Arts spending: If you cut me, do I not bleed? IN JULY politicians rose to applaud the opening ceremony at the Olympic games, which showcased Britain as a global cultural centre. The good cheer did not last long. Danny Boyle, who staged the ceremony, has lashed out at Maria Miller, the culture secretary, for the cuts to arts funding her department has enacted. Sir Nicholas Hytner, the National Theatre's artistic director, added that the arts are "on a knife's edge." Arts Council England, the main arts-funding body, has reduced its expenditure by 30% in real terms over 2011-15. Half of the cuts were scraped out of arts projects and educational activities; the rest have been passed on to theatres, galleries and music venues. Then, on December 5th, a further 1% was shaved off the 2013-14 budget, with 2% in further cuts now planned for the following year. Some extra money is being found from the national lottery, but that comes with more strings. Philanthropic donations, encouraged by the coalition, are too small to fill the gaps. As in the 1980s, the arts world is lining up against a Conservative-led government. Lee Hall, author of "Billy Elliot," a stage and screen hit about a miner's son turned ballet star, has accused the cabinet's posher members (several are devout Wagnerians) of denying the masses access to culture. Max Stafford-Clark, who heads the "Out of Joint" touring company, argues that regional theatres are being reduced to fare such as revivals of "Legally Blonde" and musicals about Susan Boyle, a reality TV star. He fears a retreat from work by new writers, who take creative risks but cannot guarantee bottoms on seats. Short of money, Newcastle-upon-Tyne intends to cut its entire arts budget - a move seemingly intended to shame the government. But railing against philistinism will not work this time, since ministers can point to deep cuts to other services. The police budget has been cut by 20%. Benefits to the low-paid and unemployed will rise more slowly than inflation. Punishing efficiency savings have been imposed on the NHS. Tony Hall, the outgoing chief executive of London's Royal Opera House, argues that stricken institutions and regions should instead focus campaigns against further cuts on the role of culture in making cities more attractive. Further budget reductions might be staved off, he believes, if petitioners contrast the relatively small amount saved by government with the large cost of ill-feeling in the regions and damage to the international reputation of Britain's cities when theatres shrivel and galleries close. Bound for a new job as director-general of the BBC, where he will be able to rehearse such arguments, Lord Hall enthuses about the "soft power" projected by the national broadcaster and the arts generally. Both, he says, appeal to tourists and highly-educated migrants who might help revive the economy. He also claims that the Royal Opera House has generated £3 ($5) from fund-raising and commercial activities for every £1 in its institutional grant (which is down by £2m from £27m in 2010). But it is hard to argue rigorously for a multiplier effect from arts spending. Some certainly brings in more money; some - including that spent on lavish Olympic opening ceremonies - looks more extravagant. Arguing that an inventive, widely-spread cultural sector burnishes Britain's global image might stand a better chance of softening hearts at the Treasury than a revival of hoary stereotypes about uncaring ministers. If ranting fails, try reason.