Cutting the arts budget isn’t a commitment Labour should be so happy to make

After a relatively quiet two weeks in politics, we’re back. The Tories have kicked off this year by recycling the same old material by publishing a cost analysis of the Labour Party’s plans. They’re making the election all about the economy, again.

Rather predictably they’re out in force, accusing Labour of making a whole host of unfunded spending commitments.

Most of us can agree there are a lot of ‘dodgy’ things about this dossier because despite the fact that research was carried out by the Treasury, it’s not necessarily reliable.  The Tories’ main aim is to make it seem as if Labour are not economically credible. It’s important that Labour refute these claims – and while doing so, I’d urge them to reconsider some of their policies, not least the 1% public pay cap that Ed Balls recommitted to last night. But there’s more to this story than the usual.

One of the findings that Labour have taken umbrage with can be found in the depths of the report – on page 44, if you make it that far. There, in a quagmire of other supposedly ludicrous policy commitments Labour have made (like cancelling cuts to local authorities, which Balls has also said isn’t true), it states that Miliband will cancel cuts to the Art Council.

The Labour Press team have responded angrily – of course we won’t, they retort. Even taking to Twitter to publicise their statement of denial.

So we descend into the murky depths of fighting between political parties. At this point, the real world – and the effects of these policies –  have all but disappeared.

Many might think there’s little problem with Labour’s approach. When there’s the NHS to pay for and houses to build, it’s logical to cut the arts budget. But this isn’t a zero sum game – politicians (particularly those in the Labour party) shouldn’t be so ready to make such cuts. Nor should they come across so triumphalist about this decision, if they are to go through with it. Particularly because just last year the Labour leadership noted the importance of the arts to human expression and argued for making this often closed-off world easier for people from poor backgrounds to access.

As Labour have argued, we need more diversity in the arts; more people of colour, people with disabilities, from all classes and from different parts of the country. That can’t be done without funding.

By going along with the Tory line that the arts must face such large cuts, Labour are readily accepting that vital outlets of expression will be closed off to people from poorer backgrounds – more than they already are.

Slashing the arts budget and cutting local council budgets (which often leads to regional art funds more-or-less collapsing) disproportionately affects those already disadvantaged in society. So while it might seem to some like an easy and obvious way to save money – although there are clearly fairer ways of creating a stable economy – it ignores the importance of the arts and the difficulties many people face in entering into this world.

As socialist William Morris once wrote “I do not want art for a few any more than education for a few, or freedom for a few,” it’s time the Labour Party proved they think the same.