Don't crack out the champers ... Alistair Darling on his way to giving his first pre-budget report. Photograph: Steve Parsons/PA
It could have been worse. It could have been so much worse that the announcement of a 2.7% inflation-level increase in DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) funding has been greeted with considerable relief by many working in theatre. But let's not get carried away. There is no getting away from the fact that even if the money is - as promised - handed on to the arts, this is standstill funding at best and a cut in real terms from a government that enjoys the kudos that the cultural industries bring, but doesn't want to make the investment that allows them to thrive. Over the last few months, cultural leaders and those working in the arts have been lobbying tirelessly to ensure that the arts didn't suffer the significant (up to 5%) cut in settlement that many said was inevitable.
I wouldn't want to underestimate these people's efforts because without them the settlement would almost certainly have been much more painful. But while it is probably right to feel relieved, I for one am not going to be sitting around feeling grateful for a cash settlement that will keep many surviving by their fingertips and many more talented artists unable to even get a foothold in their chosen professions. Over the next few years we are likely to lose an entire generation of theatre-makers who simply won't get the necessary funding to make those first steps. While we are about it, let's remember that the money that the government gives to the arts is not a handout but an investment. The arts gives more back to the economy than it takes in subsidies, but what cannot be measured is what it gives back in nurturing the imaginative health and well-being of the nation.
Of course what the government gives with one hand, it also takes away with another. The arts is already living with the £137m diversion of monies to the Olympics and I noted that in his speech Alistair Darling made clear that the DCMS settlement will also have to be used to pay for the cultural Olympiad. If this is the case then the settlement represents a very substantial cut. With the arts still reeling from the 35% cut in Grants for the Arts, down from £83m to £54m in the year 2007/2008, grass roots activity and the innovative and experimental are already under threat and this settlement is unlikely to alleviate the pain.
As far as theatre is concerned, we won't really know what the implications are until the Arts Council gets the details of its budget and sets its budget. Earlier this year Peter Hewitt suggested that many companies may not know about their funding until a matter of weeks before the start of the new financial year in April 2008. When budgets are allocated, there will certainly be losers, and I hope very much that the big institutions and buildings don't get a larger share of the cake than the independent sector which nurtures the artists of tomorrow.
Yes, it could have been much worse, and although I don't want to sound too cynical or fall prey to conspiracy theories, it has crossed my mind that the Arts Council and the government talked up the possibility of a really dire settlement so that we'd all feel quite cheery when what was actually on offer was announced. I for one won't be cracking open the champagne.
