Tony Blair, we are told, is obsessed with his legacy. He seems at long last to have realised, judging by his speech today, that one of its more positive aspects will be the regeneration of the arts since 1997. Not since Harold Wilson boasted freely, in an election speech in Glasgow in 1966, of the impact of Labour arts spending can I recall a political leader grasping this simple fact: that there are votes in the arts.
Traditionally, the arts have always done better under Labour than the Conservatives for two reasons. One is that Labour is, in principle, committed to higher public spending. The other is that every Labour government is elected in a spirit of hope which eventually turns to disillusion: something that may be regrettable but that always acts as a creative stimulus to playwrights, film-makers and novelists.
In the period from 1964 to 1970 more money was accompanied by fierce criticism of Wilson's social policies and his tacit endorsement of America's attitude to Vietnam. More recently, Labour's boost to arts spending has been accompanied by savage attacks on Blair's invasion of Iraq. Which is exactly as it should be: the government dispenses the money which enable it to be kicked in the teeth.
But, in theatre, the benefits of increased spending are there for all to see. The defining moment was the Boyden Report, commissioned by the Arts Council, which argued that regional theatre needed an urgent cash transfusion if it was to survive. The result was an extra £25 million of public money disbursed from 2003 onwards.
The impact was instant: more productions, larger casts, greater ambition. Derby Playhouse was able to do its first Shakespeare production in years. Sheffield Crucible offered us Schiller's Don Carlos and Bond's Lear. Liverpool Playhouse and Everyman mounted ambitious seasons of classics and new plays. Birmingham Rep was rescued from the doldrums. Everywhere the story was the same. As ambitions soared, audience figures went up.
The other point of subsidy is increased access. It not only means you can keep ticket prices in bounds. You can even start to attract vital young audiences. At Bristol Old Vic on a recent Monday night for Ibsen's Ghosts I was surrounded by young people mostly seeing the play for the first time. The reason? A pay-what-you-can scheme with a suggested price of £3.50.
At the Sheffield Crucible for As You Like It last month I again saw swathes of young people drawn by affordable prices. And I'm writing this in Stratford-on-Avon where I see local residents are currently being offered £10 tickets for a new Coriolanus. These are the benefits of increased subsidy.
Lately, however, I've noticed a spreading gloom. Everyone in the theatre is assuming standstill grants - which, in effect, means a cut - over the next three-year-cycle of arts spending. If this is true, we'll back to the old scrape-and-save approach.
But Blair's speech today gives us hope that the momentum created over the last ten years will not be checked. Will he be as good as his word? Will a Brown government honour Blair's commitment? One fervently hopes so. If not, the achievements of the last decade will be wasted, Blair's legacy will be lost and Labour will never be forgiven.
