The fact hacker is loving this is brilliant writing. He's got Humphrey talking ideology rather than policy. He's got Humphrey in a political debate and onto his level and he's loving every second of it.
"Did Shakespeare get a subsidy?' *Yes*! At that time, Royal Patronage was the same thing as government subsidy, and he got a boatload of Royal Patronage.
He didn't earn it right off the bat though, did he? And anyway, direct patronage by the head of the state is a important distinction from the state itself, if it applies. Though this same clip flipped with Elizabeth and her PM would be funny
@@MrBritishNinja differentiating between the head of state and the state itself only came about after Shakespeare's life. Remember, he was a contemporary of Louis XIV who famously declared, "L'etat c'est moi" or 'I am the state". In Brittan, the distinction would really only develop after the Civil War, decades after the Bard's death.
@anonymous opinions that is true. However, it doesn't change the fact that art needs some kind of funding stream to survive, and in the modern world, if it doesn't receive subsidy from the government it will need to depend on patronage from individual rich people acting on their own subjective tastes.
@@jesseberg3271 Even before that there was a distinction drawn between the royal treasury and the royal purse. From proceeds of taxation of the nation and proceeds of taxation/rent on royal household lands. I fundamentally disagree given that Lizzy paid Shakespeare out of the latter rather than the former.
@@hagamapama But in a democracy, the people replace the monarch as the de facto sovereign, and any subsidies paid must be paid out of the de facto sovereign's purse - which today is simply the treasury. So, practically speaking, the subsidies received then are constitutionally the same as those received now. Democracy, or transferral of de facto sovereignty, has blurred the distinction between sovereign's treasury and sovereign's purse. If in olden days the Queen had not liked to subsidise theatre, she had had the power to appoint ministers who promised to abolish such subsidies. That power has transferred, in practice if not in theory, to the people. If the people do not want to subsidise theatres, they must elect a parliament which would place confidence in ministers who promise to abolish such subsidies.
YM and YPM are both works of genius. They get better with each year that passes. One can use them to explain all the rubbish that flows around one: in the office, society, banking and government. It is timeless, universal and profound. One can watch it again and again and again.To have a Japanese gentleman commenting below is evidence of its resonance.
Thought I might add, but Shakespeare *did* receive public subsidies from the Crown. It was only to be expected since he put on plays for Queen Elizabeth I so often.
I think there's a difference between subsidies and patronage. QE1 was, for want of a better term, a customer. She paid him for his work and he worked for his pay. Still more commercial than subsidy in my mind.
hagamapama At the end of the day, QE1 was more like a VIP than an ordinary consumer. and the Crown makes it money from the land and taxes of the people. therefore the money it spends is public money.
Yes, people like to ignore facts of history in order to make their pithy points. The new pushes out the old because of its vibrancy and self-sufficiency; it is the old and tenuous that have already proven themselves in the arena of public history that need and deserve public subsidy. If a new art form lacks vibrancy and self-sufficiency before producing lasting unique value, then it is simply a failed enterprise that can be allowed to lapse into the darkness of the unfit and forgotten.
Missed one of the best lines: Jim Hacker, "And where are you going?" Sir Humphrey, "If you must know, the Royal Opera House." Jim Hacker, 'Ah! A works outing!"
The hilarious thing is that there are genuine arguments for subsidies of the arts, but particularly when these are from the government, they should be in the interest of making art accessible to everyone, not ensuring the unassailable superiority of an elite class. Shakespeare, Bach, Tchaikovsky and Gershwin created works of incredible depth and expression that, if studied, can help anyone to appreciate new depths of abstract thought and creativity. Of course, that's hardly something Sir Humphrey would want to make available to the wretched masses anyway. They might get some mud on the seats.
Of course, however there is art even more art to study than what you mentioned there. Islamic art, hindu art, and modern arts are all still as valid as the arts that are put up on what is a classical european showcase
@@alekseymolchalin4296 Absolutely. My artistic upbringing is very Euro-centric, which has led to a lot of people - myself included - misjudging art from other cultures due to having a totally biased frame of reference.
It is already accessible to everyone, except the majority of the general public aren't interested in something like Shakespeare as it's essentially another language. It has to be adapted and smoothed over and snuck into public view as an adaptation before the uneducated and unwashed masses can ever accept it. The last thing Joe the window cleaner wants, after hanging from a building all day is to have to translate the meaning behind some round-a-bout language riddle from the Bard.
never heard a convincing argument in favor of government subsidy, and they are just getting worse. if anything, Humphry's appeal to conservation is the least obnoxious of this school; especially when compared to "I know what's best for everyone else" which is what modern takes on this issue can typically be reduced to
The problem is that you end up with governments, which are run by politicians, determining what constitutes Art. Which means you end up with Art being politicized. Change my mind.
The world has lost two great characters. I am a humble uneducated Japanese but I hope I am allowed to express my respect towards Paul Eddington and Nigel Hawthorne. Yes Minister and Yes P Ministers actually impressed a lot of people inside and outside Britain. They did not stop as comedies. It showed tolerance and self-awareness combined with the ability to criticise the system with ample seasoning of humour and wit. Only English are capable of such great performance.
It will never be made today, political correctness makes it impossible. They would demand a diverse cast and then complain if a cast member belonging to a supposed suppressed minority is represented in a negative manner even if this makes sense within the context of the show.
"the public can't afford £30 seats and if they could they couldn't get them. There aren't enough of them" This now can also be used to describe football.
As someone who could only afford nosebleed seats at the opera, I sympthasize. BTW, it is hilarious to find out at the opera your mother is afraid of heights.
you know, the funny thing is, that if the opera wasn't subsidized, it wouldn't survive, and you know why, because paying tickets, noone would go see it if it was in the hands of the upper elite.
The first time was, I think, "The Right to Know" in Series 1, where Hacker manages to circumvent Humphrey to get the safeguards on his national database put in place.
It cuts off to early. The punchline is Hacker saying "Off you go then: I don't want to make you late for your 'works outing'!" Genius writing & performance.
