Unitof1 Wrote:there you lot go again start off by saying that it is a vast number who are interested and then nicely round it up to the public. The thing about celebrity and football is that the government does not rip taxes off you to then spend on forcing you to watch celebrities or football (although they do like to be associated with no doubt). No one would claim that football was demanded by the public they would instead claim that some of the public like football and that was alright because they were willing to pay for the football. I kind of imagine that if anybody was to claim that a vast number of the public was interested in football they would only be doing it to claim some political advantage. I don't believe that there is a vast number of the public who are interested in the past or by what significance the interest of those that do is. Yes its not very interesting is it.
I appreciate the analogy Unit but in fact the government heavily subsidizes BOTH football and celebrities. A couple of examples off the top of my head-
- TV license (mandated by the government) pays for celebrities salaries every day (and makes some of them too)
- Special visas for celebrities to come to the UK
- Youth football leagues are supported with government funding (used from the same pot as EH too)
- The Olympic stadiums- built with tax payer money and given to football clubs on the cheap
The list goes on and on and on. To be fair, not all of those examples are bad. Having kids play football probably keeps them out of all sorts of trouble, etc. etc. The point is that most activities are supported by the government or the government rips taxes off you to then spend on X or Y or Z, depending on your outlook.
Government spending is probably a very poor proxy of what people do or do not like. Just look at bankers, the vast majority of people HATE them but the government sure does give them a lot of money. Just my 2 cents:face-stir: