You want to level up the North then it starts with allowing the sort of investment councils refuse.This, not the location of the English National Opera, is what needs fixing.
Where ever there is sufficient demand for something, capitalists in the free market will find a way to supply it profitably. (eg: narcotic drugs). So if capitalists are not fighting to build an opera house and opera company in Manchester (or build a Hugh speed train set) that is because a satisfactory return on investment is not apparent, then the project is high risk for too little reward. If private investors won’t risk their cash, why should taxpayers be forced to risk theirs?
Amazing to see the reaction to a post about an elite pleasure. Kudos to Simon for an interesting piece which has touched a few nerves.
I know almost nothing about opera (apart from the Magic Flute is a stupid story) but I can't see any material difference between it and musicals as a genre apart from electricity being invented. They're both stories, set to music, talented composers and singers. Musicals make me feel young for a coupla hours, and operas make me feel old.
It isn't quite true about the injection of taxpayers money. There's a whole lot of festival opera companies like Garsington, Glyndebourne, Iford, Longborough, Waterperry, Holland Park that run without subsidy. The Metropolitan Opera runs without a subsidy in New York. I think the Royal Opera could run without it too, but there's a long argument about how that works.
And festival opera is the future. The demand for fixed term companies in opera houses just isn't there, outside of Covent Garden. Put up a marquee in the grounds of a country estate, or even use the gardens as part of the scenery and run it for a couple of months.
I like this idea of unsubsidised festival opera companies. You say they mainly operate in country estates. I wonder if there are any barriers that stop them operating in city parks, sky bridges or even in football stadia during the off season. Failing that, if Miles Platting or Clifton (whichever is the worst for wear) could be flattened, maybe there could be a new city park.
No, there's no reason for there being barriers at all. Verona has an annual opera festival in its roman amphitheatre, right in the centre of the city. Holland Park Opera puts up a marquee in, well, Holland Park in London. You could put it on in football stadiums, parks without a problem.
"Nobody was forced, so clearly pay and conditions were better than working on the land" is a take. If I held a gun to your head and a knife at your groin, no one is forcing you to choose the knife, but ideally you would want a piece of cake and a sit down...
However, for the purposes of this article we have gone miles off topic. You seem to be saying that the Government shouldn't fund the ENO at all (so presumably it would close or radically restructure to rely on private funds alone). I am saying that if the Government feels the need to fund the ENO it should fund one in Manchester (also). I don't think our positions are as contradictory as you make out.
And if it funds one in Manchester (because apparently it “should”) why not in Leeds, Birmingham, Bristol etc etc....?
Resources are finite so every decision to spend money on one thing is a decision not to spend it on something else. What so you propose is sacrificed so that Manchester and other cities get the subsidised opera they “should” have?
For me this question is easy to answer since I don’t think any subsidies should be given for such things. My questions however pose a serious challenge for those who support state boondoggles, to which I never hear serious answers.
The Elizabeth Line for one would have saved loads of money. And loads of healthcare spending for two. Sorting out social care would also release loads of money. The list goes on (even leaving aside fixing the planning system so that houses and infrastructure don't cost gazillions of £s).
Arguing about whether Manchester should get a publicly subsidising opera house instead of / in addition to London is missing the main point. Nowhere should be getting publicly subsidised entertainments; as Mr Bowman points out, if there is sufficient public demand to make an enterprise financially viable then the market will gladly supply it and some private sector sponsors will be keen to help for the perceived benefit of association.
Public subsidy or indeed full funding should be very tightly constrained to things which are publicly necessary (eg the armed forces) or are a public benefit commanding overwhelming public support because everyone (not just a favoured minority) benefits (eg street lighting). Things which are merely nice to have but not generally agreed to be necessary need to make their own way. That includes, obviously, opera.
Leaving aside the main (correct) point that in the grand scheme of things this decision is neither here nor there, I think that by focusing on the economics you have missed the wider intangible benefits. It is good for a town or city or region to have the 'proper' things that should be found in a town or city or region. The argument for the ENO having a base in Manchester is that Manchester is the sort of place that should have an opera house and the National opera should not recoil at the idea of not performing in London. Some things are worth more that £s and pennies.
How does depriving one city of a ‘proper’ thing in order to provide it to another meet your criterion? Who decides ‘proper’ and by what metrics? The State should not be involved in anything.
Ha! Have you read any history of Britain? The industrial Revolution produced the greatest surge of wealth in the history of Mankind - and the Government/State had nothing to do with it.
Inland waterways, then railways, utilities, healthcare (75% of the population had private health insurance by end of 19th century), civic buildings, civic amenities, fire brigades, etc were all the work of the private sector which includes philanthropy, charity, community groups or public subscription made possible by that new wealth.