In 1989, the Canadian government purchased a painting, consisting only of 3 vertical stripes, for $1.8 million. Never before has so little been subsidized for so much by so many.
Shawn B It's like the British Government Art Collection. Used to be full of beautiful, classic treasure. Now it's Tracy Emin and Britart rubbish that won't last 5 minutes, like the rotting sharks and cows.
Yeh it's called Voice Of Fire I think. Current value about $50 million USD. A cracking investment I would say. Wish all governments were is financially astute as this.
Humphrey and Hacker have a very similar conversation somewhere - can't remember if its this episode - where Hacker is criticising the money poured into maintaining some cultural artefact which neither of them actually use, and Humphrey replies "but its vital to know its there!" I'm no conservative, but I actually agree with Humphrey in this sense. I've never been to the opera. I never visit art galleries. I do like the occasional play, but its a rare thing. Nevertheless, I'm glad these things exist, and I don't mind that they're subsided, if that's the price of keeping them alive. Culture is important, and shouldn't just be left to market forces.
In a way, it's the same thing with money invested in preserving the environment or biodiversity. I don't intend to venture to the Arctic to see the ice cap, or to the depth of the jungle to meet gorillas, but it's important to know they are there!
But I don't and I won't ever be happy about paying taxes for such middle class rip offs. If you wanna subsidise anything in the name of education, subsidise STEM fields in universities across the country and not just Scotland. No student should be paying off loans well into their 30s.
@@Soitisisit it's like "the beginning of the end", and it's a fallacy, because it implies the start of a process, which cannot be stopped. You can also call it the 'slippery slope' argument.
Sir Humphrey has a point - sports make more than enough money on their own. The arts simply do not have the same commercial options. You can't bet on an opera, for example.
Seeing as these clips are over 30 years old, you can see the progression of society. The rich now attend sport matches at ridiculous prices and almost all big sport teams receive government one way or another. Football matches are the new opera/arts they were joking about.
Actually only half true. What about something like Mass Transit, which is popular. The people don't actually pay the full economic cost of the service. It must be subsidized.
Not necessarily, look to the example of K-Pop in South Korea and Funk in Brazil. Both extremely popular in their home countries and internationally but still subsidized by their government. A great example of public and private partnership.
Yes and no, you see, in a complex and articulated setting like the current one, it would be diminutive and, more importantly, unwise to apply only one universal epithet since conditions change, the atmosphere is incredibly volatile and times can, and will, drastically alter the perception and, therefore, necessary plans of action in regards to determinate topics.
@@speedformercy While I agree in terms of policy, Hacker still argues well in this scene and Humphrey can't avoid the question or put together a coherent retort.
@@speedformercy As much as I usually think Humphrey us right, he is completely wrong on this one. He is forcing people to fund what he and the elite like him deem to be art rather than the culture itself. It's one thing preserving art like a museum but forcing the production of that which only lasted so long because you made it so isn't gonna preserve art, it's going to make art because stale and simply trying to fit in a category that gets funding rather than touching the hearts of the people.
I haven't been to the opera for years (make that decades), but when I did, both Covent Garden and the English National Opera had very cheap seats up in the higher galleries. The only snag was you needed the Hubble Telescope to see the stage.
You may buy fairly good seats in any opera house at the same price range practiced in most famous rock festivals. The price of tickets it's just a fooney excuse not to go to opera, disguising a bad cultural conscience.
in this rare case I have to side with Humphrey. My father worked for public television and in classical music for decades and it was always a miserable uphill battle. Professional sports never need any government assistance, they get massive amounts of money from advertising and there's never any shortage of fans. Classical music only seems elitist because at the moment only the rich and educated can afford to experience it. If classical music were to be a requirement in school, millions more would appreciate it and want it as part of their lives
Dutch violinist and conductor André Rieu and his orchestra have turned classical and waltz music into a worldwide concert touring act, as successful as some of the biggest global pop and rock music acts. Evidence that classical musicians do not need government funding, they just need to come up with ways to sell their product better.
Professional sport does indeed acquire its funds from advertising, TV, and ticket sales. As for art? It desperately needs support. Perhaps art of all sorts was popular over a century ago, to the point that it probably didn't require government subsidies. It's a sad state of affairs, and Humphrey does make a point. Not to say Hacker doesn't, but football never really needed public financial support if a club were to go into Administration.
@@MismeretMonk Andre Rieu is the classical equivalent of pop music and showmanship. The Liberace of the violin. There's nothing wrong with liking him but don't confuse him with Yitzak Perlman.
@@incarnateTheGreat Art received subsidy alright... through the patronage system. (And still does in a lesser though similar form through Corporate sponsorship) The question that the average taxpayer is entitled to ask however is this.. if Art is so good, why can't it stand on its own? If a football club should be allowed to fail and die (which is no doubt fine with you and fine with me too BTW) then why doesn't the SAME standard be applied to art?
Part of it must be prestige. If the only/best Opera House in London with traditions going back centuries goes bankrupt, it would look bad internationally and raise many voices in protest domestically. If some football club goes bankrupt, there will be far less trouble.
Funnily enough, I agree with Sir Humphrey. Heart subsidy is a contentious topic here in the US. Many have argued for ending it for many of the same reasons that Jim hacker presents here. But we forget, as we go along with that line of argument, the fact that we can't place value over one piece of art over another- we just aren't qualified. "One man's vulgarity is another man's rap lyric". That's why we give subsidies to museums, who then subsidize artists of their choosing. As for the remark about whether Shakespeare had subsidies, well we hear that too. "Arthur Miller didn't need the NEA to write Death of a Salesman". But here's the thing: Arthur Miller was absolutely subsidized by the government. Only back then, it was called the WPA. And Shakespeare himself was also given government subsidies. His company was called the King's Men, so named because King James funded them.
Shakespeare's plays were hugely popular in London during his career, with or without royal patronage. He retired and bought one of the biggest houses in his home town.
