CULTURE V OLYMPICS

by MONITOR
NO one ever expects intitial cost estimates for an event such as the Olympics to be realistic. A doubling of the original cost is commonplace (and has already been exceeded for London in 2012) and there is always the problem of determining which of the increases will have long-term infrastructural benefits as well as being necessary for the Games. However, there are increasing worries in the UK that lottery funds previously earmarked for cultural purposes are being raided to meet shortfalls in the Olympic budget. The latest example is the important Heritage Lottery Fund fund which has had 80 million pounds annually at its disposal in the past but has been halved in the current year with a further cut to 20 million pounds in 2008/09. This money does not just go on expensive art that would otherwise be lost to the country but is also allocated to nature conservation projects which fall within the “Heritage” remit. Initially, the lottery fund accepted that it would lose about 150 million pounds to the Olympics but a further 90 million has subsequently been taken. It is, of course, pointless to argue whether a unique set of paintings or the refurbishment of a major museum are more or less important than the Olympics. But there are signs in other areas of publicly funded cultural activities that cuts are being imposed to find Olympics money. Will there be anything left for the Cultural Olympics that were part of London's winning package for 2012?