“That still makes it a commercial festival, subject to those constraints.”

So?

“Do you buy into the argument that one shouldn’t talk about trivial things when there are people DYING in the world?”

No, because that is a silly argument which doesn’t really help anyone. But the allocation of resources is something that can make a real difference to people. I know that socialists have difficulty grasping this notion, but if the state stops funding and regulating culture, it carries on.

“Tranferring a service to the free market is not good in itself, only if you can demonstrate that it will lead to more good. You’re arguing that a private enterprise will do a better job on assumption. That’s no argument.”

I am arguing that popular festivals will attract paying customers, so why do they need state subsidy? As for unpopular events, why should the state continue to subsidise those which few want?

Bananabrain:

” and a music festival that is required in order for there to be a platform for traditional music groups to play to people outside their core ethnic/religious constituency, it is hard enough anyway to do anything musically interesting these days. there simply aren’t the facilities to have gigs. live music in london is completely threatened by this – and i can tell you that from the stage at these festivals, it damsure looks like it promotes community cohesion to *me*.”

I am not saying it is easy to find the money, but why should taxpayers subsidise live music? It isn’t like kidney machines or domestic violence shelters. There’s no moral reason why the state should pay.

i understand your arguments, but aside from the fact that you apparently can’t tell the difference between a religious festival that the group concerned will observe anyway (eid al-fitr, chanukah) and a music festival that is required in order for there to be a platform for traditional music groups to play to people outside their core ethnic/religious constituency, it is hard enough anyway to do anything musically interesting these days. there simply aren’t the facilities to have gigs. live music in london is completely threatened by this – and i can tell you that from the stage at these festivals, it damsure looks like it promotes community cohesion to *me*.

b’shalom

bananabrain

That still makes it a commercial festival, subject to those constraints.

But if there is a shortage of essential services, why should culture take priority over them?

Do you buy into the argument that one shouldn’t talk about trivial things when there are people DYING in the world?

If they are popular, why not leave pricing up to the market?

tranferring a service to the free market is not good in itself, only if you can demonstrate that it will lead to more good. You’re arguing that a private enterprise will do a better job on assumption. That’s no argument.

“A thousand apologies for mixing you up with the Maid.”

We all look alike to some people. Heh.

“But putting it in perspective, I fail to see how people can complain about a Vasaikhi celebration that may be getting SOME funding when we have monstrous wastes like the Dome and possibly the upcoming Olympics.”

Oh I agree that the money spent is nothing compared to the black hole that is the Olympics.

“Yet again I say, some of those, “festivals” may well serve a good purpose in this city. Even if it is just a simple gesture of acknowledgment of your culture’s existence in the mosaic of the city. These small things can have more of an impact on cohesion than some people think.”

But festivals wouldn’t vanish if there was not government funding available.

Sunny:

”Maybe the hypocritical cow should have fought less wars with other people’s money then.”

Which wars were they? You mean the one where a brutal military dictatorship invaded British territory?

”I’m just pointing out that proportionately, funding a free cultural festival is re-distribution to the poor.”

Well, since no-one seems to have any statistical evidence one way or the other about the income of visitors, we don’t actually know.

”Furthmore, it would be biased towards culture or events that are financially viable compared to culture that isn’t, but is still good. (Just compare the Sunrise Radio Mela to the London Mela for a start).”

You seem to assume that non-state = businesses. What about local community groups organizing festivals and recouping the money through ticket sales?

”Because there is no “limit” as such to services, to the extent that nothing else will ever be funded. This argument is very much like saying – don’t talk about trivial things when there are people DYING in the world!! etc.”

But if there is a shortage of essential services, why should culture take priority over them?

”No, the govt is supporting what are popular events.”

If they are popular, why not leave pricing up to the market?

”You think anything the state does is totalitarian.”

Heh. Well, for the most part…

Douglas:

”You are too narrowist in your idealogical driven nonsense. You are, sir, a libertarian, until such times as we can reduce you to sense.

That moment does not seem to be near. Instead, you drift further towards the idiocy of the libertarian, read idiot, than run away as the complete and utter tit he is.”

So you don’t agree with the piece then?

Inders:

What was the money supposed to be spent on then? What was the building supposed to contain?

The majority of that money came from the European regeneration fund. But a third sector company messed up the money completely. The local authority stepped into to save it but not to the tune of £60m.

