George Osborne’s appointment as British Museum chairman is not the example we need

Former Tory MP is appointed as the new Chair of the British Museum through controversial means.

In June 2021, Former Tory MP George Osborne was unanimously chosen as the new chairman of the British Museum. The appointment of the former UK Chancellor to this volunteer role, where the election process was in fact “open to all”, has rather understandably caused quite the controversy.

Sourced: Wikimedia Commons

While poetic justice may be argued to have been achieved for the man who was responsible for a 30% cut to England’s arts budget and a 15% cut to national museums over the past decade –– and now is tasked with the duty to raise funds for that very sector –– I would say there is unfortunately no justice being served here altogether, poetic or otherwise. In fact, considering Osborne’s previous reforms, his appointment is not all that ironic but instead a foreboding of inimical changes to the British Museum. 

Conservatives in Parliament, much like Osborne was himself, do not tend to cut funding with a desire to uproot public institutions altogether. Rather, they are fuelled by the belief that certain things should be funded by the private sector and not be paid for by the state. In this case, funding should be derived from donations and the British Museum’s customers. It is more or less foreseeable that as chairman, with his powerful connections in finance and the corporate world, Osborne would choose to bring in funding from private sources and encourage private donations. He simply sits on that side of the coin: where government involvement is ideally a last resort. Whether or not these means of funding are better, preferable, or unfair is a whole other issue to be contested. For now, the focus is on Osborne’s means of appointment.

Despite the loose rationale to Osborne’s election by the panel, i.e. his  connection to wealth, his appointment is no less unsettling and untimely. This, however, is not because of his political allegiance, but the distorted means he used to gain this role in spite of his opposing values to what the British Museum, and culture sector in general, look forward to promoting. Such changes, which are key to  the museum’s progress and sustainability, include addressing its responsibility in response to climate change (BP is one of the museum’s key sponsors), legacies of colonialism, and a more transparent depiction of the historical artefacts it does have rights to. 

Under Osborne, however, the path to such change looks rather foggy. 

As Chancellor, Osborne gave huge tax breaks on oil and gas to the benefit of giants like Shell and BP. Since leaving government, Osborne sought out roles which bolstered his personal finances. And if anything, the means through which he got these roles only makes one question the man’s integrity and true merit. From becoming the editor of the Evening Standard through his connection to Evgeny Lebedev, then an adviser with a £650,000-a-year salary at BlackRock, where his friend Philipp Hildebrand is vice-chair, to his current full-time role at boutique Mayfair bank Robey Warshaw (where BP is one of the biggest clients) – one can connect the dots rather easily. And regrettably, this shows that Osborne’s proximity to power is the single most important factor which made him attractive for the role of chairman at the British Museum.

While the disadvantages and worries of this appointment are rather self-explanatory from Osborne’s past, what is most disheartening is that, what is seen as Osborne’s undeserving selection as chairman is actually symptomatic of a deeper problem in the arts and culture sector. A kind of institutional conservatism seems to pervade the sector. Even if certain individuals are invested in making the necessary improvements, wider change, especially when it comes to major cultural trusteeships, which determine what is practically possible in the sector, fall in the hands of corporate or political elites who can afford to give up time for this volunteer role. 

Osborne is the embodiment of this type of person, taking on positions which have much greater ramifications than they may perceive. Even if they are capable of fulfilling the role’s formal requirements and providing a steady stream of funding for the museum, to them this role is, at the end of the day, a matter of prestige and power – something the ex-MP seems to feed off of.

If transparency is what we demand, George Osborne’s election is not the example of cultural leadership we need. Especially as the British arts, heritage and museum sector continues to navigate the right ways of engaging with the iniquitous aspects of colonialism and promoting equitable access to arts and culture in the UK.

Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.