[Closed] No money for NHS pensions but Speaker Bercow spends £37K on a painting...

His own, or public money?

Public money of course. These guys aren't stupid and aren't going to waste their own money on this kind of tat when we'll all pay for it!

The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has unveiled a portrait of himself and a lovely new coat of arms … all for the bargain price of 37,000 taxpayer pounds.

The coat of arms was clearly designed by a team of lefty liberal PR consultants with a brief to produce a coat of arms so nauseatingly politically correct and “progressive” that even the Guardian couldn’t find anything to disapprove of and therefore ignored it. It has a ladder to show how he’s climbed the social ladder from comprehensive-educated son of a taxi driver to MP and Speaker. It has Lib Dem gold roundels to represent his love of tennis and his position as ex-officio head of the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. The main part of the shield is divided half and half Labour red and Tory blue. The motto is “All are equal” with the words separated by pink triangles with the back of the scroll the motto is written on a gay pride rainbow pattern to show his commitment to championing the rights of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people. It also includes two swords to represent the county of Essex where he went to university. The use of Lib Dem gold, Labour red and Tory blue was deliberate to show his “impartiality”.

Well worth the money as well........

Hmm - I wonder if you'd get away with applying a tourniquet to his neck for say when he gets his brass neck treated.

15 k for frame FFS the painting might be worth it but for a frame

But is it art?

[img] [/img]

Not bad tbh

you fools have no understanding of art, this is an important piece and well worth the pittance paid.

that painting has ommited one great feature of his - a big massive [img] [/img] on his head

It is a rather nice painting

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I think its a good painting. Is spending public money on art bad? The subject matter might be questionable.

It's a commons tradition, and it's supporting art in a small way.

That coat of arms though - Christ on a bike.

Is spending public money on art bad?

Not at all. It's when you start wasting it on healthcare, that my mate Dave has a problem.

They have forgotten the 2nd line of text in that coat of arms "But some are more equal than others"

Is spending public money on art bad?

You can get a poster for £10 to fil a space on a wall.

I'm guessing the Daily Mail has a hand in the reporting of this, therefore its a fantasy rant for a nothing good to write about Attila the Hun day. Right?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/28/john-bercow-coat-of-arms?newsfeed=true ]Guardian[/url]

I have the utmost support towards public funding of the arts. I assume for the £37k they have hired a graduate artist to paint every member of the commons for a year?

Looks a bit like a photoshop paintbrush filter applied to a photo to me...

(I'm sure it's not, but that's what it reminds me of)

Isn't this sort of thing all part of the history of our country?

Do you look at paintings of Tudor gentry, and countless others of this type in galleries all over the country and think "ruddy 'ell - you could have bought a 100 goats for what that would have cost!"

However much of a prat we think he is, as speaker of the house he's part of our history and people 3 to 400 years from now will study this painting, and this period in history (and still conclude he really was a bit of a prat!).

as speaker of the house he's part of our history

The speaker of the house is nothing but a pimple on the nose of history.

In that case perhaps we should get a painting done of the NHS on the grounds that that will soon be part of our history?

£37K is small beer compared to Lord Irvines wallpaper from a few years ago.

Do you look at paintings of Tudor gentry....

Not really. But I bet artists were cheap in them days.

Personally I think he should have shopped around a bit more. £22,000 sounds well over the top.

This firm will do you a top notch oil painting for about 200 quid. And they don't even need to see you - just send them a recent photo of yourself.

http://www.paintingsfromphotos.co.uk/index.php

Agree with the photo shop filter comment. Might as well of done a photo.

You can all fek right off it took me ages. 🙁

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

what;s the difference between that and taxpayers' money being used to build new infrastructure in order to boost the economy?
The artist and the framemaker are presumably small businesses who need someone to buy their stuff in order to survive/pay their employees/buy stuff from their suppliers etc?

I think it's something to do with new infrastructure being useful.

what;s the difference between that and taxpayers' money being used to build new infrastructure in order to boost the economy?

Quite a lot, I suspect David Cameron would say.

I assume that the House Of Commons oil painting budget hasn't been cut by 60% like the social housing budget has.

How much of a house or indeed houses would £37k have built?

So, given that art can reflect the age in which it was created, what is wrong with a... photograph?

Isn't this sort of thing all part of the history of our country?

Do you look at paintings of Tudor gentry, and countless others of this type in galleries all over the country and think "ruddy 'ell - you could have bought a 100 goats for what that would have cost!"

However much of a prat we think he is, as speaker of the house he's part of our history and people 3 to 400 years from now will study this painting, and this period in history (and still conclude he really was a bit of a prat!).

How much money do we mis-spend on maintaining pointless and expensive "traditions"?

Paintings last longer and don't need electricity. It will be around longer than all your holiday snaps. Seems good VFM for a historical record.

How much of a house or indeed houses would £37k have built?

Well last week the government announced a £400million fund to build 16,000 new homes. I work that out at £25,000 per house. So £37k would be one and a half houses then.

However I suspect that buying a plot of land plus the build cost comes to a tad more then £25k. So either the government were deliberately misleading people, or their pocket calculator was playing up. Or maybe they're just not very good with sums.

[url= http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ly5dtmm3K_YJ:www.egovmonitor.com/node/44746+%22%C2%A3400+Million+funding+for+developers+to+build+up+to+16,000+homes+%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk ]In addition, the government would also allocated £400 Million funding for developers to build up to 16,000 homes[/url]

Looks like Harry Enfield wearing a wig.

Just more of the stupidity from the morally bankrupt government. for all its small sum in the grand scheme of things its the symbolism of it.

Isn't this sort of thing all part of the history of our country?

I'm quite sure they'll be photo of him somewhere.

Strange how all these cuts/austerity measures never seem to affect those at the top. Cant remember hearing of any judges,mps,top cops,top civil servants getting humped over. I must be out of touch.

When did Rob Andrew become Speaker of the House of Commons?

TJ: just correcting the typo's

Just more of the stupidity from morally bankrupt governments.

Symptomatic of the lovely "State" that you believe is the most efficient allocator of scarce resources.

These people cannot help themselves - embarrassing wife, crass symbolism and a waste of money. Society gets what it deserves perhaps?

Brian sewell has just given a scathing critique of both the painting and the Coat of arms.
he basically said the painting doesn't show him to be the speaker, just a commoner from essex with no lineage, he went on to explain that he's not a tudor, he's not a stewart...and he has the affrontary to commission a coat of arms to make himself seem equal to his peers

OWTTE

Symptomatic of the lovely "State" that you believe is the most efficient allocator of scarce resources.

Symptomatic of archaic traditions which date back to feudal days you mean.

And I have never heard TJ claim that the state under the control of a Tory government is "most efficient". In fact I've heard him suggest otherwise.

So what exactly are you on about ?

That the Tories are spunking our money and it's all our the fault ?

Just more of the stupidity from the morally bankrupt government

I've listened to PMQs a few times recently, and he really does love the sound of his own voice.

C'mon - this is not a party political issue. This is just another example of the excesses that go on within the Palace of W'minster across all parties. Its part of their vanity and the propensity to spend money.

So I am speaking about (TJ and other) assertion that the state is the most efficient allocator of resources. No need to be defensive about, "it's all our fault'.

Aracrer, as I am sure you know, the Speaker is meant to be strickly non-Partisan.

So I will stick to my point - this frivilous spending is symbolic (pun intended) of how politicians waste ALL our money, if given a chance. Particularly when it comes to inflating their own egos.

embarrassing wife

Poly - you are correct, far more switched on to the PR machine and media. Perhaps this is what our reality TV culture society deserves and requires.

But I must be too old and out-of-touch as I find her crass, vulgar and self-serving.....of course, modern politicians!