The free market has made a mess of West Bromwich. The high street is a patchy network of charity shops and pound shops. Perhaps this building was a case of putting all their eggs in one basket, but noone in west bromwich is saying that the money should have been spent on something completely different. Just that they should have spread the money around a little more on smaller cultural projects.

You are too narrowist in your idealogical driven nonsense. You are, sir, a libertarian, until such times as we can reduce you to sense.

That moment does not seem to be near. Instead, you drift further towards the idiocy of the libertarian, read idiot,than run away as the complete and utter tit he is.

Well, Rumbold? Try your favourite menatalist.

Well, Devil’s Kitchen?

Every time I have challenged him here, he runs away, because he is a complete utter tit. You know less about climate science than Rumblod claims to do.

Well, it wouldn’t be independent anyway – because someone has to fund it (unless they perform for free.

The Rainbow Festival here in Watford was put out of its misery recently and, notwithstanding the protestations of the local race relations industry, the sky did not fall. It was an event that had become stale and gone on for too long.

And I’m all for axing stuff that has gone stale and is crap too. Songs of Praise, the Monarchy etc etc included.

The article is correct in that it is difficult to seen any real cohesion benefits beyond preaching to the converted.

Not always. Sometimes it seeks to re-affirm a social convention that racism = bad. But the point here isn’t that all festivals should be about anti-racism.

Sometimes they’re merely to celebrate culture without any overt political agenda. Sure, the govt sometimes uses cultural festivals on an anti-racism ticket. But frankly, I didn’t bother going to the Chinese New Year festival but I did hang out at the Latino music festival in London a few weeks ago.

It wasn’t about anti-racism, it was about celebrating a subculture that is represented quite heavily in London.

If culture is going to be funded, let it be in high quality heritage, galleries and theatres (accessible to all) that show off the best cultural activity. Not pointless festivals that are ultimately in the interests of very few.

And this is my point. Brown people pay taxes too. Why should only mainstream culture be funded and the rest not cared for? The money can be divided up roughly proportionately, and so far it is.

Trofim:
Remember Maggie Thatcher’s quote to the effect that :”The trouble with socialism is that eventually it runs out of other people’s money”.

Maybe the hypocritical cow should have fought less wars with other people’s money then.

Rumbold:
So you have statistical proof that the visitors to such festivals and events are mainly poor. Please could you show me the link.

I’m just pointing out that proportionately, funding a free cultural festival is re-distribution to the poor, not the other way around as you asserted.

Because people should be free to select their own cultural events, not be nudged by market-distorting subsidies.

Not necessarily, because a different set of discrimination factors come into play. For example, people from a poorer community might not be able to attract private sponsorship.

Furthmore, it would be biased towards culture or events that are financially viable compared to culture that isn’t, but is still good. (Just compare the Sunrise Radio Mela to the London Mela for a start).

Thirdly, various state bodies could make it harder to organise a private festival (Notting Hill Carnival) unless there was special govt support that made it important the police cooperate. My understanding is that the police hate the Notting Hill Carnival. So if it was privately funded, they could just say the costs of policing would be prohibitely high, and avoid it. But if the Mayor’s Office is involved then they can’t really say no.

I am not sure why you think essential services should only be partially funded to pay for interpretative dance shows.

Because there is no “limit” as such to services, to the extent that nothing else will ever be funded. This argument is very much like saying – don’t talk about trivial things when there are people DYING in the world!! etc.

So the government dictates what is appropriate culture, and funds it accordingly.

No, the govt is supporting what are popular events, providing everything is regularly bid for and such things are justified on a regular basis. The govt is merely a willing partner than imposing what is right or wrong.

Sounds like a totalitarian state to me.

You think anything the state does is totalitarian

A thousand apologies for mixing you up with the Maid.

Regarding your point about blanket bans. Is there not a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater with this approach. Looking at your last post I can see why people will be frustrated with funding, when their money goes to such things. Maybe we need a more common sense approach towards what is culture and what isn’t so that we are not afflicted by white elephants such as these. But putting it in perspective, I fail to see how people can complain about a Vasaikhi celebration that may be getting SOME funding when we have monstrous wastes like the Dome and possibly the upcoming Olympics.

Yet again I say, some of those, “festivals” may well serve a good purpose in this city. Even if it is just a simple gesture of acknowledgment of your culture’s existence in the mosaic of the city. These small things can have more of an impact on cohesion than some people think.

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2008/08/public-public-dont-want.html

“Either have a blanket ban or shutup.”

That is what I have been saying all along. Where do I distinguish between ‘white’ festivals and ‘ethnic’ festivals? And it was MaidMarian whom you quoted at the end of your comment, not I.

