Tradition and continuity are an important part of our heritage. Previous generations left us portraits of their leaders and Kings. The Queen still has her portrait painted so why not these democratically elected people of our time.
They will warts and all tell future generations something about who we where. As a proud Britain I support this.
Edit there are apparently 133 official portraits of the Queen.
Tradition and continuity are an important part of our heritage. Previous generations left us portraits of their leaders and Kings. The Queen still has her portrait painted so why not these democratically elected people of our time.
They will warts and all tell future generations something about who we where. As a proud Britain I support this.
Oh yeah, they can have their portraits but let them pay for it. We're strapped for cash at the moment.
Oh yeah, they can have their portraits but let them pay for it. We're strapped for cash at the moment.
Does your economic restraint extend to official portraits of the Queen? Would you suggest a moratorium on all public works that do not have an immediate economic result?
People get paid for producing all these things it all contributes to an economy. I don't think we are so impoverished as a nation yet not to leave evidence of who we where.
Medieval Britain was a far poorer place than now but they managed to leave us rich paintings of their notables do we just leave a note saying sorry a bit strapped for cash?
Does your economic restraint extend to official portraits of the Queen? Would you suggest a moratorium on all public works that do not have an immediate economic result?
People get paid for producing all these things it all contributes to an economy. I don't think we are so impoverished as a nation yet not to leave evidence of who we where.
Medieval Britain was a far poorer place than now but they managed to leave us rich paintings of their notables do we just leave a note saying sorry a bit strapped for cash?
I'm sure there was an awful lot wrong with medieval Britain, we wouldn't want to follow their example , would we? I'll let you have the monarchy, there's not many of them in comparison to MPs and after all it is the MPs who are telling us that we have to tighten our belts, then so should they.
There was a woman on the radio today discussing this very issue and she said that in a hundred years or so when people come to look at the portraits of the politicians of today and there is a space , they could write in that space, explaining that at that time in history Britain were undergoing austerity measures, which meant they didn't commission any portraits.
Tradition and continuity are an important part of our heritage. Previous generations left us portraits of their leaders and Kings. The Queen still has her portrait painted so why not these democratically elected people of our time.
They will warts and all tell future generations something about who we where. As a proud Britain I support this.
Edit there are apparently 133 official portraits of the Queen.
Yes, but now we have cameras, smartphones, HDDs, SD cards, internet and the cloud.
They didn't have those things generations ago and if they want to "keep up with traditions" then they can pay for things themselves!
Extremely hypocritical of MPs to condemn anyone that's unemployed, (most of the time through no fault of their own) and daring to claim a whole £56 or £71 a week (depending on age), yet and the same time, pay thousands upon thousands for a painting of themselves. Very hypocritical and egotistical.
Thats the MP scum for you. Constantly going on about how we can't afford to pay for services that the public use as a country, but we have enough money to be able to afford to pay for things like this, on top of their generous expenses and their recent pay rise.
For a government that constantly complains about the unemployed, classing them all as lazy, work-shy scroungers, they have no problem in scrounging money for themselves.
Did't stop the Labour lot getting their picture done didn't it.
I'm sure there was an awful lot wrong with medieval Britain, we wouldn't want to follow their example , would we? I'll let you have the monarchy, there's not many of them in comparison to MPs and after all it is the MPs who are telling us that we have to tighten our belts, then so should they.
There was a woman on the radio today discussing this very issue and she said that in a hundred years or so when people come to look at the portraits of the politicians of today and there is a space , they could write in that space, explaining that at that time in history Britain were undergoing austerity measures, which meant they didn't commission any portraits.
That would tell a story in itself.
Many gloom merchants appear to want to paint us as a failing society; it seems you have hopes of passing this picture down to succeeding generations.
I would rather we kept our heads up with pride thanks.
A lot of those portraits are very good and i can see the point in preserving history by keeping up the tradition.
However there does seem rather a lot of them.
Then we have got a bargain. We are taking about .2 of a penny per head per year for the lot*. Sounds like we have got a bargain. Think of all the tourists these things will attract in the next thousand years.
*or about 4p per head of us for the whole 18 years.
Although not a great deal of money , it's a constant Chipping away at the tax payers money, which when added up amounts to a decent amount. They get more than enough money to pay for their own portraits.
In the current age of austerity when ordinary people are having to tighten their belts, these portraits are just an unjustifiable extravagance and they shouldn't have been commissioned in the first place.
Comments
>>>
The artist was only doing ones best to enhance that being asked of him or her. Silk purse / cows ear etc - Apologies for
comparison.
Maybe he regards it as being well worth it? His chum Jacob Rees-Mogg says £250,000 is only chicken feed.
Was it?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Yeah, but Jacob "With Nanny" Rees-Mogg is a cock of the highest order.
More Audley Harrison for my money.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2009/10/3/1254527105086/Audley-Harrison-001.jpg
total and utter WASTE of public finances, with NO POINT in it whatsoever, other than to feed the gigantic egos of these morons!
**** THEM ALL
I wouldn't shed a tear if it happened at midday on a Wednesday.
Well, maybe for the building but the institution? No.
They will warts and all tell future generations something about who we where. As a proud Britain I support this.
Edit there are apparently 133 official portraits of the Queen.
Oh yeah, they can have their portraits but let them pay for it. We're strapped for cash at the moment.
Does your economic restraint extend to official portraits of the Queen? Would you suggest a moratorium on all public works that do not have an immediate economic result?
People get paid for producing all these things it all contributes to an economy. I don't think we are so impoverished as a nation yet not to leave evidence of who we where.
Medieval Britain was a far poorer place than now but they managed to leave us rich paintings of their notables do we just leave a note saying sorry a bit strapped for cash?
I'm sure there was an awful lot wrong with medieval Britain, we wouldn't want to follow their example , would we? I'll let you have the monarchy, there's not many of them in comparison to MPs and after all it is the MPs who are telling us that we have to tighten our belts, then so should they.
There was a woman on the radio today discussing this very issue and she said that in a hundred years or so when people come to look at the portraits of the politicians of today and there is a space , they could write in that space, explaining that at that time in history Britain were undergoing austerity measures, which meant they didn't commission any portraits.
That would tell a story in itself.
Because they exclude themselves from this government's harsh cuts.
Yes, but now we have cameras, smartphones, HDDs, SD cards, internet and the cloud.
They didn't have those things generations ago and if they want to "keep up with traditions" then they can pay for things themselves!
Extremely hypocritical of MPs to condemn anyone that's unemployed, (most of the time through no fault of their own) and daring to claim a whole £56 or £71 a week (depending on age), yet and the same time, pay thousands upon thousands for a painting of themselves. Very hypocritical and egotistical.
Dianne abbots is horrendous and slightly racist, she is not that black in real life and her lips are not that big....
Did't stop the Labour lot getting their picture done didn't it.
Many gloom merchants appear to want to paint us as a failing society; it seems you have hopes of passing this picture down to succeeding generations.
I would rather we kept our heads up with pride thanks.
Well said. It's not about us, it's about them.
However there does seem rather a lot of them.
They're taking them home and become their own then are they?
Then we have got a bargain. We are taking about .2 of a penny per head per year for the lot*. Sounds like we have got a bargain. Think of all the tourists these things will attract in the next thousand years.
*or about 4p per head of us for the whole 18 years.
In the current age of austerity when ordinary people are having to tighten their belts, these portraits are just an unjustifiable extravagance and they shouldn't have been commissioned in the first place.
Kinda scary, innit?