Shakespeares history is all lies. He wasnt a poet play writer in reality he wrote the future. He was a visionary for the British empire They made up his past to preserve him
@@donspartan5403 It is called Romanticism. No one reads the Three Musketeers or Notre Dame de Paris for their historical accuracy either. Did he write the future in the same way Orwell and Huxley predicted the future or did he write about the past that it could be applicable to the future as well? That is the question.
Isn't that a philosophical standpoint though? After all, if we're going down the post-modern, existentialist road here, wouldn't they be able to argue that other people have as little to do with their reality as they have with other people's? Does the existence of one perspective negate the other regarding something as subjective as art? In science or maths where there are objective truths, sure. But just because some people prefer certain kinds of art that other people do not prefer does not necessarily mean that either of them is in an 'ivory tower'.
Meanwhile, there's plenty of discussion to be had about what gets labeled as "art" or "not-art", and who gets to be an "artist" and who's stuck as a "not-artist", and whose past gets to be "history" and whose records are "not-history", and why some things are "art history" and others are "archaeology". Discussions that anyone halfway committed to postmodernism absolutely ought to be having when the curriculum gets written or when the new class starts. But I guess that might result in drinking songs getting the same respect as operas, and the sorts of people who major in art history tend to have parents who might have Opinions on that. Which might impact the university's funding.
Later in the ep. "Humphrey... As Cabinet Minister responsible for the arts... Could I come too?" " *surprise turns to visible delight* ...Yes Minister!"
It's funny, sad, and depressing at the same time. It's funny because it's true. It's sad because it's also true. And it's depressing because after a day's worth of work I have no power within myself to go anywhere like the opera house. I would just go home and try to relax before the next exhausting day of work.
2:45 Films do get subsidized with tax breaks; British Columbia has a refundable labour-based incentive for Canadian productions. YM & YPM are both fantastic political satire (although it's more like a disturbingly truthful documentary).
It pretty much was at the time the writers had incredible access, leaks and rumour support from the civil service. There were regular 'how the fuck did they find THAT OUT' moments....
That happened in the UK after this show it was in the early 2000 introduced by Gordon Brown. To be honest it's worked quite well, as it was just a tax break, rather than some of the bad ones as described by another commenter about New Zealands horrible labour practices for movies.
The script for this is so bloody good and is more so relevant today with the illusion of the classless society and the middle classes dominating socio economic spheres of life.
Incredible dialogue in this show unable to be replicated in today’s climate, ironically in today’s social political climate of class,race and global capitalism the dialogue is equally relevant.
@Myndir as an aside, thee of us went to the Royal Opera House last year (and laughed a lot when we were there, remembering this programme!). All three of us got in for £45 in total. Not a great deal of purchasing power.
@mlovecraftr £30 isn't much today, but in 1982 that was worth about £120, which certainly wasn't affordable when you consider what most people's real incomes were back in the 1980s, especially in 1982 when there were over 3 million unemployed people. Public money is spent on public transport precisely because there is popular demand, but a lack of purchasing power for most people who use it. On the other hand, high art has very little demand and users with a great deal of purchasing power...
I think it's a mistake to lump all art together. A community theatre featuring amateur actors and musicians or a dance school should definitely be subsidised, but a west end theatre selling out 120 pound seats doesn't really need money does it?
I think it actually does, tbh. I don't think you know how much it costs for a high-budget production to be profitable. You aren't paying 120 for an hour, hour and a half, two hour spectacle. You are paying the artistic, tecnical and administrative staff, the building, the electricity, the stagecrafting, the catering, the conceptualizing... You are paying for months of these people's time... Divided by each seat it can barely make any profit. Large sums are moved, but not much is left for future investment. Welcome to showbiz.
@mandellorian I recently talked with some friends in the biz, and they cleared up my confusion. You are right, I guess I was talking out my ass... However, the point of a business isn't to break even, it's to make a profit. Usually, double it. So, considering the risk, I still think that if you have a paying audience that is willing to pay such price for a seat, I think you should, without a doubt, take advantage of it. Also, if you only need 55£ in average to break even, for you to make a reasonable profit you'd have to add half to each ticket, 75£. Then, considering every show must at least break even, you'd compensate for possible empty seats by... raising the price again, possibly 100, 120. This is possible when the demography permits it. A half-filled auditorium is a profitless presentation, even if each seat is 120£
@@alistairmuir5521 I don't understand why you say it won't be a popular final word. Wasn't the Renaissance funded by private investment? I see patronage and philanthropy as the tools the capitalist society uses to redeem itself of it's greedy ways. There is money for the arts... just not all arts.
I feel this thread misses the point. Hacker wants votes, Humphrey wants his life style subsidised. There's no serious discussion about whether sport or the arts, or even which arts should get money. It's just two posh people cpming up with tenuous reasons to get what serves their best interests - and that is the joke. In a time of BoJo, Farage and Corbyn that point is as relevant now as it was then.
I actually completely agree with Sir Humphrey on this one lol. Art is cultural heritage that needs to be preserved, football are usually private ventures benefiting the rich.
Benefiting the rich? What does that mean? If you mean owners, they susbidise the clubs, not the other way around. Very few people make money out of football-- except the players.
The point is that it's a valid political discussion with no real right answer. Its greatly illustrative of a great number of subsidy questions...it all boils down to choosing what gets subsidized and what doesnt.
Sir Humprey is soooooooooooooo right here! The level of culture has been dropping frightfully, people onlt want stupid things that numb the brain like sport and reality tv.
What exactly makes the fine arts so much more intellectually advanced than "stupid things" like football and reality TV? Why can't you just let people enjoy things rather than stroking your own ego?
“Has it ever struck you that life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quick you hardly catch it going?”― Tennessee Williams..................
Because there is a direct relationship between the cultural prosperity of a nation and its subsidy of that culture. And yes: Shakespeare received patronage from lords and ladies who collected money through taxes. Shakespeare was publically funded.
