FabSwingers.com forum: Modern Artfare??

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

We knew it would happen. Slowly the extravagant cost of 13 years of Labour govt would leak out as each department's wasteful expenditure is uncovered by the new incoming ministers.

In 2005 Geoff Hoon ordered a revamp of the MoD's HQ to the tune of £352m. Included in that figure was £272,000 of abstract art commissioned by Hoon to portray our Armed Services at work but was regarded by Forces personnel within the MoD as 'modern fart' as it was unrecognisable as anything even remotely military.

The bizarre art was painted by trendy artists Zil Hoque and Louise Catrell, artists who wouldn't know what a gun was if it backfired on them. All this at a time when our armed forces were being sent to Iraq without basic survival equipment such as body armour.

£272,000 could have provided 15 fully kitted Army Privates, but for some strange reason Hoon thought it best to have obscure paintings to look at while he wasted more of our money.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obbytupperMan
over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

He should be sold them compulsarilly to show him the error of judgement he made. Knock it off his pension!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We carnt say the C word so........

* gets bk in coffin *

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualfire88Man
over a year ago

Edinburgh

At the same time the MOD will have had a budget for tea bags. And if everyone in the MOD had one less cup of tea per day, the money saved could have gone on additional equipment.

But it doesnt work that way. There is simply no direct corelation between X being spent on art and Y not being spent on equipment. To suggest that such a simple and direct cause and effect exists is a massive over simplification.

Thus the debate is reduced to 'i'd rather send kit to our brave lads in the 'stan than have some pncy art on the wall etc etc etc', and achieves nothing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

If you go into any major government building you will see art that was purchased or commisioned by various governments over many, many decades.

Let's not make out that governments only purchased art and wine since 1997, and that it will miraculously stop now that 'Dave' is here to save us all.

There will still be hypocritical wastage of tax payers money by this new government, and in all likelyhood every government that follows.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"We carnt say the C word so........

* gets bk in coffin *

You can't call someone a cunt, there is a difference.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"If you go into any major government building you will see art that was purchased or commisioned by various governments over many, many decades.

Let's not make out that governments only purchased art and wine since 1997, and that it will miraculously stop now that 'Dave' is here to save us all.

There will still be hypocritical wastage of tax payers money by this new government, and in all likelyhood every government that follows."

* nods *

I am just surprised that people think that it doesn't go on with every party.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have no time for Hoon but I recall the last time this story was exhumed he denied having placed the order for this picture and the Government Art Collection, funded by Culture, Media and Sport, admitted they'd done it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"If you go into any major government building you will see art that was purchased or commisioned by various governments over many, many decades.

Let's not make out that governments only purchased art and wine since 1997, and that it will miraculously stop now that 'Dave' is here to save us all.

There will still be hypocritical wastage of tax payers money by this new government, and in all likelyhood every government that follows."

I wasn't alive and paying tax 50 years ago so I don't really give a toss what the govts of the day did with the money they had back then. I am paying tax NOW and I was in 2005 too, which does concern me.

Cameron's govt will be accountable for what they spend because if they prove to be hypocritical in lambasting the previous Labour govt for wasteful spending and then go on and order crap art worth £000's I'll be first in line to have a go.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ensualfire88Man
over a year ago

Edinburgh

See Rugbys comment above re all of them all of the time.

It's FAR too easy to be selective and point the finger at any politician, pary or govt once you have chosen your 'hobby horse' issue.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

After 18 years of Tory rule do people not stop to think that New Labour will have found all sorts of instances of money wastage during the Major/Thatcher years?

Maybe the difference is that Labour didn't constantly (almost on a daily basis) try to justify their spending or cutting plans for the term of their government.

The Coalition are shamelessly using the tabloids to make every excuse for wielding the axe, maybe they should get on with it instead of constantly whinging.

The MOD artwork subject first came up Five years ago and it was explained then that the art was commisioned by the ministry for Culture and the Arts, but yet again it's dug up and raked over in yet another justification for spending cuts in the MOD by the new government.

So folks, expect the Three new Aircraft Carriers half built to be scrapped later in the month by the new government, they will have laid the foundations for this with their justification in the tabloids....there is a distince pattern emerging here.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Cants.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He should be sold them compulsarilly to show him the error of judgement he made. Knock it off his pension!

second that one!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cants."

People after whom the county of Kent was named and also Canterbury.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Maybe the difference is that Labour didn't constantly (almost on a daily basis) try to justify their spending or cutting plans for the term of their government."

