There are a couple of very large theatres in London's famous West End, but the majority are Georgian or Victorian buildings with an intimate atmosphere and delightful period decoration throughout. Yet their quaint intimacy is also their problem. There is no legroom, it's a squash to get in and out, and the interval is murder. They are full, yes, but they still make hardly any profit and haven't done so for thirty years. In economic terms, it would be far better to pull them down and build more offices or restaurants, and build better theatres somewhere with more space and lower rents.

Of course, Westminster's planners will not allow that to happen. So we are stuck with wonderful, but loss-making, theatres. A few rich people support the theatres because they love them. But you cannot rely on that for ever. Which is why a number of theatre-types want state subsidies so that the theatres can put in more spacious seats and other facilities.

Robert Whelan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, rightly points out the folly of this approach. Like every other body that has taken state subsidies, the theatres would soon find themselves being bossed around by their paymaster. There would be all sorts of 'targets' for 'inclusion' and 'access' or 'awareness' and 'outreach', and any other political buzz-item of the moment. Theatres would find themselves trying to please politicians more than the public. Before long, London's theatreland would be just as politicized as all Britain's other once-proud institutions that now survive on a diet of subsidy. Better to suffer a slight lack of legroom than yield to that.