Mugshots

[santa claus]

So taxpayers have forked out a quarter of a million pounds for portraits of parliamentarians who feel "they've made a significant contribution to UK political life". Speaker John Bercow's portrait cost the tax payer £37,000 and Diane Abbot's a snip at only £11,750 for example.

There are people who don't earn these sums in a year.

Who do these politicians think they are? I cannot express enough disgust without the swear filter being lifted. As the taxpayer owns this stuff, can we burn them? The portraits are hideous anyway.

[peterb]

Expensive dartboards...

Although portraits of significant politicians (which rules out Bercow - and most of the current lot) are a tradition - although not all meet with the subjects approval. Lady Churchill destroyed the portrait of Sir Winston Churchill, painted by Graham Sutherland after Churchill's death because they both disliked it.

However, I think Prime Ministers and Speakers of the house do have portraits made for posterity - and the cost in the grand scheme of Governmental spending is small beer, and does form part of the historical record.

(However, I'm willing to do them with my DSLR for a couple of hundred quid....)

[TheAnimus]

Can't really call them mug shots, I mean the mugs are us lot paying for it.

I would really love to know the relationship between the artists and the MPs. Is it just ego that they think they are worth a £30k painting, or just plain pork barrelling? In all honesty I am not sure which I hope it is.

[santa claus]

Expensive dartboards...

Although portraits of significant politicians (which rules out Bercow - and most of the current lot) are a tradition - although not all meet with the subjects approval. Lady Churchill destroyed the portrait of Sir Winston Churchill, painted by Graham Sutherland after Churchill's death because they booth disliked it.

however, I think Prime Ministers and Speakers of the house do have portraits made for posterity - and the cost in the grand scheme of Governmental spending is small beer, and does form part of the historical record.

(However, I'm willing to do them with my DSLR for a couple of hundred quid....)

Even small beer is a waste on nonentities.

Can't really call them mug shots, I mean the mugs are us lot paying for it.

Yep. Ego trip at our expense. A representation of achievement might have made for a better painting. A pair of handcuffs, say, or a big poster style "Choose Life, Choose Quantative Easing"

[wasabi]

What about printing laws on vellum? Is goat skin good value for money?


Yeah, MP perks are inflammatory to taxpayers. Compared to say Oracle licensing and backend Cisco switching to provide yet another copy of yet another database for yet another big government megaproject that will get bogged down with project managers and fail after exceeding budget massively, it is peanut chippings.

[deejayburnout]

Why does no one police the MPs? Surely spending on non essential services like commissioning paintings of MPs should be vetted and approved by some governing body or the public.

I feel like they are like someone who has stole my credit card, spend spend spend until they get caught.

Shoot them all i say and start again.

[Lucio]

It's pretty insignificant compared to the worst excesses and just another media distraction to take attention away from a more serious problem. The real question is what else happened the day this story broke?

[Dooms]

Hmm I don't get it. Surely if it doesn't benefit the country they shouldn't be able to use our money for it?

I wish I could randomly on a whim go do something like this and bill the company I work for.

[peterb]

Depends what you mean by benefit. It adds to the historical record, so while it is of little benefit to the current generation, it might be of benefit to future generations.

We are creatures with a sense of history - we look back at portraits of previous politicians, monarchs and so on with interest. It begs the question of whether a digital image is a better (and lower cost) method of capturing those likenesses, although there is something about an artists representation that isn't present in a photograph. And of course, artists have to eat too, so it is providing some employment to canvas makers, artists and framers.

[Dooms]

Take a photo.

Also where are these hung? Can anyone go see it?

[Saracen]

Depends what you mean by benefit. It adds to the historical record, so while it is of little benefit to the current generation, it might be of benefit to future generations.

We are creatures with a sense of history - we look back at portraits of previous politicians, monarchs and so on with interest. It begs the question of whether a digital image is a better (and lower cost) method of capturing those likenesses, although there is something about an artists representation that isn't present in a photograph. And of course, artists have to eat too, so it is providing some employment to canvas makers, artists and framers.

I'm firmly in the "take a photo" camp. I've also heard a couple of politicians use the "for future generations" argument, and I utterly reject it.

Why portraits in oil? Because when that practice started, we had no cameras or photography. We do now.

If it's for future generations to see what someone looked like, why would they want a distinctly interpretative artist's representation when they could gave a good quality, properly lit, photo?

This is just an ego-massaging power-trip for a bunch of already arrogant bunch of MPs, and absolutely typical of the attitude of those spending other people's money.

If we're "all in it together", when do I sit for my portrait? And I want one of the £37,000 pound ones, not cheaping out at a mere £12k. I mean, look what you get when you only pay nearly 50% of the average national income.

I also think if I were Diane Abbott, I'd be looking for the artist with a rolling pin, and a murderous scowl. But that's another subject.

[Smudger]

Can I take the money instead?

[ik9000]

It's a joke isn't it. Frankly I'd rather they were more concerned with leaving no image but a significant evidence based record of their deeds demonstrating how they'd actually worked for the good of the country and ALL of its citizens. You know, stuff like passing fair laws and maintaining a free and peacefully tolerant society. But no, stuff that, they pander to the rich elite, sell us out to the Chinese, force through unpopular programmes like HS2 and fracking, without really being able to explain why (though note the significant Chinese interest and investment in HS2....), refuse to plan power strategy properly, sell of the gold reserve for a pittance, march us of to war for reasons shown to be incorrect, and saddle the country with seemingly irrecoverable debt. Without an oil based painting to show their true (modified) appearance they might worry future generations will regard them with appropriate disdain or worse think they're just total err plebs [is that the technical term?]

[Biscuit]

Did they put the job of painting out to tender and then pick the lowest bidder?

[Dooms]

Did they put the job of painting out to tender and then pick the lowest bidder?

Sounds too sensible to me.

[Biscuit]

How about hiring young art students to do it thereby assisting in youth unemployment?