The incoming Socialist Labour Government in 1945 nationalised all key sectors of the economy, public services and social behaviour.
Nowadays most people think nothing existed before Government, that it invented everything, and we wouldn’t have it without the State running our lives for us.
Out of curiosity who owned the land on which the railways, canals and land were built? Do you think that the industrialists created the coal seams themselves? Or did they merely benefit from prevailing economic conditions to exploit labour in quasi-feudal conditions to make massive profits for themselves?
The land was privately owned and had to be bought by the railway companies/canal companies from the land owners.
Who do you think provided the money to mine the coal seams and pay miners’ wages? Who do you think provided the money to manufacture the equipment for the mining process? Who do you think gave the coal seams value?
Nothing is a resource until Mankind invents it. The coal was only of value once brought to the surface and put to use to create something of value to others.
All minerals under the UK belong to the Crown. Coal mining companies and now oil companies had/have to pay the Crown a levy and taxes on what they extract.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, 80% of labour was on the land. Industrialisation resulted in a migration of labour from the land to the mines, mills, factories and other industries. Nobody was forced, so clearly pay and conditions were better than working on the land.
Profit is the difference between the cost of production and the price the end-user is prepared to pay. Nothing has any intrinsic value, value is entirely subjective as perceived by the buyer of the good (see auctions) who must believe the value to them is greater than what they have to give in exchange.
Similarly the seller must perceive the value to them of what they receive is higher than the good they sold. Therefore both parties emerge from the exchange with something of higher value to them, they are marginally wealthier - and that is how wealth is created.
Workers exchange their labour for pay. The same condition applies. Either the value of the labour to the employer merits the wage demanded or he does not pay it. If the wage offered is not of sufficient value to the worker compared to the labour they give, then they look for work elsewhere.
As the number of enterprises and scale of activity expanded rapidly, employers were in stiff competition with one another. For example: Miners at the coal face were paid a much higher wage than factory or mill workers, because the conditions were arduous, unpleasant, dirty and dangerously. Why would anyone work at the coal face if they could earn as much in a factory?
But more seriously, if you accept the contention that having an opera house in a town is a nice thing and the sort of things important places have (and I'm not saying I do), then Manchester should have one and to hell with the cost.
Where ever there is sufficient demand for something, capitalists in the free market will find a way to supply it profitably. (eg: narcotic drugs). So if capitalists are not fighting to build an opera house and opera company in Manchester (or build a Hugh speed train set) that is because a satisfactory return on investment is not apparent, then the project is high risk for too little reward. If private investors won’t risk their cash, why should taxpayers be forced to risk theirs?
Amazing to see the reaction to a post about an elite pleasure. Kudos to Simon for an interesting piece which has touched a few nerves.
I know almost nothing about opera (apart from the Magic Flute is a stupid story) but I can't see any material difference between it and musicals as a genre apart from electricity being invented. They're both stories, set to music, talented composers and singers. Musicals make me feel young for a coupla hours, and operas make me feel old.
It isn't quite true about the injection of taxpayers money. There's a whole lot of festival opera companies like Garsington, Glyndebourne, Iford, Longborough, Waterperry, Holland Park that run without subsidy. The Metropolitan Opera runs without a subsidy in New York. I think the Royal Opera could run without it too, but there's a long argument about how that works.
And festival opera is the future. The demand for fixed term companies in opera houses just isn't there, outside of Covent Garden. Put up a marquee in the grounds of a country estate, or even use the gardens as part of the scenery and run it for a couple of months.
I like this idea of unsubsidised festival opera companies. You say they mainly operate in country estates. I wonder if there are any barriers that stop them operating in city parks, sky bridges or even in football stadia during the off season. Failing that, if Miles Platting or Clifton (whichever is the worst for wear) could be flattened, maybe there could be a new city park.
Hi Andy,
Sorry for not replying earlier.
No, there's no reason for there being barriers at all. Verona has an annual opera festival in its roman amphitheatre, right in the centre of the city. Holland Park Opera puts up a marquee in, well, Holland Park in London. You could put it on in football stadiums, parks without a problem.
"Nobody was forced, so clearly pay and conditions were better than working on the land" is a take. If I held a gun to your head and a knife at your groin, no one is forcing you to choose the knife, but ideally you would want a piece of cake and a sit down...
However, for the purposes of this article we have gone miles off topic. You seem to be saying that the Government shouldn't fund the ENO at all (so presumably it would close or radically restructure to rely on private funds alone). I am saying that if the Government feels the need to fund the ENO it should fund one in Manchester (also). I don't think our positions are as contradictory as you make out.
