Festival UK, A Good Celebration Without the Needed Sustainability | Angus Gillan

Festival UK 2022 rightly aims to cultivate civic pride and kick start economic recovery. Unfortunately, the endeavour reveals big-government tendencies that will not benefit taxpayers and ordinary businesses.

A revitalised, ‘new Jerusalem’ of a United Kingdom is a vision that has been espoused by all sides of the political aisle. Now, next year sees Festival UK 2022, billed as ‘a celebration of the UK’s creativity and innovation.’ Despite caricature labelling of the event as a Brexit festival, there is complex precedent for showcasing British business as part of socio-economic stimulus. The concept is based on the 1951 Labour Government’s Festival of Britain, a post-war uplifting series of events nationally that highlighted British scientific, artistic, and engineering achievement. Labour cabinet member Herbert Morrison MP stated this itself was inspired by The Great Exhibition; held in 1851, during the tenure of Whig/Liberal Prime Minister John Russell, 1st Earl Russell. Yet, while LibDem MP Jamie Stone, who called Festival UK ‘sick’ and ‘testament to how skewed the Tory moral compass really is,’ may want to hit the library, there are actual economic reasons to question Festival UK.

The aim is admirable. Be it 1851, 1951, or 2022, civic pride should be cultivated to enhance community cohesion and inspire future innovation. It is also morally sound and economically right to develop long neglected regions and communities. Whatever the year, we should not shy from striving for growth and conducting modest self-celebration along the way, for while we constantly live and learn, there is a lot to show for British inventiveness, from steam engines to vaccines. 

Yet, the method is problematic. The Festival is artificial, not self-sustaining, and benefits established companies. It also showcases our growing propensity to turn to government. From New Labour’s stealthy statism, here a Tsar, there a Tsar, everywhere a Government appointed official with powers that are unaccountable to the people, to Boris Johnson’s love affair with large-scale state-run infrastructure projects. 

The Market

Firstly, the Festival goes against the market. Festival UK is structured in such a way the state directs economic development. Over 150 organisations will be competing as part of teams to be designated one of the 10 exhibiting winners. The Government will be selecting winners, acting as a judge and jury, and handing out millions in taxpayer’s cash. Amid the greatest economic crisis in a generation, if not a century, it is dubious to neglect accountability. 

The competing teams are no doubt capable of great innovation. If community engagement were built into proceedings, significant long-term revenue could be generated. Genuine public interest, spurred by engagement with the projects and visions for the future, would illustrate which submissions are economically and socially viable; what is palatable for the public to see, hear, and spend their money on. As it is, the Festival will exist separate from us. The event will be presented as a celebration of us, but whether the Festival succeeds or not is only down to you or me if we filled in our tax returns for HMRC. 


Secondly, the Festival is not self-sustaining. Rather than kickstarting economic development by encouraging daily interactions and transactions between the public and SMEs, the event is a one-off. It is a showcase that will illuminate the imagination and then fade. While the Government may be providing £120 million to the winning companies, once the grant money runs out at the end of 2022, the Festival stops. 

This has been thematic of past showcases. The Great Exhibition generated revenue only through admissions fees and souvenirs and while the Festival of Britain in 1951 both toured the UK and featured exhibits nationally, reaching an estimated 25 million people, the event recouped only a fifth of its cost. Loss-making one-off enterprises are not adequate when dramatic economic recovery is needed.

The Establishment

Finally, the Festival benefits established players. Many of the companies and organisations competing for the money are stakeholders with political insight and market footprints that SMEs cannot hope to compete with, such as Royal Holloway and the University of Leeds, each with endowments of circa £80 million.

In even worse news for the plucky start-up or local business, in some cases the established industries have partnered together. One such team includes Tate galleries, the European Space Agency, and Holition (an award-winning creative agency). Roland Rudd, the chair of the Tate was previously chair of the People’s Vote Campaign. Now, the Tate has wonderful art, but millions of people know of its existence. As Britain emerges from coronavirus malaise, there are many small businesses that will be in dire need of the funds that national organisations may receive as part of the Festival. SMEs contribute nearly 50% of the UK economy and are the lifeblood of all villages and regions, as they have been since Napoleon labelled us a nation of shopkeepers.

At a time of socio-economic change communities and nations are entitled to support. Sadly, Festival UK 2022 starts with good intentions but derails itself with delivery. The Government has rightly recognised the need to generate civic pride and kickstart innovation in a post-Covid-post-Brexit Britain. However, big Government, with directed spending and a veneer of market engagement, brought forward during the 1990s in the ‘Third Way’, risks becoming the only way. 

Photo Credit.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *