{"id":4681,"date":"2026-04-24T04:26:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T11:26:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/?p=4681"},"modified":"2026-04-24T04:26:16","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T11:26:16","slug":"sir-humphrey-appleby-at-the-opera","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2026\/04\/sir-humphrey-appleby-at-the-opera\/","title":{"rendered":"Sir Humphrey Appleby at the Opera"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-2.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-2-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4682\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-2-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-2-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-2-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-2.png 1200w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Yes, Minister<\/em>\u00a0ran on BBC television in the early 1980s, the early Thatcher years (I\u2019ll come back to the importance of this). I enjoyed it at the time (I was pretty young), and recalled it when I went to work in government myself in the 1990s. Canada has a UK-style Westminster parliamentary system, with more of a permanent staff of senior bureaucrats than in the US where political appointments play a much larger role (If you are following the debacle in the UK parliament right now, note that Olly Robbins, the very high-ranking official at the centre of the scandal, had senior positions in Labour\u00a0<em>and<\/em>\u00a0Conservative governments over many years). The theme of the show is how the permanent secretary (the civil servant at the head of the bureaucracy) Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by Nigel Hawthorne) attempts, sometimes with success and sometimes not, to get the elected politician and new cabinet member Jim Hacker, \u201cMinister of Administrative Affairs\u201d (Paul Eddington) to adopt policies that he, Sir Humphrey, would like to see, even when Hacker initially disapproves. The joke in the title is that each episode ends with Sir Humphrey saying \u201cYes, Minister\u201d as if following a directive from Hacker, but in fact often it is Sir Humphrey who has managed to get Hacker to come around to Sir Humphrey\u2019s views. It is genteel comedy, cleverly written and acted. It is not like the other, later, great British program about the relationships between cabinet and the senior civil service,\u00a0<em>The Thick of It<\/em>, which is much more explicit in its anger and disgust at the methods of the government of Tony Blair. Still,\u00a0<em>Yes, Minister<\/em>\u00a0also has a pretty bleak view of how governments make decisions, as we shall see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Season 3, Episode 7 is called \u201cThe Middle Class Rip-Off\u201d, and it is about public funding for the arts. You can find the episode for a dollar or two on most streaming platforms, but here is a free clip that gives the gist:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-embed-handler wp-block-embed-embed-handler wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"embed-youtube\" style=\"text-align:center; display: block;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"youtube-player\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/Zl0aEz34A4o?si=E9140HHc59ywZYQl&#038;version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;fs=1&#038;hl=en-US&#038;autohide=2&#038;wmode=transparent\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" style=\"border:0;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-presentation allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plot: Hacker is visiting his Midlands constituency in his role as MP, and is told by local council members that the city\u2019s soccer team, Aston Wanderers (a mash-up of Villa and Wolves)\u00a0is on the brink of bankruptcy. It could be saved through funds earned from selling the Corn Exchange Art Gallery (a rather dismal and not-well attended place) to a supermarket chain. Hacker thinks this is a marvelous idea. Sir Humphrey is appalled by it, seeing the thin end of the wedge of reducing arts funding in favor of subsidizing more popular entertainments &#8211; that\u2019s where the clip above is taken. Sir Humphrey then puts his plans in motion: ensure the Art Gallery building\u2019s heritage listed status makes demolition impossible, arrange a shuffle so that Hacker\u2019s portfolio is increased by his becoming Minister with responsibility for the Arts in addition to Administrative Affairs and Local Government, such that having his first act in that role be the closing of an art gallery would look very bad, and use a pending increase in local council salaries and expenses to buy off the constituents who had been pressuring him (they reply that they could always knock down a primary school).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I was reminded of it because I get a notice whenever anyone has cited my&nbsp;<em><a href=\"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/book\/10.1007\/978-3-031-35106-8\">Moral Foundations of Public Funding for the Arts<\/a><\/em>&nbsp;book in a journal, and Connell Vaughan did so&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/arrow.tudublin.ie\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&amp;context=icr\">in this article<\/a>&nbsp;in the&nbsp;<em>Irish Communication Review<\/em>, where he talks about contemporary Irish arts policy in light of this old&nbsp;<em>Yes, Minister<\/em>&nbsp;episode, and likens Sir Humphrey\u2019s views on the arts to what I said in my chapter on conservative arts policy. He\u2019s a bit snarky about my book, I think for even broaching the topic, but never mind &#8211; I\u2019m more interested in Sir Humphrey and Minister Hacker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Yes, Minister<\/em>\u00a0was written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn (Disclosure: Wikipedia tells me that Lynn was descended, on his father\u2019s side, from Lithuanians who in the early years of the twentieth century managed to make their way to Glasgow. I am too, on my mother\u2019s side. Therefore, Lynn and I are cousins). Lynn was a career writer for television and movies, but Jay had worked in government, and served as an advisor in the Thatcher government. Thatcher\u2019s government was revolutionary in its ideology, and strongly wanted to sweep the Sir Humphrey\u2019s out of the bureaucracy, or at the very least get them to adapt to a new way of thinking. Thatcher loved\u00a0<em>Yes, Minister\u00a0<\/em>&#8211; it was the only comedy she really liked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><a class=\"image-link image2 is-viewable-img\" href=\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!Dh7b!