For the record, the reason football should be on its own while opera gets a subsidy is because Football is a commercial operation that is well capable of funding itself. Both are important pieces of culture, but subsidization only deserves to go to those things that actually _need_ it, not things that _want_ it.
If something can't be commercially viable, by definition it doesn't need it...if people thought XYZ needed support , they would do so with their own money
The thing is, that people's favourites change during their lives. I know many people listening the heavy metal music in 90's, when they laugh on me listening Britten for instance, now the very same persons are asking me to borrow War Requiem for everything. And, I saw the case: The rock band was playing concert on the seaside because of some festival, then few steps away the chamber orchestra was playing some concerto, gues which performance collected bigger audience?
Sir Humphrey is completely right. Football clubs and cinema have sufficient revenue to sustain themselves. Subsidies are required for services that can't sustain for themselves but are neccesary nonetheless like public transport. If I heard right the entry was 30 pounds. that doesn`t seem like so much money. With subsidies the opera was actually at a closer reach for the common man
The fact hacker is loving this is brilliant writing. He's got Humphrey talking ideology rather than policy. He's got Humphrey in a political debate and onto his level and he's loving every second of it.
"Could we?"
RIP Sir Bernard.
@Crimson if people would vote for it politicians would subsidize brothels when their wives weren't looking
Bernard never got a knighthood
Great scene, but those two words from Bernard were the best :)
Bernard. Bernard is the keystone of the entire show.
His role seems to be to help everyone come back to reality from time to time, and yes, it is critical.
Yes Bernard is the "common man" caught between a "politician" and a "bureaucrat". Often Bernard is the one who is morally most sound and pragmatic.
If Bernard has said ' Child Benefit' ? as the subsidy riposte!
"could we?" I would have said the same thing :)
@@abhijitoka "Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits."
"Did Shakespeare get a subsidy?'
*Yes*!
At that time, Royal Patronage was the same thing as government subsidy, and he got a boatload of Royal Patronage.
He didn't earn it right off the bat though, did he? And anyway, direct patronage by the head of the state is a important distinction from the state itself, if it applies. Though this same clip flipped with Elizabeth and her PM would be funny
@@MrBritishNinja differentiating between the head of state and the state itself only came about after Shakespeare's life. Remember, he was a contemporary of Louis XIV who famously declared, "L'etat c'est moi" or 'I am the state". In Brittan, the distinction would really only develop after the Civil War, decades after the Bard's death.
@anonymous opinions that is true. However, it doesn't change the fact that art needs some kind of funding stream to survive, and in the modern world, if it doesn't receive subsidy from the government it will need to depend on patronage from individual rich people acting on their own subjective tastes.
@@jesseberg3271 Even before that there was a distinction drawn between the royal treasury and the royal purse. From proceeds of taxation of the nation and proceeds of taxation/rent on royal household lands.
I fundamentally disagree given that Lizzy paid Shakespeare out of the latter rather than the former.
@@hagamapama
But in a democracy, the people replace the monarch as the de facto sovereign, and any subsidies paid must be paid out of the de facto sovereign's purse - which today is simply the treasury. So, practically speaking, the subsidies received then are constitutionally the same as those received now. Democracy, or transferral of de facto sovereignty, has blurred the distinction between sovereign's treasury and sovereign's purse.
If in olden days the Queen had not liked to subsidise theatre, she had had the power to appoint ministers who promised to abolish such subsidies. That power has transferred, in practice if not in theory, to the people. If the people do not want to subsidise theatres, they must elect a parliament which would place confidence in ministers who promise to abolish such subsidies.
YM and YPM are both works of genius. They get better with each year that passes. One can use them to explain all the rubbish that flows around one: in the office, society, banking and government. It is timeless, universal and profound. One can watch it again and again and again.To have a Japanese gentleman commenting below is evidence of its resonance.
As if the writers had a time machine. It is so relevant.
@@seagecko or nothing changed
Thought I might add, but Shakespeare *did* receive public subsidies from the Crown. It was only to be expected since he put on plays for Queen Elizabeth I so often.
I think there's a difference between subsidies and patronage. QE1 was, for want of a better term, a customer. She paid him for his work and he worked for his pay. Still more commercial than subsidy in my mind.
Lizzy 1 paid him herself, it wasn't paid out of the royal exchequer. In those days a tenuous difference but today more important.
And Macbeth was made for James I
hagamapama At the end of the day, QE1 was more like a VIP than an ordinary consumer. and the Crown makes it money from the land and taxes of the people. therefore the money it spends is public money.
Yes, people like to ignore facts of history in order to make their pithy points. The new pushes out the old because of its vibrancy and self-sufficiency; it is the old and tenuous that have already proven themselves in the arena of public history that need and deserve public subsidy.
If a new art form lacks vibrancy and self-sufficiency before producing lasting unique value, then it is simply a failed enterprise that can be allowed to lapse into the darkness of the unfit and forgotten.
Missed one of the best lines:
Jim Hacker, "And where are you going?"
Sir Humphrey, "If you must know, the Royal Opera House."
Jim Hacker, 'Ah! A works outing!"
The hilarious thing is that there are genuine arguments for subsidies of the arts, but particularly when these are from the government, they should be in the interest of making art accessible to everyone, not ensuring the unassailable superiority of an elite class. Shakespeare, Bach, Tchaikovsky and Gershwin created works of incredible depth and expression that, if studied, can help anyone to appreciate new depths of abstract thought and creativity. Of course, that's hardly something Sir Humphrey would want to make available to the wretched masses anyway. They might get some mud on the seats.
Of course, however there is art even more art to study than what you mentioned there. Islamic art, hindu art, and modern arts are all still as valid as the arts that are put up on what is a classical european showcase
@@alekseymolchalin4296 Absolutely. My artistic upbringing is very Euro-centric, which has led to a lot of people - myself included - misjudging art from other cultures due to having a totally biased frame of reference.
