. My point is that it’s highly subjective and something of a niche interest. If people want to look at artistic or creative productions, let them pay the going rate. If others like godknowsimgood feel sorry for people who are too poor to pay the going rate, they are welcome to fund arts charities that help the poor access the arts. Just don’t take my money from me to do this. Who decides what should be funded? That’s the problem – we’ll never agree, so it should not come from taxes.
I agree with you. It is a certain sector of the middle class: the ignorant, virtue-signalling cohort who latch onto this stuff to make themselves look enlightened – but who are anything but.
They seem to think that everyone should be interested in the things that they are interested in, and want to steal my money to fund the enlightenment of the unwashed.
You are welcome to donate privately to arts and sports charities- why do you want to force me to?
I’m not forcing you. You wouldn’t get a reduction in the amount of tax you are required to pay if all arts funding was stopped. There are things you might want taxpayers money to pay for which I might not want, but it would be silly for me to then say to you, “Why do you want to force me”.
You are absolutely forcing me, using the power of the state which you support. You think arts and sports should be partly state funded because you feel they are a benefit. I disagree that the state should provide them. It’s immoral for the state to steal money except where it is to provide basic essential services that cannot realistically be provided in other ways – national defence, law & order, network planning and infrastructure. I would absolutely want my taxes to be reduced if funding for the arts and sport stops, as I would want it to be reduced if the state (as I believe it should) gets out of the businesses of education and healthcare). State funding for sports and arts is just coerced charity based on someone’s idea of what benefits people and what they should be interested in/spend their time doing.
That’s your opinion, but it isn’t my opinion nor the opinion of the vast majority of the population of the UK.
You say the state SHOULD provide basic essential services that cannot realistically be provided in other ways, so where do you draw the line and why?
For example, do you think the state should provide mental health services – which theoretically could be provided in other ways, for example by Big Pharma?
Do you think the state should provided basic health care – which theoretically could be provided in other ways, for example, by Big Pharma?
Do you think the state should provide police services which theoretically could be provided in other ways?
The dictatorship of the majority, indeed. You are lucky to be in the majority, and I will remain in the minority for the rest of my life. Doesn’t make you right though, just the winner.
I mentioned law & order as something that cannot realistically be provided other than through some central delegated body like a state. The state can outsource some of it, but the state has to control it and raise taxes to pay for it, because I think it’s impractical to try and exclude people who refuse to pay from the benefits of it – that is where I draw the line.
The other things you mention do not need to be provided by the state.
You are welcome to donate to private security companies that can provide law & order – why do you want to force me to?
That’s your argument!
This is my last post for today, as I have a busy day ahead of me, today and tomorrow.
You seem to be very concerned about “poor people”. Well, there will always be “poor people” if by that you mean people who have less than others. I don’t want to be forced to do stuff for them, or have someone else choose who I help, and how. I have given many tens of thousands of pounds to charity over the years, and still contribute (though less so since most “charities” betrayed the people they were pretending to help by supporting “covid”) but I would probably give a lot more if I paid a lot less tax – but I would give to things I thought worthwhile and not be forced to give to other people’s idea of a “good cause”.
I think it’s impractical to open up law and order to a free, competitive market. I think we can only have one set of laws, and one general police force. People can of course employ private security to protect themselves, but I think that would be in addition. I am open to arguments as to how it could be achieved though, and if it’s achievable I am all for it.
Give me one example of such a ‘beneficial arts project’? Especially one which needs tax payers’ money to sustain it. Wheeling out old tropes does not help to curb the waste of money which could be spent on proper mental and physical health projects which would actually help. Many community arts projects are a complete waste of time and money and help no-one. Just virtue-signalling in fancy dress. And no, I’m no philistine. I have a Masters in Arts. I just know a scam when I see it and hate proper art being exploited to sustain atrocious, garish, tasteless tat.
“Many community arts projects are a complete waste of time and money and help no-one” but that doesn’t mean they all are. I don’t believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I do arts stuff. But I pay for myself and wife. I recently went to a show by Birmingham Opera but the production values were very low and it was only fair, except for the orchestra which was excellent. They get money I suspect, but it was not in this production.
Who goes to watch this utter drivel? They must survive purely on parasitic hand outs, as Grim mentions, DOGE it all!!
What Would Trump Do?
He would probably end the Arts Councils altogether – they are the result of luxury beliefs.
All quangoes should be abolished tomorrow.
Funding ended. Immediately.
Sorry, I meant today.
Damn spellchecker and these paws.
Exactly: luxury beliefs on our dime that we can ill-afford.
‘Alipoor’?
‘Pisspoor’ more like.
Perhaps these theatres should put on a show for migrants only…I believe a French theatre did that with a modicum of success 😋
So popular it is extending its run.
Who watches this crap?
Hundreds of thousands given each year to this highly biased man and his personal projects? This is corruption on an enormous scale. The Arts Council needs to be abolished with democratically elected, accountable governments taking responsibility for how tax-payers’ money, on this colossal scale, is spent. And why is the Arts Council classed as a charity??
Over the last thirty years almost all institutions in Britain have been captured by the same group think. This phenomenon exists right across the public sector, education (public and private), the large companies, schools universities, MSM. During this period, try getting any senior job and even hinting that you think differently to the liberalese agenda and it is game over for your application. It slowly became steadily worse but is now near universal.
I heard of a seriously strange event yesterday. A German lady, educated with excellent English, applied to gain British citizenship. She had to take an English test verbally, where the examiner did not have English as a first language, and whose pronunciation was appalling, sufficiently bad that the German lady had to keep asking for the questions to be repeated because they were impossible to understand! Is this the kind of idiocy we want? This is the problem that must be solved. It goes much further than the Arts.
This is because ‘DEI’ (or the preferred British ‘EDI’) is perma-baked into everything due to the dominant interpretation of the Equality Act 2010. Javaad is simply following the rules.