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe8cd544e-7293-4dde-9b4d-7789a8bead3f_420x272.jpeg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!Dh7b!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe8cd544e-7293-4dde-9b4d-7789a8bead3f_420x272.jpeg\" alt=\"\"\/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Thatcher, more than any other Anglophone head of government I can think of, with maybe the exception of Australia\u2019s Paul Keating (I was living in Australia when I watched on television Paul Keating, then the Treasurer, explain the J-curve theory of balance of trade adjustments to a currency devaluation, and you just don\u2019t get much of that sort of thing these days)\u00a0was heavily influenced by academic economists (though she herself had studied Chemistry). She took them seriously, and had people with strong credentials in her policy circle. She read, and met with, Hayek, as well as the most prominent monetarist economists. Her famous pronouncement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand \u2018I have a problem, it is the Government\u2019s job to cope with it!\u2019 or \u2018I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!\u2019 \u2018I am homeless, the Government must house me!\u2019 and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>is straight from the adoption in economic modeling of methodological individualism &#8211; that there is nothing to say about the well-being of society other than the well-being of individuals and\/or families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In my book I also devoted a chapter to the economic approach to arts funding &#8211; a free working version is&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4126290\">available here<\/a>&nbsp;&#8211; and, in a way Jim Hacker would approve, the economic approach rests entirely on the existing tastes and preferences of the public. In the economic method, there is no room for Sir Humphrey\u2019s elevation of taste, or of preserving something of value that your ordinary person does not think of as valuable. The economic approach to arts funding is built on the slim reed of whether there are \u201cmarket failures\u201d &#8211; spillover effects &#8211; but even that argument relies on the public recognizing the market failure and thinking something ought to be done about it. You can be an economist and still favor government support of the arts, but it\u2019s not your economic models that will give you much justification; you will need to look elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Now that applies to football too. But in practice we subsidize anything with a powerful enough constituency, even if small in numbers of people, and without justification through economic modeling. And so the arts keep their funding, even through Tory (or Republican) governments, and there are also subsidies to lucrative sports, and to film production, and to growing corn, whatever. In discussions with my arts policy peers I sound the warning that if there is to be no judgment about what sorts of art is worthy of funding, then it gets hard to justify any public funding at all. What makes art so special?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sir Humphrey\u2019s manner of arts advocacy is dead &#8211; there\u2019s not one leader of a public arts funder who would (out loud) say anything remotely close to what he says in this episode. Nobody in government would have said it even in 1982 when the episode aired (I\u2019m excluding Roger Scruton and the like). He is set up as a representative of everything Thatcher and her supporters hated in the conservative establishment, and it is shown through the episode that his support for \u201ccivilization\u201d is nothing but self-serving snobbery. For all of Jim Hacker\u2019s naivety, and, in the end, willingness to change tactics when it suits his own political future, his views on arts funding, a \u201cmiddle class rip-off\u201d, are never, in the episode, shown to be wrong: in the episode the opera&nbsp;<em>is<\/em>&nbsp;a place for men in black tie to enjoy smoked salmon sandwiches, and for permanent secretaries to plot to foil their political \u201cmasters\u201d (although a scene is set at the intermission (shown at the top of this post) we never actually hear any music). And Sir Humphrey\u2019s fulminating over saving civilization is always accompanied by audience laughter. No ordinary person could actually just&nbsp;<em>enjoy<\/em>&nbsp;opera.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One aspect of the episode that might seem quaint is the high arts being described as for the \u201cmiddle class\u201d &#8211; I\u2019m not sure if anyone would say that today. Another is the notion of live football as the workingman\u2019s pleasure. I looked online, and if I want to see Birmingham\u2019s Aston Villa (one half of the model of the team in Hacker\u2019s constituency) play at home against a pathetic and desperate Tottenham Hotspur on May 3rd, the&nbsp;<em>cheapest<\/em>&nbsp;ticket I can find is \u00a387. If I wait a few days and instead go to see the touring Welsh National Opera perform&nbsp;<em>The Flying Dutchman<\/em>&nbsp;at the Birmingham Hippodrome, the most&nbsp;<em>expensive<\/em>&nbsp;seat is \u00a369. This doesn\u2019t mean the episode got things wrong &#8211; football has changed much more than the arts since the 1980s. But very, very rich sports teams still come around to local governments asking for public funds for stadium upgrades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Cross-posted at <a href=\"https:\/\/michaelrushton.substack.com\/\">https:\/\/michaelrushton.substack.