we have a real problem in london in terms of live music. there aren’t enough venues and those that there are only care about how much food and drink they can sell, not about how much music people will hear. bands starting from scratch, especially interesting non-rock-and-roll. live music is labour-intensive and costly. DJs and nightclubs are cheap. licensing is run by local councils as a revenue-raising exercise.

normally i have a lot of time for what rumbold says, but in this case i tend to agree with whoever said that cutting funding for music festivals just as the credit crunch is about to bite will utterly kill the live music scene. and london is supposed to be the capital of world music!

i’m not even a professional musician – i have a proper job too; however, i do know that musicians are some of the most financially disrespected people on the planet, apart from the 0.00000000000000001% that make it as rock stars.

b’shalom

bananabrain

“The only upside is that I live in Watford, my council tax is safe (for the moment!).”

They will find a way to make you pay- they always do.

Tom:

“In the real world, however, competition is only as good as it’s allowed to be. In industries with high entry costs (like energy and transportation) and in the absence of both strong state regulation and effective dissemination of information (i.e. an independent, powerful, well-informed media) there’s nothing to stop cartels forming, as indeed happens.”

I agree that in a very small number of industries (water being the prime example, but not gas or electricity), that natural monopolies necessitate either a state-run industry, or a privatised industry with very strong regulation. However, I am not sure that the bus example qualifies, as there are alternatives. The free market does not always deliver the best deal for consumers, nor does it claim to. The genuis of it lies in the fact that prices are largely determined by what consumers actually want (demand), and what companies are able to provide (supply), so high prices are not bad per se, as they just indicate a different interaction between demand and supply.

3rd cheapest gas, 4th cheapest electricity, fastest rising prices, apparently.

In the real world, however, competition is only as good as it’s allowed to be. In industries with high entry costs (like energy and transportation) and in the absence of both strong state regulation and effective dissemination of information (i.e. an independent, powerful, well-informed media) there’s nothing to stop cartels forming, as indeed happens.

For example, see the latest Private Eye for an example where bus companies are raising prices claiming fuel prices are forcing them to. This is despite the fact (as revealed to shareholders) that they’ve sensibly hedged fuel costs, which are in any case a much smaller part of their cost base than one might think.

The only place this hasn’t happened is, of course, in London, where there’s strong state control of ticket prices. Such price gouging can only happen in the, er, deregulated, competitive market outside London where there’s nobody in a powerful enough position to say ‘bollocks’.

Naturally, this flies against Thatcherite orthodoxy, so free market fundies, believers in magic to a man, suffer a convenient bout of cognitive dissonance when presented with evidence of this sort of thing.

2012 is such a bad idea on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin.

The only upside is that I live in Watford, my council tax is safe (for the moment!)

“You are missing the point. The Middle Classes are subsidising low income people to enjoy cultural events rather then the other way around.”

Do you have any evidence of this? Poor people pay taxes, and plenty of middle class people go to festivals.

“Sigh. I appreciate you think these people don’t deserve such events unless they are brought to you by McDonalds or something. Even bigger sigh.”

It is a question of scarce resources as much as anything. Should taxpayers’ money be spent on festivals, or something more important? I think that latter, but I find that few people agree with me. As C Chandra says, it is all about bread and circuses.

MaidMarian:

Agreed. I would refuse to hold the games, and give them back to the IOC, or else tell the organisers that they won’t get one drop of public money.

The catastrophe that is the 2012 Olympic Games.

More generally there is scope for some cuts – especially from the endless tacky events that clutter Trafalgar Square – but London would be poorer were all to be lost. I will be honest and say I have no idea how that squares with efficiency though.

You are missing the point. The Middle Classes are subsidising low income people to enjoy cultural events rather then the other way around.

Sigh. I appreciate you think these people don’t deserve such events unless they are brought to you by McDonalds or something. Even bigger sigh.

TCH

I think that we should wait for Nav to explain it.”

With respect he already has which clearly indicates it wasn’t sattire. I challenged the remark and his reply was:

“Oh boo fucking hoo.

And the post I was responding to wasn’t guilty of perpetuating stereotypes about the middle classes?!”

It is too late to delete the comment but we shouldn’t accept this type of ill informed labelling and stereotypes.

If you recall not so long ago one person was left in tears and walked away from PP for some time after a similar dodgy comment. It isn’t acceptable.

I occasionally may attend a public vasaikhi event. Even if I don’t, I feel happy that some of my taxes go towards stuff like that. I don’t like the idea of more of my hard earned going into some bureacrat’s pocket.

Ok, if funding is to be limited do some damn thing that promotes diversity and positively acknowledges the existence of the range of cultures that make this city.

Mate, don’t put words in my mouth, I clearly said state funding.

Sorry, I apologise, I was talking in the context of state funding.

I think that we should wait for Nav to explain it.

I thought so initially but changed my mind as I read down the comments.

“I just dont agree with the idea that just because the govt funds other orgs to run some cultural festivals, it ‘crowds out’ others. That may apply to market forces but not necessarily cultural events.”

I am pretty sure that Eid, Diwali and other festivals have survived centuries without British taxpayers funding them.

Amrit:

I too think that Boris is wasting far too much money. But it doesn’t follow that he should waste it on something else instead.

“I imagine getting govt. funding is a fairly difficult process (probably to discourage timewasters) and so it’s only when people REALLY NEED extra support.”

Everyone wants government funding, because it means that they have to raise less money themselves.

Leon:

“Quite frankly those who want to start with the whole arts shouldn’t be state funded because it has no value should be demanding a stop to subsidising the arms industry if they care that much about value for tax payers…get your priorities right ffs.”

Er… the debate is about funding for festivals. Nobody codemned arms subsidies because it wasn’t brought up. I don’t think that the state should subsidise the arms industry either.

Tom:

“I never did understand why it was more efficient to have six companies employing people to sell me electricity instead of one. Perhaps I just don’t ‘get it’.”.

Competition in general drives prices down. For years we have enjoyed lower energy costs then Europe.

Chairwoman:

I think that Nav’s comment was supposed to be satire.