If anyone wants to know who it was who some commissioned these works of art and who the present members of the speakers advisory committee on works of art actually are. they can be found below.
If true that it has become unfashionable to have National pride or patriotism for our Government and nation then some of those
portraits should certainly help succeed in achieving those aims for some I would guess.
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.)
What about the champagne, truffles, foie gras and fillet steaks??? Not to mention the luxury holidays?
I just wish we could have a coup in this country. >:(
Get rid of the bloody lot. Overpaid, talentless, arrogant and incompetent windbags who ignore the electorate and always break promises made in their manifestos.
I just wish we could have a coup in this country. >:(
Get rid of the bloody lot. Overpaid, talentless, arrogant and incompetent windbags who ignore the electorate and always break promises made in their manifestos.
etc
I presume all those who are outraged by this expenditure are equally outraged by one person (the Queen) having two official portraits a year. She already has over 130 and they carry on piling up.
I just wish we could have a coup in this country. >:(
Get rid of the bloody lot. Overpaid, talentless, arrogant and incompetent windbags who ignore the electorate and always break promises made in their manifestos.
I presume all those who are outraged by this expenditure are equally outraged by one person (the Queen) having two official portraits a year. She already has over 130 and they carry on piling up.
I presume all those who are outraged by this expenditure are equally outraged by one person (the Queen) having two official portraits a year. She already has over 130 and they carry on piling up.
The queen at least generates income from tourism.
What's wrong with official photographs surely the would be far cheaper?
Having worked a number of years for our local council you wouldn't believe the squandering and sheer waste because it's not their money they're wasting. If it was a privately run business they wouldn't squander half as much. Not to mention all the unnecessary staff they employ which do very little. Where most companies will employ one person to do a job, the council will employ 3 who then sit around all day. Our office would order thousands of pounds of stationery whether we needed it or not and directors and highly paid councillors got to host meetings where they'd order a buffet lunch for everyone all courtesy of the tax payer and even got to claim their travelling expenses back even though most of them were on stupid amounts of money.
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.
I think the real problems are the ones in local government. You see, you can vote for a change in government but the local government employees are still there doing the same thing. The same old rotten apples at the bottom of the pile.
National government might make the big decisions but you've still got the same old idiots working down the town hall sitting on their arses pissing away the money. You wouldn't believe the amount of people who've been working for the local council who have been there so long that nobody can get rid of them. They don't pull their weight and do the very bare minimum required of them yet if this was a private company they'd have found a way to get rid of them by now.
Do you know how local government budgets work? It's basically based on asking for more money than you need and making sure that every penny of it gets spent in that year so you can justify having it again the following year. If they don't use it all up then the government don't give them as much the following year because they are classed as not actually needing it. So in order to justify their yearly budget, whatever money doesn't get spent towards the end of the tax year gets blown and wasted on just about anything. Any department with cash to spare has to find something to blow it on whether they need it it not. This can range from taking on extra staff that aren't needed to buying in shed loads of unwanted supplies or doing unnecessary repairs. So basically they waste money so the government can allocate them a bigger budget just in case they might need the money the following year.
Trouble is, because each department has it's own budget, the funds are not transferable between departments so one department might have a constant surplus every year while other departments might not have enough. For example sports and leisure might have a constant surpluss of cash every year and it gets blown on rubbish while highways might have enough to carry out all the repairs to the roads.
It's not as if any of them are oil paintings looks wise to begin with. Apart from which who will want to see this collection of numptys in years to come. Not one of them have done anything of real note, yet they all think they are either the reincarnation of Churchill, or Margaret Thatcher. A bunch of nobody's, as soon as they leave office who will ever remember them?
It's not as if any of them are oil paintings looks wise to begin with. Apart from which who will want to see this collection of numptys in years to come. Not one of them have done anything of real note, yet they all think they are either the reincarnation of Churchill, or Margaret Thatcher. A bunch of nobody's, as soon as they leave office who will ever remember them?
Now Now, in 200 years UK citizens will have the pleasure of gazing upon the majestic portrait of the uberstatesman that was Nick Clegg...
Comments
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/other-committees/works-of-art/membership/
Yes it was and btw you've linked the 2003 invasion of Iraq for some reason?
Have a look at this link and note the dates tie up with Major's watch not Blair's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
Commonly known as the second gulf war.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/persian-gulf-wars.html
portraits should certainly help succeed in achieving those aims for some I would guess.
Fair enough, but you didn't say the Second Gulf War, just the Gulf War.
I believe it's even more commonly referred to as the Iraq War...
Yep, and I didn't say the first gulf war either.
Not commonly known at all, it's commonly known as the Iraq war.
That link is silly btw because who calls them Persian Gulf Wars?
Just concede that it was called the gulf war.
What about the champagne, truffles, foie gras and fillet steaks??? Not to mention the luxury holidays?
>:(
and we're supposed to be all in this together???
IDS looks like the fuhrer >:(
Get rid of the bloody lot. Overpaid, talentless, arrogant and incompetent windbags who ignore the electorate and always break promises made in their manifestos.
etc
I presume all those who are outraged by this expenditure are equally outraged by one person (the Queen) having two official portraits a year. She already has over 130 and they carry on piling up.
And then we all lived happily after....
Do you not like the Queen?
The queen at least generates income from tourism.
What's wrong with official photographs surely the would be far cheaper?
Couldn't we just have them stuffed when they die?
Absolutely no way because it wasn't called the gulf war - except by you that is.
It's nothing in the big scheme of things. I'm not worried at all. It isn't just this government.
No one is pointing the finger at any one government.
National government might make the big decisions but you've still got the same old idiots working down the town hall sitting on their arses pissing away the money. You wouldn't believe the amount of people who've been working for the local council who have been there so long that nobody can get rid of them. They don't pull their weight and do the very bare minimum required of them yet if this was a private company they'd have found a way to get rid of them by now.
Do you know how local government budgets work? It's basically based on asking for more money than you need and making sure that every penny of it gets spent in that year so you can justify having it again the following year. If they don't use it all up then the government don't give them as much the following year because they are classed as not actually needing it. So in order to justify their yearly budget, whatever money doesn't get spent towards the end of the tax year gets blown and wasted on just about anything. Any department with cash to spare has to find something to blow it on whether they need it it not. This can range from taking on extra staff that aren't needed to buying in shed loads of unwanted supplies or doing unnecessary repairs. So basically they waste money so the government can allocate them a bigger budget just in case they might need the money the following year.
Trouble is, because each department has it's own budget, the funds are not transferable between departments so one department might have a constant surplus every year while other departments might not have enough. For example sports and leisure might have a constant surpluss of cash every year and it gets blown on rubbish while highways might have enough to carry out all the repairs to the roads.
It's a total joke!
BIB LOL, so true.
Now Now, in 200 years UK citizens will have the pleasure of gazing upon the majestic portrait of the uberstatesman that was Nick Clegg...