Arts Council is criticised for funding woke projects on ‘divisive’ St George’s flag, queer pan-Asian cabaret and a gay Romeo and Juliet while traditional museums go bust
The Arts Council has come under fire for spending taxpayer and National Lottery money on projects critics have labelled "woke", at a time when 16 museums across the UK have been forced to close due to lack of funds. Reform UK's Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick condemned the grants as "an appalling waste of taxpayer money", contrasting them with the closure of heritage sites such as the RAF Signals Museum and Durham Museum, and arguing the funding priorities need reform.
Arts Council England, which distributes more than £840 million annually, awarded £100,000 to Sheffield's Migration Matters Festival, which included a flag-making workshop challenging the "divisive" use of the St George's flag, alongside a children's dance show described as celebrating "gender diversity". Other grants included £29,950 for queer pan-Asian cabaret group The Bitten Peach, £35,434 for "Panjabi Princesses" about two queer Panjabi princesses, £32,547 for a play alleging government "complicity" in war crimes, and £30,807 for a gay retelling of Romeo and Juliet set at a Croydon rave, promoted as "feral, sexy and unafraid to ask difficult questions".
- Arts Council criticised for funding "woke" projects amid museum closures
- £100k went to a festival tackling the "divisive" St George's flag
- 16 UK museums shut in the same period grants were awarded
New here? Start with this
Arts Council England is the public body that distributes government and National Lottery money to arts organisations, museums and cultural projects in England. Its funding can support established institutions as well as new work in theatre, music, visual art and community arts.
The dispute concerns different views of what public arts funding should achieve. Some people favour support for experimental work that explores identity, culture and current social questions, while others want greater priority given to museums and heritage organisations with local collections and long-standing audiences.
Museums and galleries often rely on a mixture of public grants, donations, ticket income and local authority support. Financial pressures on these institutions can make decisions about how limited cultural funding is shared particularly contentious.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the funding could argue that a public arts body should reflect the full range of contemporary British life, including artists and audiences historically underrepresented by major cultural institutions. Experimental reinterpretations and identity-focused work can invite discussion, broaden participation and keep public culture from becoming confined to familiar forms. On this view, controversy alone is not a sound reason to withhold support, provided projects meet transparent artistic and public-benefit criteria.
The case against
Critics could argue that limited public funding should give greater weight to preserving museums, collections and institutions that safeguard shared heritage and serve long-standing local audiences. They may question whether projects framed around contested cultural or political themes represent an equitable use of taxpayers’ money when established venues face closure or reduced services. On this view, arts policy should seek wider representation without neglecting cultural infrastructure whose loss may be permanent.