Comments on: Tony Hall

By: john b

john b — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:26:09 +0000

Indeed. We’d be far better off with no nukes and some pretentious plays (given that, when you analyse the scenarios, there are absolutely no circumstances when it would be in the UK’s interest to use nuclear weapons: either we’ll be covered by the US deterrent, or we won’t be able to use them anyway).

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:50:20 +0000

Yes, but (apart from the absurd exaggeration of the cost) Yes, of course. And I suppose you think that ID Cards can be implemented for a mere £5 billion? If it is a project implemented by government it will cost more than any of liars in Parliament say it will cost. It is not like they have any incentive to tell the fucking truth, is there? at least we are getting some nukes for our money. With the arts council, all we get is LGBT versions of what Shakespeare would have written had he been a pretentious Guardian-reading twat No one ever asked me if I wanted a nuke for my money. Since it's mine, do you think I'd be allowed to see it once in a while?

By: Brian, follower of Deornoth

Brian, follower of Deornoth — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:38:58 +0000

“contributing £70 billion to the American nuclear deterrent by way of upgrading Trident”

Yes, but (apart from the absurd exaggeration of the cost), at least we are getting some nukes for our money. With the arts council, all we get is LGBT versions of what Shakespeare would have written had he been a pretentious Guardian-reading twat.

By: john b

john b — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:13:45 +0000

Then again, the road system and the postal system, not to mention the entire farming subsidy infrastructure, are transfers from metropolitans to non-metropolitans.

By: luvvie

luvvie — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:48:50 +0000

Tell them: “You’re not in ‘The Arts’, dahling – you’re in Show Business!
With emphasis on business.”

By: David Gillies

David Gillies — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:29:21 +0000

The idea of the State funding the arts always struck me as vaguely creepy.

By: Chris Go

Chris Go — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:33:04 +0000

If you want to watch opera, you should pay the full price. Other kinds of musicals aren’t subsidised – why should opera be any different?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:52:25 +0000

Well the non-metropolitan poor end up subsidising a hell of a lot of things they may not want, from absurd authoritarian database systems to contributing £70 billion to the American nuclear deterrent by way of upgrading Trident. I guess they could vote for a party that didn’t want to do any of those things, or expend public money on the arts. Evidently they don’t care as much about it as you do Tim.

By: Optimistic Cynic

Optimistic Cynic — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:12:27 +0000

The use of the figure of how much money the creative industries bring in is entirely unrelated to arts subsidies.

Our creative industries that make money are advertising, video games (2nd or 3rd largeest producer in the world) and popular music. You don’t need subsidies to get the next Amy Winehouse.

By: Formertory

Formertory — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:16:40 +0000

I chanced upon the episode of “Yes, Prime Minister” the other evening when Jim Hacker, under pressure to increase the Arts Council subsidy, successfully turns the tables by threatening to sell the National Theatre, saving millions in maintenance each year which can then be spent on plays.

Wonderful comedy with a satisfying edge.

By: Flatcap Army

Flatcap Army — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:22:21 +0000

anyone remember the old Alas Smith And Jones sketch called “After Closing Time”, a parody of “After Dark”.

For some reason I remember Chris Langham being in it and saying
“Well, of course, opera’s terribly elitist. Tickets really ought to cost two hundred pounds each”
“They do”
“Really? That’s terrible, they should be subsidised”

By: Chris G

Chris G — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:14:00 +0000

I think we’ve seen this argument before…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvNw0P5ZMbA