To think that £1 billion of tax payers money spent on the arts in this country really only serves a minority

[goodnessgracious]

AIBU to think that organisations such as The Royal Opera House (they receive 26 million a year) should be self funding and not relying on tax payers money.

I would have thought that arts funding should be to support up and coming arts or at least arts that will benefit all of society. I really don't understand why certain organisations receive so much help from tax payers?

MoreBeta so what is your position on the nearly £5bn of subsidy paid to private transport companies? The rationale is that we must pay a subsidy, as if these were all funded by ticket sales the tickets would be so expensive that only the rich could afford them, so privatised companies must be given capital and income grants in order to keep prices lower than they otherwise would be.

Is that a sensible argument? And if so, what about all of those taxpayers who never take a train or a bus and would rather their taxes went on something else? Rail, for example, is thought of as an "elite" branch of public transport, because its users are largely higher-income. Should we all be funding subsidies for wealthy commuters to trundle into their London jobs? Does the odd poor person getting an APEX ticket justify a £5bn subsidy? If we removed the subsidy and suddenly it was completely uneconomical and impossible to run a private rail network, would it be fine for it all just to close? After all, if market forces apply to the arts, why not to other areas too? That £5bn could pay for a lot of other stuff, no?

What angeltulips said. Excellence. What's the point otherwise? Really, if we can't have that as part of what makes life special we're going backwards, at the very least...

Welsh is such an amazing language, it is not fossilised! I don't even live in Wales, although dw'in siarad dypyn bach Cymraeg and I'm still happy to pay towards it.

As for a band at the O2 being self-funding, would this not be the same O2 that was formerly the Millennium Dome, built at huge cost to the taxpayer?

Archive - the capital cost of new trains and track should be paid by travellers travelling in peak periods. Off peak travellers only pay the marginal cost of running the train (e.g. driver, guard, wear and tear, fuel).

Removing subsidy would push up peak fares.

The Dome should never have been built. Yet another waste of public money and Lottery money. It was never a commercial venture.

There were plenty of concert halls and stadiums already.

There's presumably tax money going towards sports? I couldn't give 2 hoots about anything sports related. It personally wouldn't affect me at all if every subsidised municipal sports facility closed tomorrow.

I don't use buses either. I don't fret about either of these things being paid for from my taxes.

Um, I don't think you really got my point re welsh. I don't think it's fossilised - but lots of people do! Just using it as another example of where public devices step in to fund something that the general public don't see the point of.

Apart from the intrinsic value of the arts and culture, they are linked with the creative industries, which are worth £71 billion annually (gross value added) to the UK economy www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk

On public subsidies for the economy more generally, if sectors weren't supported - sometimes including public subsidy - it'd be terrible for the economy. The USA, for example, chucks loads of money at sectors. They spend trillions $$$ on subsidies for power. Even in Europe where there are rules on state aid all governments do it.

The arts were not even a little bit protected from austerity

They were more protected. I didn't say they didn't cut at all but they were cut less. See m.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23060049

Arts council only got a 5% cut compared to other bodies who got higher.

Arts Council funding is part of it but the cuts in local authority funding for the arts, culture and heritage will have been bigger, eg library closures.

Yep. some Local authorities have cut their arts funding to zero.

I lost my job (arts and heritage) last year due to cuts. I was in a job I adored, was a talented, qualified, active contributor to society. I ran outreach programs and lots of free events, especially in the school holidays.

Now I'm a waitress. I had to spend a few months claiming JSA before I even got that. I rarely have a day when I'm not in tears over my bloody awful job and the fact I just can't find another.

But yes, do cut the arts more, then you can use that money to pay for the upkeep of all the unemployed actors, musicians, curators, guides, artists, designers, conservators.....

fyrefly for you.

I hope you find another job in the arts that will appreciate you and Ian' t going to be cut.

Thankyou dances

This thread both amuses and infuriates me for two reasons.

A) If the govt. is already spending over £200bn on welfare and lifting people out of poverty, and it's still not working, then £1bn is going to make fuck-all difference.

B) Cuts to the arts has actually put people UNDER the poverty line. Case in point right here. I earn about £100 a week as a waitress, occasionally maybe £150. This gives me a maximum (let's be generous) £600 a month, so £7200p.a. That's 27% of the national average, if I'm being generous. The poverty line is classed as 60%.

Cuts to the arts did not help keep me above the poverty line. The idea that it will keep people out of poverty is completely idiotic.

sonlypuppyfat said "It seems obscene that 26m is paid to an organization that only the privileged attend. YANBU."

Wow. I learned something new today. That despite earning around £18.5k per year I can actually claim to be among the privileged because I have been to the Royal Opera House. And no, I didn't pay anything even approaching £100.

I also regularly drive down to Cardiff to see Welsh National Opera where the TOP price is often no more than £45 and there are seats in the gods with perfectly non-restricted views for sometimes as little as £12 and some seats for under-30s at just a fiver.

More people go to the theatre each year than attend football matches. Fact.

Interesting headline in the Evening Standard this evening...

Actually don't think it's clear there. It says
"London theatre attendances higher than for whole premier league"