It is already accessible to everyone, except the majority of the general public aren't interested in something like Shakespeare as it's essentially another language. It has to be adapted and smoothed over and snuck into public view as an adaptation before the uneducated and unwashed masses can ever accept it. The last thing Joe the window cleaner wants, after hanging from a building all day is to have to translate the meaning behind some round-a-bout language riddle from the Bard.
never heard a convincing argument in favor of government subsidy, and they are just getting worse. if anything, Humphry's appeal to conservation is the least obnoxious of this school; especially when compared to "I know what's best for everyone else" which is what modern takes on this issue can typically be reduced to
The problem is that you end up with governments, which are run by politicians, determining what constitutes Art. Which means you end up with Art being politicized. Change my mind.
The world has lost two great characters. I am a humble uneducated Japanese but I hope I am allowed to express my respect towards Paul Eddington and Nigel Hawthorne.
Yes Minister and Yes P Ministers actually impressed a lot of people inside and outside Britain. They did not stop as comedies. It showed tolerance and self-awareness combined with the ability to criticise the system with ample seasoning of humour and wit. Only English are capable of such great performance.
Long live Japan :-)
It will never be made today, political correctness makes it impossible.
They would demand a diverse cast and then complain if a cast member belonging to a supposed suppressed minority is represented in a negative manner even if this makes sense within the context of the show.
Jesus the servility and arselicking
Never say humble
@@gerardjagroo It's a staple of Japanese culture to be polite and respectful of other cultures. Imagine that.
"the public can't afford £30 seats and if they could they couldn't get them. There aren't enough of them"
This now can also be used to describe football.
Sounds like a good reason for a subsidy. ;)
As someone who could only afford nosebleed seats at the opera, I sympthasize. BTW, it is hilarious to find out at the opera your mother is afraid of heights.
£30 ? The prices go up from 80s - it is more than £120 for good seat in ROH.
Mission... accomplished ? :-D
you know, the funny thing is, that if the opera wasn't subsidized, it wouldn't survive, and you know why, because paying tickets, noone would go see it if it was in the hands of the upper elite.
This is the first time, I saw the Minister owning Humphery.Humphery on this occassion could nt circumvent the issue.
The first time was, I think, "The Right to Know" in Series 1, where Hacker manages to circumvent Humphrey to get the safeguards on his national database put in place.
My Favorite Hacker win was called "The Key" just the way Humphrey gets deranged when his access is cut off...
It cuts off to early. The punchline is Hacker saying "Off you go then: I don't want to make you late for your 'works outing'!" Genius writing & performance.
In 1989, the Canadian government purchased a painting, consisting only of 3 vertical stripes, for $1.8 million. Never before has so little been subsidized for so much by so many.
Shawn B It's like the British Government Art Collection. Used to be full of beautiful, classic treasure. Now it's Tracy Emin and Britart rubbish that won't last 5 minutes, like the rotting sharks and cows.
Yeh it's called Voice Of Fire I think. Current value about $50 million USD. A cracking investment I would say. Wish all governments were is financially astute as this.
Well, they must have already had plenty of Rothko's three horizontal stripes. Gotta spice it up with some diversity, you know.
I'll happily paint four vertical stripes for just $2 million. That's a $400,000 discount. Can the Canadian government resist such a bargain?
Money Laundering
Sir Humphrey: Should we subsidise sex as well?!!
Bernard: Oh could we?
Me: LEGEND!!!
Now they subsidise pro-LGBT propaganda alright.
John Galt the same way that they funded gender equality and racial equality I guess?
I suppose child benefits do to some extent.
Sir Bernard gets all the best lines.
Bernard's one liners or one word-ers .... were usually killers!
Derek Fowlds is no more. He passed away earlier this week. I am going through Yes Minister and Prime Minister again. This is just a timeless classic!
I suspect a lot of people will re watch the show just to remind them of classic superb scriptwriting and excellent acting
@steve gale That's pretty much most people
I hear John Nettleton (Sir Arnold Robinson) is still around at 91.
Humphrey and Hacker have a very similar conversation somewhere - can't remember if its this episode - where Hacker is criticising the money poured into maintaining some cultural artefact which neither of them actually use, and Humphrey replies "but its vital to know its there!" I'm no conservative, but I actually agree with Humphrey in this sense. I've never been to the opera. I never visit art galleries. I do like the occasional play, but its a rare thing. Nevertheless, I'm glad these things exist, and I don't mind that they're subsided, if that's the price of keeping them alive. Culture is important, and shouldn't just be left to market forces.
I think it was in Yes Prime MInister when they were discussing the subsidies.
In a way, it's the same thing with money invested in preserving the environment or biodiversity. I don't intend to venture to the Arctic to see the ice cap, or to the depth of the jungle to meet gorillas, but it's important to know they are there!
@@princevesperal Absolutely.
But I don't and I won't ever be happy about paying taxes for such middle class rip offs. If you wanna subsidise anything in the name of education, subsidise STEM fields in universities across the country and not just Scotland. No student should be paying off loans well into their 30s.
That was a conversation with Bernard, the convo wandered there when they were discussing Local Government Reforms.
"We have sex education too. Should we subsidize sex perhaps?"
"Oh, could we?"
Even the LSE is not totally opposed to education
Humphrey can not let Hacker forget that he got a first at Oxford while Hacker "merely" graduated from the London School of Economics.
I really love how Humpey uses "it's the thin end of the wedge" as if it were a valid argument
To Humph anything is a valid arguement as long as it leads to the result he wants. He should've been a minister.
Do you have any idea how much power and influence he would have to give up if he became a Minister?
@SpaghettiandSauce Very true.
Hey uh, explain what "the thin end of the wedge" means to an American, please?
@@Soitisisit it's like "the beginning of the end", and it's a fallacy, because it implies the start of a process, which cannot be stopped. You can also call it the 'slippery slope' argument.
Sir Humphrey has a point - sports make more than enough money on their own. The arts simply do not have the same commercial options. You can't bet on an opera, for example.
Why should the public subsidise the culture of the Axis powers?