I would rather the public engaged politically in other ways

Which government is John Bercow a member of?

I suspect that he doesn't personally decide how government money is spent. The government takes the decision on such matters. And the government can change the rules as they so wish. Responsibility lies with them. The same government which tells everyone else to tighten their belts.

It's pretty clear that whilst the government says "we're all in this together" what they really mean is "you're all in this together".

Brian Sewell not impressed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15965193

Brian Sewell said the Speaker looked like "some bloke dug up from Essex"

😆

Is this publicly-funded painting going to be viewable by the very public what paid for it?

Brian Sewell not impressed

Brian Sewell's [i]never[/i] impressed.

And if I ever meet him, it's unlikely he'll be impressed when I throw my own poo at him.

[b]'Oi! Sewell you stuck up ponce! 'Ave [i]thatyt[/i]!'[/b]

Bosh! Right in the mush. Some of it goes in his marf an' everyfink. 😀

Is this publicly-funded painting going to be viewable by the very public what paid for it?

If course it is, just pop down to the House of Commons and ask to see it.

And whilst you're there, you could ask them to nip down to the cellar and get you a bottle of wine. I would go for a 1961 Chateau Latour. At £1,600 a glass it's a tad expensive, but well worth it - it's an amusing little wine which delights the palate.

[url= http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23949651-revealed-ministers-secret-wine-cellar-in-st-jamess.do ]Ministers' secret wine cellar in St James's[/url]

[img] [/img]

They truly are scum, aren't they? Spending taxpayers money on spensive foreign muck. They could at least support the UK economy by getting in some British Beer.

No that really is taking the piss, all that wine. No justification for that whatsoever.

the fine wine, bought for 30p, is among the most expensive of the 39,000 bottles in the cellar.

Furty pence???

A sailor cooduv lived for a month on furty pence, back then. 😐

An English sparkling wine will be served at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace for President Barack Obama's visit this month, if approved by the Palace

Why not give them what actual British people drink? Far more appropriate...

[img] [/img]

[b][i]"Fine hock confiscated from the German Embassy in 1939 has long gone"[/i][/b]

I bet the Queen had that. Couldn't wait to get it down her German gullet no doubt.

[img] [/img]
singletracks very own oracle of reason and righteousness that is TJ?

I suspect that he doesn't personally decide how government money is spent. The government takes the decision on such matters. And the government can change the rules as they so wish. Responsibility lies with them. The same government which tells everyone else to tighten their belts.

I think the Speaker decides what he's going to spend the taxpayers money on then does it regardless. I believe he had his office/appartment redecorated for some insane amount at the public expense and justified it. He's an obnoxious little pipsqueak with a revolting slapper for a wife.
They deserve each other.

a revolting slapper for a wife.

Oof. Any justification for that bit of misogyny?

I think the Speaker decides what he's going to spend the taxpayers money on then does it regardless. I believe he had his office/appartment redecorated for some insane amount at the public expense and justified it. He's an obnoxious little pipsqueak with a revolting slapper for a wife.
They deserve each other.

Always good to have an assertion backed up with no evidence. Top arguing.

By the way, it's [i]impossible[/i] for him to have had "an insane amount" spent on his apartment "and justified it." If it's an insane amount, it would be unjustifiable; if he's justified it, the amount cannot be insane.

As for your comment about his wife....Sally's lovely, and I'll not have a word said against her. Nor against Bercow; though he was an absolute arse at university, he's grown up and is now a thoroughly decent person. Anyone who, as speaker, is prepared to tell the PM to sit down and shut up (OK, slightly more parliamentary language was used) when he gets too pompous is fine by me.

nickf, seen as you're pally with the Bercows, perhaps you could remind him next time you meet up for drinkies that we're all supposed to be in this together?

Thanks.

looks to be quite a nice painting. How long did it take to complete?

Nice to have such things in life as with such frippery the world would be a very dull place..