..and maybe the reason for that was that Labour inherited a thriving economy from the Tories and then set about ruining it with the most shambolic unaccountable administration this country has ever seen.

One would be correct in assuming that a Ministry for Arts & Culture would have the responsibility for bring Art & Culture to the masses, not a select fw individuals to gawp at on their way into work each morning.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

So Wishy.....if the situation in early 1997 was so rosey, and the economy was thriving.....why did you change from Tory to Labour at that time and why did Blair win with a landslide?

From the 1981 budget from Geoffrey Howe onwards until 1997 the Tories dismantled almost all regulation from the financial sector, they all but destroyed the manufacturing base in Britain....from 1978 to 1997 employment in manufacturing fell from 7 million workers to 3.7 million.

They artificially created a property owning democracy by selling off 60% of public housing stock, without investing a penny of the receipts back into property investment for future generations.

They used immense amounts of North Sea Oil revenue to restribute money back to their core voters by way of tax breaks aiamed at the better off in the country.

The Conservative economic legacy is a massive transfer of wealth and power away from the majority of the people to capital, away from the poor to the rich, and away from the country to London.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton

"We knew it would happen. Slowly the extravagant cost of 13 years of Labour govt would leak out as each department's wasteful expenditure is uncovered by the new incoming ministers.

£272,000 could have provided 15 fully kitted Army Privates, but for some strange reason Hoon thought it best to have obscure paintings to look at while he wasted more of our money.

you make me laugh

you moan about the government of the time investing in ART , but support them if they invest in WINE

the fact of the matter is that they should not spend our money on either

nor should they spend £15000 per roll on wallpaper for the speakers appartments

the MOD , HOP , HOL etc should all be in the same kind of buildings that perhaps the post office use , a glass office block in somewhere like croydon with lino on the floor

we could then open up the buildings of westminster to tourists and make a few quid

but that wont happen

for the last thousand years or more those in so called prominent positions feel the need to encase themselves in luxury

the vicar with his massive house , the councelor with his gold chain , MP,s lords etc , with there expenses , second homes and exorbitent wages for doing feck all

and at the top there is the queen

the highest paid BENEFIT SCROUNGER of all time

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Part of the purpose of the Government Art Collection, funded as I've said, by DCMS is to invest in new art which, if they've chosen well will increase in value or go on to become a tourist attraction in a public gallery - either permanently or on loan.

I haven't seen this 'piece of art' so I don't know if it's any good or not but somebody paid to make these decisions (not Geoff Hoon) must think so.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

That's the drawback about being a perpetual floating voter.....short memory syndrome.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton

I haven't seen this 'piece of art' so I don't know if it's any good or not but somebody paid to make these decisions (not Geoff Hoon) must think so."

there supposed to be running the country not making speculative investments

wine , art ............. what next ?

vintage cars , kruggerands , diamonds , pork bellies

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

until last year tracy worked for one of the government departments that was recently axed by the tories. the money that was spent on themselves was unreal.

office chairs that cost £1200 each (about 90 of them). 40" inch plasma screens that were never used.italian marble worktops in the kitchens. computers replaced after a year and the old ones sold to staff fo£50/60. the list goes on and on

they also had "awaydays"..2 days in a de vere hotel in the country. 2 hours of seminars and the rest of the time on the piss.

at the end of the fiscal year part of their budget was used for bonuses. last year 16%.

all from public funds

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

should read, staff received 16% of their salary as bonus

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

No the remit for the Culture Minister and his/her office is to protect the National heritage and promote cultural matters (Art/Music/Buildings etc.)

Not to worry about Defence/Police/Health

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

As said before, I don't care about 1,000 years ago, the same as I don't care about the Church (any denomination) as my tax didn't fund the Crusades nor does it fund the Church.

£18,000 is considerably less than £272,000 and I think you'll find that Her Majesty brings in far more money to this country than she takes from it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

"So Wishy.....if the situation in early 1997 was so rosey, and the economy was thriving.....why did you change from Tory to Labour at that time and why did Blair win with a landslide?

They artificially created a property owning democracy by selling off 60% of public housing stock, without investing a penny of the receipts back into property investment for future generations.

They used immense amounts of North Sea Oil revenue to restribute money back to their core voters by way of tax breaks aiamed at the better off in the country.

The Conservative economic legacy is a massive transfer of wealth and power away from the majority of the people to capital, away from the poor to the rich, and away from the country to London.

Not at all correct.

It is well established that the decline in manufacturung under Mrs Thatcher's administration was LESS than those of Labour administrations both before and since.

There had also been a massive increase in the wealth towards the people, especially the "baby boomer" generation and middle class profesional types.

That the masses have then "bought in" to a spend, spend, spend on debt mentality fostered by a fiscally reprehensible Labour administration is hardly Mrs Thatcher's fault.

The sooner people get on with reality, and the forthcoming pain, the sooner the better.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton

"until last year tracy worked for one of the government departments that was recently axed by the tories. the money that was spent on themselves was unreal.

they also had "awaydays"..2 days in a de vere hotel in the country. 2 hours of seminars and the rest of the time on the piss.

at the end of the fiscal year part of their budget was used for bonuses. last year 16%.

all from public funds

its easy to understand why they do this

and to be honest it is only human nature

if you work in a chocolate factory you nibble all day , work in an office and you will never buy copy paper or prit stick for your home ever again

work in a bank handling money all day you get fabulous wages and bonus

its the same with the government , from 2 week holidays in the maldives to investigate global warming ( 5 hours worked in the fortnight ) to relaxation centres and massage chairs in the MOD

while at the same time the soldiers on the front line have to share a tin hat

and by the way it matters not what side of the house is in power

i cant see things changing its far too entrenched

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"until last year tracy worked for one of the government departments that was recently axed by the tories. the money that was spent on themselves was unreal.

they also had "awaydays"..2 days in a de vere hotel in the country. 2 hours of seminars and the rest of the time on the piss.

at the end of the fiscal year part of their budget was used for bonuses. last year 16%.

all from public funds

Crown Assets distribution is handled by public auction, all government fixed assets such as furniture/computers/vehicles have to by law be sold on through by bona fide government clearing warehouses via auction or tender or private treaty sales.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

our computer wasn't bought that way..guess where it came from?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

So Wishy.....if the situation in early 1997 was so rosey, and the economy was thriving.....why did you change from Tory to Labour at that time and why did Blair win with a landslide?

Quoted from Jane......but a good question.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Cameron's govt will be accountable for what they spend"

well that would be another debate after mrs Cameron orders a complete refurbishment for No11 previously 'refurbished' in 1997 And has also spent £600k on 'refurbishing there old home now valued at £2.7m incedently with no mortgage!

Q. Who has there mortgage paid in 5 years

A. Politicians by the taxpayer!

All robbing sods if you ask me lining their own pockets

anybody up for some fireworks on Friday 5/11?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"So Wishy.....if the situation in early 1997 was so rosey, and the economy was thriving.....why did you change from Tory to Labour at that time and why did Blair win with a landslide?"

Quite simply, I had grown tired of the continual scandals of Tory ministers and I believed Blair when he said he could make a difference. Had Blair kicked Brown into touch like he should have done I'd have probably still voted Labour but by then he knew Labour had faded and was busy planning his own future and Blair threw Brown to the dogs. He must have been chortling with glee when Brown got turfed out on his rather ignoble arse.

Cameron had the same impact on me as Blair in 1997 and that's why I voted for him. His policies make sense to me and so far he seems to be delivering what he promised. The moment he doesn't, he loses my vote but in all honesty I don't see myself ever voting Labour again, and a LibDem vote is nothing more than a shot in the dark.

What galls me about Labour is that it was set up to protect the common man. The Labour movement are so far from their traditional roots that they need a SatNav to find their way back. There's no way that they can continue to claim they are the party of the worker when the simple fact is that Brown is hawking himself out at £65k a pop (an extra £12k if you want to suffer his wife introducing him), Blair is doing the same but for a lot less and the Milibands are busy trying to perfect their impersonation of the Kennedys.

At least with the Tories you get what you expect.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Yes, exactly the same........even Tories hawk themselves out

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

".........and I think you'll find that Her Majesty brings in far more money to this country than she takes from it."

Trouble is we'll never know because her equally overpaid flunkeys refuse pointblank to discuss the amount spent on protecting Her Majestic Backside.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

At the end of the day all governments waste money and in all scenario's money could of been better spent. No one government has been better or worse in my lifetime.

When i worked in the hospital i could of saved the nhs a fortune on just the things i saw in one hospital

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

"So Wishy.....if the situation in early 1997 was so rosey, and the economy was thriving.....why did you change from Tory to Labour at that time and why did Blair win with a landslide?

They artificially created a property owning democracy by selling off 60% of public housing stock, without investing a penny of the receipts back into property investment for future generations.

