As we go to press, it looks as if the Comprehensive Spending Review has been nowhere near as bad as predicted for arts and culture.
Instead of cuts of between five and seven per cent most areas have received a "real-flat" settlement - in other words, the same budget as last year, plus 2.7 per cent for inflation.
The Arts Council has done well with an extra £50m, and rumour has it that there will be enough money for Renaissance and that it will be ringfenced.
And all this with the promise of fewer targets. It sounds too good to be true. The Treasury has done a great job over the past year of lowering our expectations. There has been so much nervous anticipation of brutal cuts, that what amounts to a standstill settlement has been met with ecstatic celebration.
Whatever cash is available for Renaissance, it would be nice to think that a huge scrap about who gets what could be avoided. It may be unfair that some phase one regions have had more cash than others, but the prospect of endless rows about the divvy-up is unedifying.
Which is why the suggestion from Roy Clare, chief executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, that the money should follow good practice (see p15) is sensible.
Renaissance has been a success, although some evaluation of where it has worked and where it has missed the mark would be useful. But that doesn't mean that local authority museums are out of danger altogether.
Problems with councils that either neglect or refuse to take responsibility for their museums persist (see p4 and p9) and the MLA must step up to defend those at risk.
As the body that should provide the strategic lead for the sector, the MLA needs to keep an eye on what is happening to university museums.
Under new funding arrangements, from 2009 the money that they get will no longer be ringfenced, which is worrying. The MLA must start talking to the University Museums Group about how poaching of funds can be avoided.
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
Instead of cuts of between five and seven per cent most areas have received a "real-flat" settlement - in other words, the same budget as last year, plus 2.7 per cent for inflation.
The Arts Council has done well with an extra £50m, and rumour has it that there will be enough money for Renaissance and that it will be ringfenced.
And all this with the promise of fewer targets. It sounds too good to be true. The Treasury has done a great job over the past year of lowering our expectations. There has been so much nervous anticipation of brutal cuts, that what amounts to a standstill settlement has been met with ecstatic celebration.
Whatever cash is available for Renaissance, it would be nice to think that a huge scrap about who gets what could be avoided. It may be unfair that some phase one regions have had more cash than others, but the prospect of endless rows about the divvy-up is unedifying.
Which is why the suggestion from Roy Clare, chief executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, that the money should follow good practice (see p15) is sensible.
Renaissance has been a success, although some evaluation of where it has worked and where it has missed the mark would be useful. But that doesn't mean that local authority museums are out of danger altogether.
Problems with councils that either neglect or refuse to take responsibility for their museums persist (see p4 and p9) and the MLA must step up to defend those at risk.
As the body that should provide the strategic lead for the sector, the MLA needs to keep an eye on what is happening to university museums.
Under new funding arrangements, from 2009 the money that they get will no longer be ringfenced, which is worrying. The MLA must start talking to the University Museums Group about how poaching of funds can be avoided.
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