Yes and therefore not worthy of a subsidy. Why subsidise something people don’t want to see
Funny enough, only rich people can afford to go to football matches these days.
Only at the top clubs, (most of) the Championship and below is still affordable 👍
For that you could include legislation which required football clubs to have a certain number of tickets sold for a lower price
Seeing as these clips are over 30 years old, you can see the progression of society. The rich now attend sport matches at ridiculous prices and almost all big sport teams receive government one way or another. Football matches are the new opera/arts they were joking about.
Support your local non-league team then.
Middle class as £100,000 a year is starting middle class earnings now.
Marvellous scripts, rising to the level of great literature, performed by actors truly at the top of their game
subsidizing by popular demand is an oxymoron. if something is popular it doesnt need subsidies.
Actually only half true. What about something like Mass Transit, which is popular. The people don't actually pay the full economic cost of the service. It must be subsidized.
Not necessarily, look to the example of K-Pop in South Korea and Funk in Brazil. Both extremely popular in their home countries and internationally but still subsidized by their government. A great example of public and private partnership.
@@Vmvmvmvmvn k-pop is an international war crime
How about the university system *oh wait I forgot england stopped doing that* XD
Yes exactly
Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, British comedy at a level difficult to replicate! 40 years on and I am still enjoying these masterpieces.
"European Partners" I thought they were our "Common Market enemies" Humphrey ?
Yes and no, you see, in a complex and articulated setting like the current one, it would be diminutive and, more importantly, unwise to apply only one universal epithet since conditions change, the atmosphere is incredibly volatile and times can, and will, drastically alter the perception and, therefore, necessary plans of action in regards to determinate topics.
As a graduate from the LSE, I love those jokes
You were a graduate of the LSE? Well in the style of Bernard, "I am sorry".
@@johnking5174 The universities......both of them. 😊
I'm amazed you have the intellect to understand them.
@@BillCarrIpswich As an economist I know nothing
@@AchtungEnglander Thats right, we technical people laugh about you too.
This is one of the rare occasions in which Hacker actually scores one against Humphrey.
nah, as much as I usually side with Hacker I'm with Humphrey on this one
@@speedformercy While I agree in terms of policy, Hacker still argues well in this scene and Humphrey can't avoid the question or put together a coherent retort.
@@speedformercy
As much as I usually think Humphrey us right, he is completely wrong on this one. He is forcing people to fund what he and the elite like him deem to be art rather than the culture itself. It's one thing preserving art like a museum but forcing the production of that which only lasted so long because you made it so isn't gonna preserve art, it's going to make art because stale and simply trying to fit in a category that gets funding rather than touching the hearts of the people.
@@JP-rf8rr Except ofc that the elite and upper middle class pay most of the taxes.
I am with Sir Humphrey. Opera tickets are way too expensive. They should be cheap. Opera for everyone!
***** And not "one of them"! ;)
Royal Opera House does tickets from £4
they mean a monthly ticket in that time. By the way we subside Sports. Or who paid for the London Olympic Games 2012???
I haven't been to the opera for years (make that decades), but when I did, both Covent Garden and the English National Opera had very cheap seats up in the higher galleries. The only snag was you needed the Hubble Telescope to see the stage.
You may buy fairly good seats in any opera house at the same price range practiced in most famous rock festivals. The price of tickets it's just a fooney excuse not to go to opera, disguising a bad cultural conscience.
in this rare case I have to side with Humphrey. My father worked for public television and in classical music for decades and it was always a miserable uphill battle. Professional sports never need any government assistance, they get massive amounts of money from advertising and there's never any shortage of fans. Classical music only seems elitist because at the moment only the rich and educated can afford to experience it. If classical music were to be a requirement in school, millions more would appreciate it and want it as part of their lives
Dutch violinist and conductor André Rieu and his orchestra have turned classical and waltz music into a worldwide concert touring act, as successful as some of the biggest global pop and rock music acts. Evidence that classical musicians do not need government funding, they just need to come up with ways to sell their product better.
Professional sport does indeed acquire its funds from advertising, TV, and ticket sales. As for art? It desperately needs support. Perhaps art of all sorts was popular over a century ago, to the point that it probably didn't require government subsidies.
It's a sad state of affairs, and Humphrey does make a point. Not to say Hacker doesn't, but football never really needed public financial support if a club were to go into Administration.
Yes exactly. I thought that was obvious...but apparently not!
@@MismeretMonk Andre Rieu is the classical equivalent of pop music and showmanship. The Liberace of the violin. There's nothing wrong with liking him but don't confuse him with Yitzak Perlman.
@@incarnateTheGreat Art received subsidy alright... through the patronage system. (And still does in a lesser though similar form through Corporate sponsorship) The question that the average taxpayer is entitled to ask however is this.. if Art is so good, why can't it stand on its own? If a football club should be allowed to fail and die (which is no doubt fine with you and fine with me too BTW) then why doesn't the SAME standard be applied to art?
Axially I believe most of the great artists of the past had the monarchy as their patrons, some even lived with them.
RIP Mr. Derek (Bernard), you will be missed.
Part of it must be prestige. If the only/best Opera House in London with traditions going back centuries goes bankrupt, it would look bad internationally and raise many voices in protest domestically. If some football club goes bankrupt, there will be far less trouble.
Funnily enough, I agree with Sir Humphrey. Heart subsidy is a contentious topic here in the US. Many have argued for ending it for many of the same reasons that Jim hacker presents here. But we forget, as we go along with that line of argument, the fact that we can't place value over one piece of art over another- we just aren't qualified. "One man's vulgarity is another man's rap lyric". That's why we give subsidies to museums, who then subsidize artists of their choosing.
As for the remark about whether Shakespeare had subsidies, well we hear that too. "Arthur Miller didn't need the NEA to write Death of a Salesman". But here's the thing: Arthur Miller was absolutely subsidized by the government. Only back then, it was called the WPA. And Shakespeare himself was also given government subsidies. His company was called the King's Men, so named because King James funded them.
Shakespeare's plays were hugely popular in London during his career, with or without royal patronage. He retired and bought one of the biggest houses in his home town.
@@johnneville403 which wouldn't have been possible without subsidy
DId Shakespeare get a public subsidy?
I don't know - where oh where might the King's Men get their money from?
It was QE1's money and not out of the Exchequer
Shakespeares history is all lies. He wasnt a poet play writer in reality he wrote the future. He was a visionary for the British empire
They made up his past to preserve him
@@donspartan5403 It is called Romanticism. No one reads the Three Musketeers or Notre Dame de Paris for their historical accuracy either.
Did he write the future in the same way Orwell and Huxley predicted the future or did he write about the past that it could be applicable to the future as well? That is the question.
@@artofthepossible7329 the past present and future are all the same thing
@@artofthepossible7329 ps your in my reality so i can shape what you shall see
I love how at the end Hacker ask Humphrey if he could come to the opera with him at the end of the episode.
Brilliant writing, one of my favourite shows.
Sadly, we just lost the third of the trio this week. Derek Fowles has passed away.
I major in art history. Our professors prize themselves for being in the ivory tower and having nothing to do with reality.
Isn't that a philosophical standpoint though? After all, if we're going down the post-modern, existentialist road here, wouldn't they be able to argue that other people have as little to do with their reality as they have with other people's? Does the existence of one perspective negate the other regarding something as subjective as art? In science or maths where there are objective truths, sure. But just because some people prefer certain kinds of art that other people do not prefer does not necessarily mean that either of them is in an 'ivory tower'.
Meanwhile, there's plenty of discussion to be had about what gets labeled as "art" or "not-art", and who gets to be an "artist" and who's stuck as a "not-artist", and whose past gets to be "history" and whose records are "not-history", and why some things are "art history" and others are "archaeology". Discussions that anyone halfway committed to postmodernism absolutely ought to be having when the curriculum gets written or when the new class starts.
But I guess that might result in drinking songs getting the same respect as operas, and the sorts of people who major in art history tend to have parents who might have Opinions on that. Which might impact the university's funding.
I'd listen to Sir Humphrey explaining absolutely anything
Later in the ep.
"Humphrey... As Cabinet Minister responsible for the arts... Could I come too?"
" *surprise turns to visible delight* ...Yes Minister!"
This is years old, and yet so up to date!
It's funny, sad, and depressing at the same time. It's funny because it's true. It's sad because it's also true. And it's depressing because after a day's worth of work I have no power within myself to go anywhere like the opera house. I would just go home and try to relax before the next exhausting day of work.
"Oh could we?"
Classic Bernard!
LMAO
great discussion! i still think it's a difficult point. both arguments make sense.
This standard of comedy writing will never again see the light of day. Wonderful.
Not just a comedy performance. Greatest intelligent comedy performance. A performance that opened the eyes of the people.
Keep repeating 1:13 - 1:23 xD Ohh, Bernard, this is why I like you.
I wish I could watch this series from one point to the other.
1.26
Bernard's expression in unbeatable.
Waiting for the right time to intervene...
I think "Could we" might be the best reaction of this series.
2:45 Films do get subsidized with tax breaks; British Columbia has a refundable labour-based incentive for Canadian productions. YM & YPM are both fantastic political satire (although it's more like a disturbingly truthful documentary).
This is relevent how?
It pretty much was at the time the writers had incredible access, leaks and rumour support from the civil service. There were regular 'how the fuck did they find THAT OUT' moments....
Warner bros even got nz to change labour laws so they didn't have to pay film crews az much. And tax breaks and subsidies.
That happened in the UK after this show it was in the early 2000 introduced by Gordon Brown. To be honest it's worked quite well, as it was just a tax break, rather than some of the bad ones as described by another commenter about New Zealands horrible labour practices for movies.
The script for this is so bloody good and is more so relevant today with the illusion of the classless society and the middle classes dominating socio economic spheres of life.
"Ballet" ! Best satire and comedy ever written and acted.
Wonderful documentary. Would never be made today for certain.
Incredible dialogue in this show unable to be replicated in today’s climate, ironically in today’s social political climate of class,race and global capitalism the dialogue is equally relevant.
The minister always looks so delighted when he has Sir Humphrey on the run.
Once a legend said ."Oh, could we?"
Perennially relevant. Brilliant!
@Myndir
as an aside, thee of us went to the Royal Opera House last year (and laughed a lot when we were there, remembering this programme!). All three of us got in for £45 in total. Not a great deal of purchasing power.
@mlovecraftr £30 isn't much today, but in 1982 that was worth about £120, which certainly wasn't affordable when you consider what most people's real incomes were back in the 1980s, especially in 1982 when there were over 3 million unemployed people.
Public money is spent on public transport precisely because there is popular demand, but a lack of purchasing power for most people who use it. On the other hand, high art has very little demand and users with a great deal of purchasing power...
I think it's a mistake to lump all art together. A community theatre featuring amateur actors and musicians or a dance school should definitely be subsidised, but a west end theatre selling out 120 pound seats doesn't really need money does it?
I think it actually does, tbh. I don't think you know how much it costs for a high-budget production to be profitable. You aren't paying 120 for an hour, hour and a half, two hour spectacle. You are paying the artistic, tecnical and administrative staff, the building, the electricity, the stagecrafting, the catering, the conceptualizing... You are paying for months of these people's time... Divided by each seat it can barely make any profit. Large sums are moved, but not much is left for future investment.
Welcome to showbiz.
@mandellorian I recently talked with some friends in the biz, and they cleared up my confusion. You are right, I guess I was talking out my ass... However, the point of a business isn't to break even, it's to make a profit. Usually, double it. So, considering the risk, I still think that if you have a paying audience that is willing to pay such price for a seat, I think you should, without a doubt, take advantage of it.
