Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker discuss art subsidies



  1. The kings and queens of England prior to and after the English Civil War gained their so called private wealth from the unrepresented people of this nation. As the monarch was absolute head of government it would be impossible to see where 'public' money began and 'private' money ended. Most of the monarch's complained about the lack of funds to keep them in the lifestyle of an absolute monarch. Your reading of history is deficit in several ways.

  2. As Humphrey said earlier subsidies should be for what people don't want but ought to have, what they do want they can pay for it themselves. I think there is a lot of merit to this point, culture and particularly art are valuable because they present ideas and feelings in different ways and can show beauty even in the most horrible situations. It encourages a deeper thinking about things, which is something the general public isn't fond of and focuses on immediate gratification. They should continue to be subsidised. Humphrey just didnโ€™t make a good point to the PM.

  3. 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.

  4. 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).