All for an arbitrary lack of money

Having listened to BBC Radio4’s ‘Front Row’ it demonstrates that the arts, whose members are supposedly progressive and original thinkers are, like so many others, completely brainwashed into the idea that they must find ‘other’ commercial sponsorship because government money is so limited.

The theatre producer and owner, Nica Burns, has said she will endeavour to start opening her range of theatres, starting with Dr Adam Kay’s one man show ‘This is Going to Hurt’, and, in November, the hit musical Six with only that number of performers.

All this is entirely admirable – but why on earth isn’t she understanding that the government is elected precisely in order to create just that money that, in the current pandemic, she and other theatre operators, lack.

And lack it simply for an arbitrary government decision not to create it…

What we need is, I suggest, rather more artists, theatre producers and actors to be more aware of the basic government financial circumstance.

Indeed currently this is very much preferable to the individual and personal financial environment and the everyday difficulties of people who are of course, government constituents and on which theatre so often, quite understandably, concentrates.


  1. John Higson -

    I’m afraid it’s because Nica Burns, owner of 6 West End theatres it seems, is more of a business person than an artist. Money is her main concern I imagine. That aside and very sadly not enough people read Progressive Pulse and similar sources plus ‘Tax and Spend’ has and still is embedded day after day by the BBC, ITV, the Labour Party, unions…pretty much everyone in fact.

    1. Peter May -

      Agreed.. what we need is some good playwright to draft a comedy to get the message across…

  2. Zachariah -


    A bit off topic but it relates to the ‘lack’ of money.
    I’m studying some first year economics courses and they keep going on about revenue from taxation.
    Now I know it seems to be declared as ‘revenue’ but as far as I am aware from taxreserchuk blog posts is that the tax money is destroyed upon repayment and that it only exists within society because the government spent it into existence to begin with.
    Can anyone explain if this is true at the local level?
    I am trying to figure out it it gets added to the national pot and disappears aside from as an entry in the books or if is it available to be spent by local government?

    All the text books are based on the neoclassical concepts from the 70’s or 80’s so seem totally unable to accommodate current concepts.


    1. Peter May -

      If you think of money as an IOU and given the ‘promise to pay the bearer’ written on every BoE note that seems entirely correct, then when you get your IOU back you don’t go out and ‘spend’ it – you just tear it up. That’s what government can choose to do too.
      The tax take is revenue in the original sense of revenir a coming back to the issuer.
      Local authorities are not currency issuers but currency users so are dependent on money issued – or not – by central government. Government creates new money when it authorises local authority expenditure.
      To the extent that local authorities raise taxes they could actually issue currency which would be a ‘parallel’ currency such as the Bristol Pound. I strongly suspect that they do actually create money but the Bank of England doesn’t know and Bristol Pound say they do not.
      If they don’t then in my view they are missing a trick….

Comments are closed.