New Minister of Culture

[Jan McNulty]

Anyone see the new Minister of Culture at the wonderful World Premiere on 10th April of a Shakespeare inspired ballet by a British choreographer danced by a world leading British Ballet Company?

(Thought I'd put this here rather than The Winter's Tale thread)

 

Was the previous minister there?  In fairness to the new guy he only got the post 2 days ago and may not have been able to get a ticket!

[A frog]

I assume he could always have been able to request tickets. I wouldn't expect him to have been able to attend on short notice though.

 

Loosely related: does anyone know what the ROH policy is for tickets for "celebrities"? I saw Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem at one of the Osipova/Acosta Giselle performances, I'd be surprised if they were on the website at 10.00 on booking day or kept looking for returns. Would the tickets come from a house allocation or would there be first dibs on the more or less inevitable returns?

[alison]

Chris Grayling is a case in point.   He's the first Lord Chancellor in centuries not to be legally qualified and look what he is doing to criminal legal aid.

 

I'd rather not, if you don't mind   At least I believe the screw-up in relation to court interpreting wasn't down to him: I think it had been set in motion before he came to power.

 

I suppose we can only hope they have staff who have some sort of clue about the topic they're supposed to be running.

 

I think that's the way it's supposed to work - you leave it up to the civil servants

 

And I don't think there is anything to expect from cabinet members when the most important qualification seems to be their willingness to slash the budget over improving services.

 

And to take on all those nasty smelly jobs that other people don't want to dirty their hands with.

[GTL]

?....Loosely related: does anyone know what the ROH policy is for tickets for "celebrities"? I saw Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem at one of the Osipova/Acosta Giselle performances, I'd be surprised if they were on the website at 10.00 on booking day or kept looking for returns. Would the tickets come from a house allocation or would there be first dibs on the more or less inevitable returns?

I can't answer for the ROH but from my own observations I can say that some of the seats around the left aisle of the Grand Tier are usually occupied by RB staff and their guests (e.g. family of cast, other dancers from the RB and visiting companies). The wheelchair spaces in the Grand Tier are often released for sale as "bar-stool style" seats close to the performance date, though I can't claim to have seen any recognisable celebs perching thereupon.

[chrischris]

What also irritates me as that, just when this completely unqualified politician settles in to their job and (you'd hope) develops an understanding of their department and role, they are moved somewhere else in a completely ridiculous and wholly politically motivated cabinet reshuffle. In what other walk of life would that ever happen?

[Terpsichore]

What also irritates me as that, just when this completely unqualified politician settles in to their job and (you'd hope) develops an understanding of their department and role, they are moved somewhere else in a completely ridiculous and wholly politically motivated cabinet reshuffle. In what other walk of life would that ever happen?

 

That's how our constitution works and it is quite deliberate for it prevents the ministers from going native as I said before. Ministers don't need to be expert at the subject matter of their portfolio - that's why they have civil servants - and it is arguably a good thing that they don't because it makes it easier for them to impose fiscal discipline (or cuts if you prefer) where necessary. It also makes for flexibility.  Hunt for example moved from Culture, Media and Sport to Health quite seamlessly.

 

The functions of a minister are to report to Parliament. apply government policy in their department and (but to a much lesser extent) represent their department in cabinet.  When I look at the US system and in particular the circumstances of the resignation of Kathleen Sibelius from healthcare after the problems with Obama care I think I prefer our system.

[A frog]

I can't answer for the ROH but from my own observations I can say that some of the seats around the left aisle of the Grand Tier are usually occupied by RB staff and their guests (e.g. family of cast, other dancers from the RB and visiting companies). The wheelchair spaces in the Grand Tier are often released for sale as "bar-stool style" seats close to the performance date, though I can't claim to have seen any recognisable celebs perching thereupon.

Thank you, they were also aisle seats but in the stalls, thus allowing for late-ish entrance and speedy exit, I've never really paid attention to who was sitting there on other occasions (assuming I would have recognised them), but it does sound like they could be house tickets then.

[Paul N]

I'm reminded of one of my favourite Dilbert cartoons, the "Bungee Boss":

 

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-09-07/

 

I've seen it happen where I work.

[Fonty]

 

 

I love Dilbert.  So accurate in its depiction of office life. 

[chrischris]

That's how our constitution works and it is quite deliberate for it prevents the ministers from going native as I said before. Ministers don't need to be expert at the subject matter of their portfolio - that's why they have civil servants - and it is arguably a good thing that they don't because it makes it easier for them to impose fiscal discipline (or cuts if you prefer) where necessary. It also makes for flexibility.  Hunt for example moved from Culture, Media and Sport to Health quite seamlessly.

 

The functions of a minister are to report to Parliament. apply government policy in their department and (but to a much lesser extent) represent their department in cabinet.  When I look at the US system and in particular the circumstances of the resignation of Kathleen Sibelius from healthcare after the problems with Obama care I think I prefer our system.

 

I couldn't disagree more

[Melody]

That's how our constitution works and it is quite deliberate for it prevents the ministers from going native as I said before. Ministers don't need to be expert at the subject matter of their portfolio - that's why they have civil servants - and it is arguably a good thing that they don't because it makes it easier for them to impose fiscal discipline (or cuts if you prefer) where necessary. It also makes for flexibility.  Hunt for example moved from Culture, Media and Sport to Health quite seamlessly.

 

The functions of a minister are to report to Parliament. apply government policy in their department and (but to a much lesser extent) represent their department in cabinet.  When I look at the US system and in particular the circumstances of the resignation of Kathleen Sibelius from healthcare after the problems with Obama care I think I prefer our system.

 

I agree with some of the thinking behind this way of doing things, except that when the person with the high profile - which tends to be the minister, not the civil servants who are doing most of the actual heavy lifting - is manifestly ignorant of the topics he's supposed to be representing (like an environment minister who's a global warming denier, for example, or an education minister who's a creationist), that sends a message to the public that the government isn't taking the topic seriously. It also suggests that the minister isn't in a position to advocate for his own sphere of influence, if he doesn't know anything about it by the time he's reached the age and educational level of most members of the government. I don't think these people necessarily need to be experts or anything, but I do think it'd help if they had some sort of connection to the remit of their portfolio.

[Fonty]

I have several friends who work in the Civil Service, and I seem to remember that they are automatically shifted from one post to another after a certain number of years?

 

I am guessing that it is only the very senior posts that are permanent?

[loveclassics]

What also irritates me as that, just when this completely unqualified politician settles in to their job and (you'd hope) develops an understanding of their department and role, they are moved somewhere else in a completely ridiculous and wholly politically motivated cabinet reshuffle. In what other walk of life would that ever happen?

 

Have you heard of the 'Peter Principle'?   Like Parkinson's Law it articulates something most of us have thought at one time or another.  It says loosely that a person who is good at his/her job is promoted, is good in the next role and is promoted again until reaching the level at which he/she reaches his/her level of expertise.  At this point the person sticks for the rest of his/her career, totally useless but unable to be promoted again.

 

Having worked in both local and central government I have to say that it really happens.

 

Linda

[Jan McNulty]

I have several friends who work in the Civil Service, and I seem to remember that they are automatically shifted from one post to another after a certain number of years?

 

I am guessing that it is only the very senior posts that are permanent?

 

In most government departments now, except at senior level, you apply for jobs rather than having your career managed for you.  So these days, usually it is the more senior posts that are rotated.  Where I worked there were only a handful of posts that required specific rotation.

 

I worked on a project in the early noughties where we had liaison officers who came from the services.  It was a different person at every quarterly meeting so there was absolutely no continuity whatsoever, which was very frustrating.

[Coated]

Tout story in Independent (didn't see the first mention in amongst all the stories about wine making )

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ticket-touts-are-classic-entrepreneurs-who-should-be-allowed-to-operate-without-interference-says-new-culture-secretary-sajid-javid-9252429.html

Edited April 12, 2014 by Coated

[Melody]

I hope he doesn't really believe what he says about how these saintly ticket touts are offering such a valuable service. He surely can't be that stupid. When he says "ticket resellers act like classic entrepreneurs because they fill a gap in the market that they have identified; they provide a service that can help people who did not obtain a supply of tickets in the original sale..." he must know that a major reason people didn't obtain a supply of tickets in the original sale is that a lot of tickets were snapped up by touts for that very reason. And that if the touts weren't making a fine art of buying every ticket they could buy, there wouldn't be such a big gap in the first place. 

 

It's one thing to meet a demand; it's another thing entirely to create that demand in the first place and then act as though you're doing your victims a favour by making them pay through the nose for tickets they could have bought at face value until you horned in on them. Unfotunately it's yet another thing to be praised to the skies for it by the Secretary of State for Culture. Maybe, with his income, paying thousands for a ticket that originally cost a small fraction of that is small change, but for most of us it isn't.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Melody

[Jamesrhblack]

That's how our constitution works and it is quite deliberate for it prevents the ministers from going native as I said before. Ministers don't need to be expert at the subject matter of their portfolio - that's why they have civil servants - and it is arguably a good thing that they don't because it makes it easier for them to impose fiscal discipline (or cuts if you prefer) where necessary. It also makes for flexibility.  Hunt for example moved from Culture, Media and Sport to Health quite seamlessly.

 

The functions of a minister are to report to Parliament. apply government policy in their department and (but to a much lesser extent) represent their department in cabinet.  When I look at the US system and in particular the circumstances of the resignation of Kathleen Sibelius from healthcare after the problems with Obama care I think I prefer our system.

I absolutely agree. I don't condone Maria Miller's expenses but she managed to ensure that cuts in the Arts budget were smaller than in some other departments. You don't necessarily need empathy and if you're arguing a case the arms length principal can be beneficial. In times of austerity when there isn't a lot of public money thanks to the last incumbents spending all the money and then eating all the pies it is inevitable that cuts will need to be imposed - the alternative is higher taxation which nobody welcome,