And if it funds one in Manchester (because apparently it “should”) why not in Leeds, Birmingham, Bristol etc etc....?
Resources are finite so every decision to spend money on one thing is a decision not to spend it on something else. What so you propose is sacrificed so that Manchester and other cities get the subsidised opera they “should” have?
For me this question is easy to answer since I don’t think any subsidies should be given for such things. My questions however pose a serious challenge for those who support state boondoggles, to which I never hear serious answers.
The Elizabeth Line for one would have saved loads of money. And loads of healthcare spending for two. Sorting out social care would also release loads of money. The list goes on (even leaving aside fixing the planning system so that houses and infrastructure don't cost gazillions of £s).
Arguing about whether Manchester should get a publicly subsidising opera house instead of / in addition to London is missing the main point. Nowhere should be getting publicly subsidised entertainments; as Mr Bowman points out, if there is sufficient public demand to make an enterprise financially viable then the market will gladly supply it and some private sector sponsors will be keen to help for the perceived benefit of association.
Public subsidy or indeed full funding should be very tightly constrained to things which are publicly necessary (eg the armed forces) or are a public benefit commanding overwhelming public support because everyone (not just a favoured minority) benefits (eg street lighting). Things which are merely nice to have but not generally agreed to be necessary need to make their own way. That includes, obviously, opera.
Leaving aside the main (correct) point that in the grand scheme of things this decision is neither here nor there, I think that by focusing on the economics you have missed the wider intangible benefits. It is good for a town or city or region to have the 'proper' things that should be found in a town or city or region. The argument for the ENO having a base in Manchester is that Manchester is the sort of place that should have an opera house and the National opera should not recoil at the idea of not performing in London. Some things are worth more that £s and pennies.
How does depriving one city of a ‘proper’ thing in order to provide it to another meet your criterion? Who decides ‘proper’ and by what metrics? The State should not be involved in anything.
On that basis there wouldn't be an Opera House at all. Or mass transit systems. Or street lights. Or police.
Ha! Have you read any history of Britain? The industrial Revolution produced the greatest surge of wealth in the history of Mankind - and the Government/State had nothing to do with it.
Inland waterways, then railways, utilities, healthcare (75% of the population had private health insurance by end of 19th century), civic buildings, civic amenities, fire brigades, etc were all the work of the private sector which includes philanthropy, charity, community groups or public subscription made possible by that new wealth.
The incoming Socialist Labour Government in 1945 nationalised all key sectors of the economy, public services and social behaviour.
Nowadays most people think nothing existed before Government, that it invented everything, and we wouldn’t have it without the State running our lives for us.
I blame the schools.
Out of curiosity who owned the land on which the railways, canals and land were built? Do you think that the industrialists created the coal seams themselves? Or did they merely benefit from prevailing economic conditions to exploit labour in quasi-feudal conditions to make massive profits for themselves?
I blame people not understanding economics
Out of curiosity? You should know this!
The land was privately owned and had to be bought by the railway companies/canal companies from the land owners.
Who do you think provided the money to mine the coal seams and pay miners’ wages? Who do you think provided the money to manufacture the equipment for the mining process? Who do you think gave the coal seams value?
Nothing is a resource until Mankind invents it. The coal was only of value once brought to the surface and put to use to create something of value to others.
All minerals under the UK belong to the Crown. Coal mining companies and now oil companies had/have to pay the Crown a levy and taxes on what they extract.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, 80% of labour was on the land. Industrialisation resulted in a migration of labour from the land to the mines, mills, factories and other industries. Nobody was forced, so clearly pay and conditions were better than working on the land.
Profit is the difference between the cost of production and the price the end-user is prepared to pay. Nothing has any intrinsic value, value is entirely subjective as perceived by the buyer of the good (see auctions) who must believe the value to them is greater than what they have to give in exchange.
Similarly the seller must perceive the value to them of what they receive is higher than the good they sold. Therefore both parties emerge from the exchange with something of higher value to them, they are marginally wealthier - and that is how wealth is created.
Workers exchange their labour for pay. The same condition applies. Either the value of the labour to the employer merits the wage demanded or he does not pay it. If the wage offered is not of sufficient value to the worker compared to the labour they give, then they look for work elsewhere.
As the number of enterprises and scale of activity expanded rapidly, employers were in stiff competition with one another. For example: Miners at the coal face were paid a much higher wage than factory or mill workers, because the conditions were arduous, unpleasant, dirty and dangerously. Why would anyone work at the coal face if they could earn as much in a factory?
But more seriously, if you accept the contention that having an opera house in a town is a nice thing and the sort of things important places have (and I'm not saying I do), then Manchester should have one and to hell with the cost.