If it was left up to the free market, there would be nothing anywhere except shops.

“we’re not interested in your festivals so they shouldn’t be funded but those things we have interests in should remain to be funded.”

Either have a blanket ban or shutup. I don’t want my money solely funding the promotion of middle class white culture. I would like at least some of it going towards my own. I know my own people pay more than their fair share of taxes and contribute to the country. Personally I think this just boils down to good old fashion WASP cultural hegemony. Sure, I’m happy to contribute some towards indigenous cultural interests but hell, let me at least have the satisfaction of knowing some is going towards things I am remotely interested/invested in.

The ground reality of such policies is that those things deemed worthy of funding by a elitist minority will continue to be funded, damn the rest.

I’m not excessively concerned about this myself, but gestures of goodwill between communities/cultures can often go along way. And you don’t need empirical evidence to understand or accept this. Based on personal experiences I do believe that cultural events can bring much good to the city’s residents. I recall going to various events as a youth and loving them. They were important to me and now I think of it, I’m not sure if such melas/celebrations were funded by the taxpayer or not. I suspect they were joint ventures between councils and community people. But I imagine because they are not of interest to your average wmc, they are of inferior quality and an unnecessary extravagence for the city……

Again I reiterate my point, can we not have SOME of what we give going towards things we want. As a taxpayer myself I have to ask if this privilege is surreptitiously being reserved for certain types of white people? Maid “eff those foreigners and their ideas” Marian take a bow.

Rumbold:

“This is the difference with the National Gallery/British Museum etc which do not pretend that they are independent and are overtly reflecting a cultural agenda. To my mind, this is a good thing. Inevitably in culture the quality rises to the top.”

As much as I have enjoyed these venues I think it would be seriously narrow minded to think they are the only types of cultural activity that deserve funding. Actually it smacks of high snobbery. Yah.

“Would it be fair to assume that you believe state subsidies shouldn’t merely end for festivals, but also in the cases of museums, art galleries and libraries?”

For the first two categories, yes, but not for libraries, which I would class as education/skills.

Dalbir:

“What about the point of properous “minority” communities contributing much in way of taxes and not seeing anything in return for this in terms of diasporic cultural preservation? Are they not entitled to this?”

So non-prosperous communities shouldn’t be allowed to have their own festivals? This is not about minority communities, but any festivals. I don’t think that St. George’s Day festivals should receive any public money either.

”Also it is possible that this idea is the manisfestation of an increasingly rightward swing in the UK, which is becoming hostile to those perceived to be of “foreign” extraction.

Is it really that objectionable to have some of a communities money spent on their own cultural foibles?”

You act like some white person visits all the ethnic minorities once a year and takes their money and spends it on things which they never see. What about education, healthcare, transport, benefits etc.? This doesn’t have anything to do with whether a festival is ‘foreign’ or not, but whether the taxpayer should be funding festivals.

Sunny:

”And they also pay lower taxes than rich people. So in fact making such festivals free is a form of re-distribution to poorer people, rather than assuming that if the festival is not funded and taxes are cut, it would poor people. Proportionately, it wouldn’t.”

So you have statistical proof that the visitors to such festivals and events are mainly poor. Please could you show me the link.

” In this country Vaisakhi, Eid etc weren’t celebrated in any big numbers until quite recently anyway. In this case the govt doesn’t fund them, but partly financially support activities organised by others. So its neither crowding anything out, nor ensuring its the sole funder.”

Even if an event is being wholly funded by the taxpayer, the effect can still cancel out possible competitors. And surely the rise in numbers attending certain festivals has more to do with immigration then anything else.

”Why should cultural activities have to always be funded by the free market?”

Because people should be free to select their own cultural events, not be nudged by market-distorting subsidies.

”Thats a bit like saying we shouldn’t fund anything until we first fund the NHS and other essential services to the hilt.”

That is exactly what I am saying. I am not sure why you think essential services should only be partially funded to pay for interpretative dance shows.

”No. The state isn’t paying for culture – it is helping develop it. As culture and tastes change, the govt will have to fund different stuff. But a lot of cultural activities, theatre for example, wouldn’t be able to survive otherwise.”

So the government dictates what is appropriate culture, and funds it accordingly. Sounds like a totalitarian state to me.

MaidMarian:

”I am now going to explain to my Greek friend here why the Elgin Marbles belong in the British Museum.”

Always a fun topic. And thanks.

