The return from cultural investment is huge. If we want to rebuild our economy, the arts should not be an easy target

Before the last election the government promised to usher in a "golden age" for the arts. The reality couldn't be further from this. With the reductions announced in last year's Spending Review, the withdrawal of huge amounts of local authority support, the abolition of the UK Film Council and the financial pressures faced by the Arts Councils and the BBC, we are currently facing the biggest threat to funding the arts and culture have experienced in decades.

These cuts are deep and will affect not just those working and training in regional theatre, independent arts, the BBC, UK film, festivals, dance or theatre in education, but also those who access the arts through outreach and education programmes, community and youth groups and social care.

Nationally, the return from cultural investment is staggering. The performing arts and the film industry contribute more than £7bn to the economy each year. If we are serious about rebuilding our economy, culture should not be an easy target for cuts.

We must remember that many of our most internationally recognised artists and creative workers lauded at the Baftas, Oscars and Emmys started in regional theatres and small arts venues.

All those who have a role in taking decisions on cuts must think hard about the potential damage that could be caused to our economy and society.

Lynda Bellingham, Brenda Blethyn, Samantha Bond, Kenneth Branagh, Jo Brand, Rory Bremner, Rob Brydon, Saffron Burrows, Simon Callow, Peter Capaldi, Oliver Ford Davies, Robert Glenister, Sheila Hancock, Miranda Hart, Jeremy Irons, Mike Leigh, Adrian Lester, Roger Lloyd-Pack, Matthew Macfadyen, Patrick Malahide, Miriam Margolyes, Ian McDiarmid, Ian McShane, Dame Helen Mirren, Bill Paterson, Maxine Peake, Timothy Pigott-Smith, Diana Quick, Tony Robinson, Prunella Scales, Martin Shaw, Michael Sheen, Malcolm Sinclair, Imelda Staunton, Alison Steadman, Clive Swift, David Tennant, David Threlfall, Sandi Toksvig, Ricky Tomlinson, Johnny Vegas, Julie Walters, Samuel West, Timothy West, Penelope Wilton, Victoria Wood

What price wealthy students?



Reducing government funding to universities necessarily involves reducing the control that government has over university policy and leaves those institutions at the mercy of market forces. But should this be the determining factor for a country that needs hard skills for economic recovery?

The subtext of the whingeing letter from 16 of our vice-chancellors (Letters) was that they didn't want the number of international student visas to be limited because this would mean a reduction of income from overseas students who bring in colossal amounts in tuition fees.

And that was the beginning and end of the vice-chancellors' argument. Where was the discussion about the needs of the UK economy? Where were the sober questions about the merits of providing higher education to the students of the UK's industrial competitors? It doesn't make sense, other than to the £300,000 pa vice-chancellors wishing to maximise their pensions.

John Martin, senior lecturer

Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge

In the next three years, our local university intends to increase numbers by some 40%. This has real impact on housing and the environment. Established family houses are taken over by speculative student developers and the local population is pushed into new greenfield estates on the outskirts of town. The entire ecology of the town is disturbed.

Funding higher education is a vital issue but the context is far broader than needing a flow of foreign students with bulging wallets.

James Whitmore

Exeter

Clegg's party is the Tory party



Andrew Rawnsley believes: "It's not impossible for Nick Clegg's party eventually to win back support, but they mustn't lose their nerve." Well, there is no chance that "Nick Clegg's" party will, but perhaps the Lib Dems may, after they depose him as leader. Clegg's political future, if he has one, is with the Tory party.

Eddie Dougall

Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

You got it so right. And wrong



My warmest thanks to Annie Lennox for her magazine editing. Usually I compose whingeing letters in my head about tokenism towards women's issues, but I was thrilled by the inspiring articles and relieved to have my belief confirmed that being a woman is about more than our makeup and wardrobe choices.

Rosamund Annett

Rhiwlas Powys, Wales

In an issue supposedly dedicated to women's rights, why is there a gratuitous picture of two girls in bikinis on page 63 ("Girls' Own Getaways")? We can't see the girls' faces but we can see their cleavages and toned bodies.

They are carrying surfboards on their heads – surfers do not generally carry boards this way. They are walking (not surfing) in a sea with no visible surfing waves. They are not wearing leashes – this again indicates they have no intention of actually surfing. Would you ever see a photograph like this of two men illustrating a surfing holiday? No, you wouldn't. The men would be shown surfing.

Penny Jones

Portesham, Dorset