Also, if you only need 55£ in average to break even, for you to make a reasonable profit you'd have to add half to each ticket, 75£. Then, considering every show must at least break even, you'd compensate for possible empty seats by... raising the price again, possibly 100, 120. This is possible when the demography permits it. A half-filled auditorium is a profitless presentation, even if each seat is 120£
@@alistairmuir5521 I don't understand why you say it won't be a popular final word. Wasn't the Renaissance funded by private investment? I see patronage and philanthropy as the tools the capitalist society uses to redeem itself of it's greedy ways. There is money for the arts... just not all arts.
I feel this thread misses the point. Hacker wants votes, Humphrey wants his life style subsidised. There's no serious discussion about whether sport or the arts, or even which arts should get money. It's just two posh people cpming up with tenuous reasons to get what serves their best interests - and that is the joke.
In a time of BoJo, Farage and Corbyn that point is as relevant now as it was then.
@@Gongasoso This conversation was almost too polite and insightful for RUclips.
Brilliant script delivered by outstanding actors, all greatly missed.
The ' Yes Ministers ' and the ' Rumpoles ' , were great fare back in the ' 80's . Not forgetting ' Minder ' , of course . Ask the " indoors " .
Perfection as always.
I actually completely agree with Sir Humphrey on this one lol. Art is cultural heritage that needs to be preserved, football are usually private ventures benefiting the rich.
Not local clubs like the one they're talking about.
+igotnoideawhattoput
That being the case, then let the benefactors of the football clubs subsidise the arts :)
+igotnoideawhattoput I am with Bernard on this one
Benefiting the rich? What does that mean? If you mean owners, they susbidise the clubs, not the other way around. Very few people make money out of football-- except the players.
There's no reason art can't be private ventures. Why, the free market is what ensures compositions are worth the price of admission.
You cut out the funniest line where the Minister says 'works outing is it?'
the joke is not who here was right, the joke is that this show was made by subsidies they got from the BBC to make this show. well played.
The point is that it's a valid political discussion with no real right answer.
Its greatly illustrative of a great number of subsidy questions...it all boils down to choosing what gets subsidized and what doesnt.
Sir Humprey is soooooooooooooo right here! The level of culture has been dropping frightfully, people onlt want stupid things that numb the brain like sport and reality tv.
What exactly makes the fine arts so much more intellectually advanced than "stupid things" like football and reality TV? Why can't you just let people enjoy things rather than stroking your own ego?
@@taxmanfelix5189 if they enjoy it they can pay for it themselves
I can't imagine brilliant comedies like this could even be created in the current social and political climate.
These days they are nothing but maggots feeding on the carcass of western civilization.
@@ZnenTitan What, the comedies?
@@whiteknightcat PC Gestapo.
@Jacob Zondag Short memories about what?
House of card is a recent one in the USA and that was based off a British show. The writer of Yes Minister said you could make it today
If ever a programme was ahead of its time......
So funny!!! This is just the same discussion that's going on right this moment in the Netherlands.
Absolutely brilliant :)
I went to the Royal opera House once and sat in a box...I enjoyed it at first but it did go on abit!
“Has it ever struck you that life is all memory, except for the one present moment that goes by you so quick you hardly catch it going?”― Tennessee Williams..................
It’s easier and cheaper to get seats at the ROH now than it is to get tickets to see a premier league football match. How’s that for irony.
As usual, both have good arguments.
Because there is a direct relationship between the cultural prosperity of a nation and its subsidy of that culture. And yes: Shakespeare received patronage from lords and ladies who collected money through taxes. Shakespeare was publically funded.
Even 2019 is this still actual
Hands up for Sir Humphrey! Save our Opera House!
So so funny. Never gets old
The 'man in the street' certainly liked Shakespeare in Shakespeare's day. He received no subsidy (as far as I know) and died very well-off.
He got Royal patronage
2:43 - Don't know about a "public subsidy", but he certainly had enough members of the nobility as patrons.
Such great fun and a presage of our own decline into coarse savagery.
@TheStranglehold
Indeed. It´s a joy to behold.
It is nice to see these rare occasions when Hacker gets a one up :)
Sad that this was cut short, they lost the part where Hacker told Sir Humbrey "Who he is to prevent Sir Humbrey to ready him for companyevent".
a rare occasion when Jim Hacker gets one over on Sir Humphrey
Hacker at 2:35, just superb.
"should we subsidize sex?"
"...could we?"
XD
Imagine the birth rate actually getting above replacement rates again.
I mean a lot of countries _are_ subsidising children....
Yes, prostitutes as sex therapy on the nhs
For the record, the reason football should be on its own while opera gets a subsidy is because Football is a commercial operation that is well capable of funding itself. Both are important pieces of culture, but subsidization only deserves to go to those things that actually _need_ it, not things that _want_ it.
If something can't be commercially viable, by definition it doesn't need it...if people thought XYZ needed support , they would do so with their own money
The thing is, that people's favourites change during their lives. I know many people listening the heavy metal music in 90's, when they laugh on me listening Britten for instance, now the very same persons are asking me to borrow War Requiem for everything. And, I saw the case: The rock band was playing concert on the seaside because of some festival, then few steps away the chamber orchestra was playing some concerto, gues which performance collected bigger audience?
I agree anyone who watches or plays football is a peasant at heart!
Brilliant!
Well, this is still very topical today.
loss the final part：
Jim：what are they play tonight？
Hampy：flying dutch man.
Jim：another european partner
Wow, never made that connection...but it's true.
One of the best sitcoms ever.
2:01 This is the *real* reason to cut the subsidies.
That would get my vote :D
Sir Humphrey is completely right. Football clubs and cinema have sufficient revenue to sustain themselves. Subsidies are required for services that can't sustain for themselves but are neccesary nonetheless like public transport. If I heard right the entry was 30 pounds. that doesn`t seem like so much money. With subsidies the opera was actually at a closer reach for the common man
mlovecraftr £30 back then was a lot more.
Agreed, one of the few times I agreed with Sir. Humphrey.
RIP. All 3 are no more.