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yes, Minister\u00a0ran on BBC television in the early 1980s, the early Thatcher years (I\u2019ll come back to the importance of this). I enjoyed it at the time (I was pretty young), and recalled it when I went to work in government myself in the 1990s. Canada has a UK-style Westminster parliamentary system, with more of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4682,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4681","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-issues","8":"entry"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-2.png","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3dIW5-1dv","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":804,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2013\/05\/why-do-seniors-get-discounts\/","url_meta":{"origin":4681,"position":0},"title":"Why do seniors get discounts?","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"May 23, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"From the Priceonomics blog: You\u2019ve seen them on the bus, in museums, and at movie theaters: senior discounts. As a reward for being old, senior citizens pay a quarter less for bus fare, a small fortune less for movie tickets, and receive discounts generally all over the place. If you\u2019re\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;issues&quot;","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"they don't look poor","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/cocoon-300x232.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":720,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2013\/04\/today-in-concession-fares\/","url_meta":{"origin":4681,"position":1},"title":"Today in concession fares","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"April 25, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Laura Pedersen of the New York Times reports: A packed crosstown 86th Street bus going west. A man and a child who looks to be about 4 are sitting side by side. A large older woman seated nearby belligerently says, \u201cYou didn\u2019t have to pay for that child, so you\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;issues&quot;","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"what did you pay?","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/MTA_New_York_City_Bus_Select_Bus_New_Flyer_D60HF_5766-300x225.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":731,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2013\/04\/lotteries-should-not-be-used-to-fund-the-arts\/","url_meta":{"origin":4681,"position":2},"title":"Lotteries should not be used to fund the arts","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"April 28, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Blog neighbor Greg Sandow posts about the relationship between arts funding and gambling, especially regarding early Italian opera. It's tongue in cheek, but he concludes: For those without a sense of humor: I know very well that gambling raises moral questions, and legal questions, too, not to mention questions involving\u2026","rel":"","context":"With 3 comments","block_context":{"text":"With 3 comments","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2013\/04\/lotteries-should-not-be-used-to-fund-the-arts\/#comments"},"img":{"alt_text":"no way to fund the arts","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/powerball-lottery-ticket-604ds032513-300x162.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":785,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2013\/05\/amazon-and-economic-impact-eitheror\/","url_meta":{"origin":4681,"position":3},"title":"Amazon and economic impact: either\/or","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"May 15, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"The Daily Telegraph reports: Amazon\u2019s UK operation generated \u00a34.2bn of sales last year, but it used a subsidiary in Luxembourg to help it reduce its corporation tax bill in the country to just \u00a32.4m in 2012. According to documents filed at Companies House, the company received \u00a32.5m in government handouts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;issues&quot;","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ABB - Brilon, Werkseroffnung","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/ribbon-300x192.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2234,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2017\/11\/about-that-arts-council-england-economic-report\/","url_meta":{"origin":4681,"position":4},"title":"About that Arts Council England economic report","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"November 7, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"I've been away from the blog for a while, but I just can't keep myself away from economic impact studies of the arts. The latest is from Arts Council England - you can read the report here. Three things: First, the goals of the study are not clear. Britain's Office\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;issues&quot;","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"now multiply by 2.77 precisely","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/abacus.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/abacus.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/abacus.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2320,"url":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/2018\/03\/dream-academy\/","url_meta":{"origin":4681,"position":5},"title":"Dream academy","author":"Michael Rushton","date":"March 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"What happened to the genre of academic satire? In the Chronicle Review, Andrew Kay has some ideas; I'd like to offer a different take. Disclaimer: I'm no literary critic. But (a) I am an academic, and (b) I've read all of the novels he cites, suggesting that yes, I'm something\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;issues&quot;","block_context":{"text":"issues","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/category\/issues\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"how I envy him","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/lucky-jim.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4681","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4681"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4681\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4688,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4681\/revisions\/4688"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/worth\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}