Why are politicians limiting the arts and what does it mean for the future?

Image - Joana Abreu

This article was originally published on Jun 13, 2025.

‍

In a disparate world of poverty and innovation, and dictatorship and political liberality, the arts are an outlet for our anxieties and a way in which we can grasp the world around us. Nonetheless, as global politics become increasingly polarised, the arts have been increasingly sidelined in political discourse as funding cuts, curriculum rollbacks, and restrictive legislation shrink the space the arts once held in public life.

‍

Economic patterns and budget cuts

Figures set out in The State of the Arts, published by the Campaign for the Arts and The University of Warwick, reveal that the UK has one of the lowest levels of government spending on arts and culture among European countries, having slashed its total culture budget by 6% since 2010. Such austerity measures have reverberated negatively throughout British arts and culture development with a reported £236 million (20%) decline over the decade between 2010 and 2020. By 2023, arts council funding had declined by 63% in Northern Ireland, 21% in Wales, and 30% in England. For instance, in the Birmingham area, council arts funding is set to cease entirely in 2026.

‍

Over a year ago, Labour promised better ‘access to the arts’ to widen involvement in creative industries, with Starmer stating he would set out a new strategy for culture. Despite the Party’s detailed plan for reinvigorating arts and culture, the ‘Creating Growth’ report has fallen short on may of its previous promises. Key pledge’s from the original election manifesto, such as the creation of a Cultural Infrastructure Map to link local arts networks, have been cut due to a scarcity of core funding for such initiatives with the Local Government Association warning that councils faced a funding gap in 2025/6 of £2.3 billion.

‍

On top of this, researchers analysed official statistics from 2010-2023 in hope to find a cure of this era of cultural neglect but found instead discovered a continuing downhill pattern of not only public and local spending on the arts, but also a 23% fall in the number of events being put on in the UK. ‘It serves as a stark warning and a call to action for policymakers, stakeholders and the public’, say its authors, who include Jack Gamble, director of the Campaign for the Arts and Dr Heidi Ashton, lead researcher at The University of Warwick.

‍

Across the Atlantic Ocean, the symptoms of economic restraints are seen again in America. President Trump's 2025 budget proposal includes eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). This proposal led to immediate termination of grants and staff reductions, affecting organisations like the Berkeley Repertory Company and various literary programs. At least 14 arts organisations in Austin, including the Zach Theatre and the Austin Film Festival, faced the loss of previously approved NEA grants due to federal budget cuts. These cuts are part of a broader initiative that includes reducing diversity programs and reevaluating how U.S. history is taught.

‍

Whilst the NEA announced a focus on projects aligned with national heritage and creativity, including support for minority-serving institutions and initiatives related to AI and the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence. However, many multicultural and community programs were affected by the funding terminations. ‘Government funding is a lifeline for the arts,’ Austin Film Society's Maury Sullivan told the Chronicle, adding that the group's $70,000 grant for the current fiscal year and the $35,000 grant for 2026 have been canceled.

‍

A fear of the power of art?

Amidst a decade of - and continuing - budget cuts, more and more see art as a form of socio-political influence. This certainly holds weight as, in today’s world power is not construed only through the medium of political power or governmental authority, but the centres of authority that operate across all areas of society. Artists constitute as one of these centres of power; those who are recognised as an ‘artist’ have influenced not only on those who recognise them, but also on those who do not. They have the power and potential to scrutinise, mock and educate. They diffuse ideas through the approach of a democratization of culture, able to support and disrupt political conversations.

‍

This is an idea that is not new, but one that has existed for thousands of years.

‍

Hope for the future

‍

This rejection of the arts and their funding is not, however, terminal. Germany has increased its budget by 22%, France by 25% and Finland by 70%.

‍

Additionally, just because the funding has not yet been found for many of Labour’s initial proposed reforms, this does not necessarily mean that they will not be later resurrected when money becomes available. Starmer’s party certainly holds more hope for increased celebration of the arts than the Conservative party who - after a 14 year dominion - proved perjudicial to British arts and culture, neglecting much needed reinvigoration and reform.

‍

In terms of other British Party manifesto, the Liberal Democrats outline that they promise to establish ‘creative enterprise zones’, retain free access to national museums and galleries, protect arts funding via the National Lottery, and boost funding by ‘applying to participate fully in Creative Europe’ (the EU’s cultural funding programme). Additionally, the Green Party pledges to include an additional £5bn of investment over five years in arts and culture, and to exempt VAT for tickets to cultural events such as museum exhibitions in aims to incentivise and maintain regular visitors. What perhaps stands out most, however, is their stance on AI as they make a case stronger than that of the other mainstream Parties that it is dangerous. Promising to ‘insist in the protection of the intellectual property of artists, writers, and musicians and other creators’, to ensure that AI does not ‘erode’ the value of human creativity or workers' rights, they have won the support of many in the industry who fear the growing prowess of Artificial Intelligence, and the implications that it may cause to their livelihood. As well as protecting creative copyright, the Greens also dictate they will push for the implementation of a Universal Basic Income -  an initiative that will, according to their culture spokesperson, would ‘give people the freedom and security to reach their artistic potential’ - an ambition that no other party has yet recognised.

‍

Conclusion

What is overt is that political interference with the arts is profound and deep-set in its prejudicial nature. Not only actions that reroute funding, but also those that ignore the arts diminish the vibrancy and diversity of cultural expression but also jeopardize the foundational societal cohesion and the creative ecosystem in which we inhabit.

‍

The question as to whether the ‘limiting’ of the arts is an act of political will, or rather a lack of funding remains prevalent. Perhaps the current dire state is not a reflection of what lies in store, but rather a plateau in which we are stuck in until creativity can once again merit funding and take the forefront, getting the resources it so warrants and desperately needs.