Arts Council England needs structural reform, not 'swagger'

The problem identified

The letter argues that Arts Council England's crisis is structural, not a shortage of confidence or visibility. The organisation's funding and governance model traces back to 1946. That legacy architecture concentrates resources on established national institutions—particularly opera and classical bodies—and systematically marginalises other art forms and grassroots cultural activity.

Three recent reviews and responses are cited: the Review of Jazz in England (2025), Margaret Hodge's review (2025), and ACE/DCMS responses in 2026. All point to recurring failures: excessive bureaucracy, inconsistent decision‑making, and a deficit of trust between funders and the sector. The letter says these assessments stop short of confronting deeper, long‑standing structural failures.

Core structural failures

The letter lists specific structural problems:

• Misuse or misallocation of lottery funding.
• Dominance of national portfolio organisations (NPOs) that capture a disproportionate share of funding.
• Regional inequity that leaves many local cultural economies underfunded.
• Governance opacity that obscures how decisions are made.
• Collapse of grassroots infrastructure for music and community arts.

These are presented not as recent anomalies but as patterns confirmed across major reviews.

International models contrasted

The author points to cultural systems in Scandinavia, Ireland and Australia as practical models. Those systems share features that England lacks:

• Devolved delivery mechanisms that push funding and decision‑making closer to localities.
• Direct investment in artists rather than routing most money through institutions.
• Touring infrastructure to spread work and audiences across regions.
• Integrated cultural‑education policy that links arts provision to schools and participation.

The proposed solution: a dual‑pillar system

Rather than rebuilding morale or public profile, the letter proposes creating a new institutional architecture. The recommendation is a dual‑pillar system with two parts:

1. 1A pillar to safeguard and fund national institutions that require scale and stability.
2. 2A separate, dedicated body focused on grassroots arts and music, tasked with transparent allocation formulas, restored lottery funding priority for community and grassroots work, art‑form specific policy, and a national touring infrastructure.

Practical implications

If implemented, the change would shift where and how money flows: more direct artist support, clearer, art‑form specific funding rules, and investment in touring and local infrastructure. The letter frames these moves as prerequisites for delivering government growth aims tied to cultural economies and for unlocking potential in grassroots arts and music.

Bottom line

The central claim: ACE does not need to regain "swagger"—it needs a redesigned structure that addresses persistent inequities and restores support to grassroots arts through transparent funding, devolved delivery and a touring network.