No, they are not. At least not at the expense of the taxpayer.

On the article itself, I think that this perhaps comes down to what these events are ‘for.’ I would suggest that Sunny’s comparison with the NHS is slightly false in that there is a world of qualitative difference between a festival and an openly available health service.

My issue with festivals is what are they really for? The article is correct in that it is difficult to seen any real cohesion benefits beyond preaching to the converted. It is the article’s last paragraph that really strikes at the heart of this.

It is difficult to see by what definition ‘culturalists’ can credibly call themselves independent when they are subsidized by the tax payer/state. This is the difference with the National Gallery/British Museum etc which do not pretend that they are independent and are overtly reflecting a cultural agenda. To my mind, this is a good thing. Inevitably in culture the quality rises to the top.

The Rainbow Festival here in Watford was put out of its misery recently and, notwithstanding the protestations of the local race relations industry, the sky did not fall. It was an event that had become stale and gone on for too long.

If culture is going to be funded, let it be in high quality heritage, galleries and theatres (accessible to all) that show off the best cultural activity. Not pointless festivals that are ultimately in the interests of very few. Culture should not be code for ramming agendas down the collective throat, however noble the intention.

On a slightly separate point, it is a really good article on a thoroughly interesting issue. It is great to see something low profile on here like this. More like this please!

I am now going to explain to my Greek friend here why the Elgin Marbles belong in the British Museum. I am also going, later this weekend, to see a show of Balkan dance – with no subsidy on my ticket.

Ah, but that’s redistribution in action. The people come in for free and the artist loses money.

As i understand it, the Edinburgh Fringe doesn’t get a lot of public money, yet many shows are free.

Erm, this is economic reality, not patronising. As a percentage of their income, poorer people spend less on arts and culture.

And they also pay lower taxes than rich people. So in fact making such festivals free is a form of re-distribution to poorer people, rather than assuming that if the festival is not funded and taxes are cut, it would poor people. Proportionately, it wouldn’t.

Similarly, when the govt makes it free for people to go see museums and art galleries, it is again a form of re-distribution to poor people.

Your second argument doesn’t stand up.

As for your third argument – it also doesn’t stand up:

Festivals that have been long established, such as Diwali or Eid-il-Fitr, have survived for hundreds of years without British taxpayers footing the bill.

Those festivals have largely survived in countries of origin because there its a national holiday and because its tradition.

In this country Vaisakhi, Eid etc weren’t celebrated in any big numbers until quite recently anyway. In this case the govt doesn’t fund them, but partly financially support activities organised by others. So its neither crowding anything out, nor ensuring its the sole funder.

But is it really the taxpayers’ role to prop up cultural events that people are not willing to pay for in a free market?

Why should cultural activities have to always be funded by the free market?

Since the state is currently running a deficit of tens of billions of pounds per year, essential services are not being provided, and taxes are high, it is wrong to argue that cultural events should be subsidised

Thats a bit like saying we shouldn’t fund anything until we first fund the NHS and other essential services to the hilt.
In reality money is rationed out to diff dept, as it should be, and they try and work within those constraints.

Finally, is it not dangerous that the state is so deeply involved in paying for culture, when culture usually thrives when the state has nothing to do with it, or when it is actively anti-state?

No. The state isn’t paying for culture – it is helping develop it. As culture and tastes change, the govt will have to fund different stuff. But a lot of cultural activities, theatre for example, wouldn’t be able to survive otherwise.

What about the point of properous “minority” communities contributing much in way of taxes and not seeing anything in return for this in terms of diasporic cultural preservation? Are they not entitled to this?

If the few festivals and such are not to be funded would it not ultimately result in our being squeezed to fund the interests of middle class white folk from our own pockets?

Is this not plainly taking the piss?

——–
Government has only finite resources, so it should allocate money first to what is necessary, and only after that consider cultural events.
——–

This I could agree with but the point by BenSix is valid. What is to be deemed as neccesary and what not? Is there any way of doing this fairly and unfavourably? Also it is possible that this idea is the manisfestation of an increasingly rightward swing in the UK, which is becoming hostile to those perceived to be of “foreign” extraction.

Is it really that objectionable to have some of a communities money spent on their own cultural foibles?

Considering this argument – “Some festivals and events would undoubtedly have to close. But is it really the taxpayers’ role to prop up cultural events that people are not willing to pay for in a free market? ” – would it be fair to assume that you believe state subsidies shouldn’t merely end for festivals, but also in the cases of museums, art galleries and libraries?