Nuance! VVD The Hague won't cut 50 million from culture budget for 'political abuse' after all

This post has been updated following a response from VVD The Hague. Yesterday I wrote:

But so that was misunderstood. Today, the VVD called. A transcript of the conversation can be found below:

With Frans Schuyt parliamentary group chairman Hague VVD. I think two things have been mixed up. You have the programme in the budget, Culture and Library, of 102 million, and that includes things like libraries and archives.

'Those are pretty important things right? '

Sure, sure, and it is not at all that we want to cut back on that.

'But why does it say that? '

Well, it doesn't say that either. Because you also have the multi-year arts policy plan. That assumes 52 million in arts and culture subsidies . We took that as the starting point for the paper.

'That's very confusing. Because you declared that remaining 50 million to be 'political money' '

No.

'It does say that.'

No, it doesn't say that. But I agree that it is confusing, so I will have a look at the wording later. But what happens is that subsidies go to things that may be socially deserving in themselves, but which have nothing to do with culture, for instance welfare and integration. The position we take is that money for art should also go more to art. That there can be all kinds of unintended social effects is fine, but it should not be a goal in the use of funds. But it is not the intention that we want to cut out that remaining money in the budget, which then adds up to 102 million.

'What are you going to do with it then, because that is the big question that was also on the minds of some of our members. There was panic, and then...'

In principle, we want to leave that budget unchanged. We have not put in any cuts on libraries or archives. So that money from that programme remains unchanged, except that for the arts, we then want to do a plus on that of 850 thousand. that's what it is.

'Then you do create confusion.'

So yes, you can take the budget as a starting point, and it's understandable that people do that, I don't blame anyone for that, and so you have the arts plan. which is the multi-year arts and culture policy plan. and so that is often taken by institutions as the starting point as the money that is available. And so do we.

'But part of that other 50 million is therefore money that you label as 'Political money'? So that will not remain untouched.'

Yes. But in the allocation in three years' time, we want the distribution of those subsidies to focus more on the arts and participation in arts and culture. And that those ancillary objectives play less of a role there.

'But do you understand that even now I find it hard to understand?'

I understand that very well.

'Then isn't it convenient to adjust some things?'

Thanks for the offer, we will do that.

'So no one has to worry, including the Schilderswijk library?'

No one needs to worry. We ourselves want s more libraries. We do want the new distribution of subsidies to focus mainly on cultural participation, rather than such side issues as welfare and integration.

Call

I would be delighted if you kept us informed of other examples of 'cultural investment' in local election programmes via the comments.