"Culture" Minister demands arts make money before subsidisation

[Richard Barrett]

What I think we're happy with are works that are challenging and innovative, certainly not more of the same, but it's just that what we consider to be those things doesn't seem to overlap your niche interests.

My personal preferences don't come into it. What I meant by "more of the same" was more cuts both directly to ACE and indirectly to local councils etc., more attempts to pass responsibility to the private sector (and therefore to its priorities), more calls on the arts to be assessed by the cash they put in the pockets of the already rich (which is what the ugly formulation "UK plc" means of course).

[amateur51]

That's your misapprehension. What I think we're happy with are works that are challenging and innovative, certainly not more of the same, but it's just that what we consider to be those things doesn't seem to overlap your niche interests.

As for the Olympics making a profit or not, that's actually not what Miller requires; the issue around the Olympics, for example, would be rather 'did UK PLC make a profit from the Olympics?'.

Who is this we?


And who are the share-holders of UK PLC?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I think you'll find that when a local council, for example, sponsors a summer music festival, they have (partly) in mind the the consequential earnings by local businesses (your ugly rich) all of whom are part of UK PLC (i.e. we).

[amateur51]

I think you'll find that when a local council, for example, sponsors a summer music festival, they have (partly) in mind the the consequential earnings by local businesses (your ugly rich) all of whom are part of UK PLC (i.e. we).

Undoubtedly so :erm:, but why would local businesses necessarily fall into your category 'ugly rich'?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Ask RB

[amateur51]

Ask RB

That's the second time you've replied thus, A_I_C.

Shan't and won't :smiley:

[Richard Barrett]

UK PLC (i.e. we).

Speak for yourself.

What I find ugly about the formulation "UK plc" ("ugly rich" was your term I think) is the assumption it makes about the relationship between individuals and the state, which has few if any resemblances to the relationship between shareholders (who can always decide to put their money elsewhere) and corporations. Local businesses can be part of a community in a way that large corporations can't, because their earnings aren't siphoned off to somewhere else to pay for bonuses, dividends and inflated executive salaries. This is all pretty obvious.

[ahinton]

Speak for yourself.

What I find ugly about the formulation "UK plc" ("ugly rich" was your term I think) is the assumption it makes about the relationship between individuals and the state, which has few if any resemblances to the relationship between shareholders (who can always decide to put their money elsewhere) and corporations. Local businesses can be part of a community in a way that large corporations can't, because their earnings aren't siphoned off to somewhere else to pay for bonuses, dividends and inflated executive salaries. This is all pretty obvious.

To you and I and am51 and plenty of others, undoubtedly, but, it would appear, not to everyone here. Thanks also for your other recent contributions here; we may not see eye to eye on all matters political(!) but you do make a great deal of sense here.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Speak for yourself.

What I find ugly about the formulation "UK plc" ("ugly rich" was your term I think) is the assumption it makes about the relationship between individuals and the state, which has few if any resemblances to the relationship between shareholders (who can always decide to put their money elsewhere) and corporations. Local businesses can be part of a community in a way that large corporations can't, because their earnings aren't siphoned off to somewhere else to pay for bonuses, dividends and inflated executive salaries. This is all pretty obvious.

Pompous Piffle. Not a term for John of Gaunt, but quite clear when seeking to convey the idea that, in the round, the country may see an economic benefit from the Olympics or the arts.

[Richard Barrett]

Not a term for John of Gaunt

And he calls me pompous!

[amateur51]

Pompous Piffle. Not a term for John of Gaunt, but quite clear when seeking to convey the idea that, in the round, the country may see an economic benefit from the Olympics or the arts.

Pompous Piffle? :yikes:

Why do you do that? ;yawn:

[Flosshilde]

a cogent argument against ... Instead of ... smileys.

... :sadface:

:erm:

I assume that Simon would include the majority of Mr Pee's posts in his strictures against smileys?

[teamsaint]

Pompous Piffle. Not a term for John of Gaunt, but quite clear when seeking to convey the idea that, in the round, the country may see an economic benefit from the Olympics or the arts.

Well the benefit to "UK PLC" from the olympics is certainly in the "maybe" category.
Tourism was slaughtered last year.

But, the porn barons who own West Ham United are getting a £500m stadium for £15m plus £2m a year rent.
Nice.
Now thats what i call a REAL subsidy.

[Simon]

I have over 30 years experience in fund-seeking and grant-making that you lack. I understand the universal practicalities that you don't.

Your first question to which I replied, courteously, showed that you had either misread or misunderstood my post. I suggested you read it afresh. Your next post indicated that you had still not got there. There's not a lot I can do about that. To repeat: your suggestion that I had made a typing error or used the wrong word was simply incorrect.

In any case, the discussion has moved on and your misunderstanding isn't particularly important.

As to your experience, noted above, I have no reason to disbelieve you. As to what you understand, that is perhaps a different matter.

[amateur51]

Your first question to which I replied, courteously, showed that you had either misread or misunderstood my post. I suggested you read it afresh. Your next post indicated that you had still not got there. There's not a lot I can do about that. To repeat: your suggestion that I had made a typing error or used the wrong word was simply incorrect.

In any case, the discussion has moved on and your misunderstanding isn't particularly important.

As to your experience, noted above, I have no reason to disbelieve you. As to what you understand, that is perhaps a different matter.

Inconsequential twaddle