They used immense amounts of North Sea Oil revenue to restribute money back to their core voters by way of tax breaks aiamed at the better off in the country.

The Conservative economic legacy is a massive transfer of wealth and power away from the majority of the people to capital, away from the poor to the rich, and away from the country to London.

Not at all correct.

It is well established that the decline in manufacturung under Mrs Thatcher's administration was LESS than those of Labour administrations both before and since.

There had also been a massive increase in the wealth towards the people, especially the "baby boomer" generation and middle class profesional types.

That the masses have then "bought in" to a spend, spend, spend on debt mentality fostered by a fiscally reprehensible Labour administration is hardly Mrs Thatcher's fault.

The sooner people get on with reality, and the forthcoming pain, the sooner the better."

Since 1997 there have been 700,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the United Kingdom, between 1978 to 1997 the figure was 3.3 million manufacturing jobs lost.

Probably because by 1997 it was too late to turn the tide, we had no more major nationalised industry or companies.

By 1997 we had sold off (cheaply) our Telecoms, Power, Water, Gas, in fact anything that would bring in some pennies to artificially swell the government coffers.

If the 'baby boomers' benefitted from growth it was artificial growth created by the treasury raking in tens of billions (maybe more) by the boom years of North Sea Oil/Gas, mass selling off of assets and privatisation on a scale never seen before nor since.

What happened to the Billions earned from selling off our public housing stock?

All used to give the impression (artifical) of growth and prosperity.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"our computer wasn't bought that way..guess where it came from?"

was gonna guess but decided I can't be faffed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

p.s. 97 was the only time I voted Labour. The following couple of elections I moved around a lot after my divorce and I was never on the electoral roll when election time came around again so didn't vote at all - and didn't really care that much tbh, such was my state of mind at the time.

Only after I moved up here and Siren wanted everything above board and proper did I appear on the electoral register again, and that's when I received the first ballot papers I'd had in years.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uton_coupleCouple
over a year ago

luton

"As said before, I don't care about 1,000 years ago, the same as I don't care about the Church (any denomination) as my tax didn't fund the Crusades nor does it fund the Church.

£18,000 is considerably less than £272,000 and I think you'll find that Her Majesty brings in far more money to this country than she takes from it."

i lived in london most of my life , apart from seeing all the the tourist attractions i have been inside buck house , and also inside windsor castle when on buissness

but i have never SEEN the queen !!!

so what chance has a yank got who pops over for a fortnight !!!

for me it could be like the controversy DID MAN LAND ON THE MOON or was it done on a film set

DOES THE QUEEN EXIST ? ive only ever seen her on the telly

at least if you go to the vatican you will see the pope wave out of the window

i dont think the queen makes any difference , the tourists would visit the uk to see the sites

just like if i go to monaco i dont expect to see prince albert , im happy to look round the harbour , and the outside of the palace

more tourists would visit if you could say to them "here is the bed where the queen used to sleep in windsor castle "

instead of them trying to gawp over a 20 foot high wall

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"..........the simple fact is that Brown is hawking himself out at £65k a pop ......... "

You don't wanna believe everything you read in the Daily Mail.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Yes, exactly the same........even Tories hawk themselves out

do I sense some anarchy & revolt in the rank & file! Count me in

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"By 1997 we had sold off (cheaply) our Telecoms, Power, Water, Gas, in fact anything that would bring in some pennies to artificially swell the government coffers."

I have to have a little chuckle at your mention of BT. In the old days. Oh that was the time of our lives hehehe, I can fondly remember playing poker in some quiet corner of the switch with the other engineers pretty much all day every day. Nobody did any real work as we were all government employees collecting a wage every Friday, and a nice juicy pension to boot. The nationalised industries were ALL at it. Employed by the govt to reduce the dole queues and then paid to sit around doing sod all all day.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"..........the simple fact is that Brown is hawking himself out at £65k a pop .........

You don't wanna believe everything you read in the Daily Mail."

And maybe you shouldn't assume that I do read it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The only other place Google was able to find it was on silversurfers and I don't reckon you visit their website

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just to add. It doesn't seem to be on This is Derbyshire either

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"The only other place Google was able to find it was on silversurfers and I don't reckon you visit their website

Try this in Google:

"how much does gordon brown earn on the after dinner circuit"

Then look at the url's of the first five links. Not a D/Mail link there to be seen.

Just because YOU can't find the story, it doesn't mean it HAS to be in the Mail.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread