‘Nearly £12,000 of public money for portrait of Diane Abbott’… but what is MP’s view on art row?

Diane Abbott

Art attacked: Stuart Pearson Wright’s portrait of Diane Abbott MP. Image: parliament.uk

This painting of Diane Abbott is one of several artworks at the centre of a row over Parliament’s use of public funds to buy expensive portraits of MPs.

Stuart Pearson Wright’s portrait of the Labour Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP cost taxpayers £11,750, according to newspaper reports today.

It is part of the Parliamentary Art Collection owned jointly by the House of Commons and House of Lords and displayed throughout the Parliamentary Estate.

paper and cup diane abbott

Hackney MP Diane Abbott. Photograph: Aoife Moriarty

A spokesperson for Parliament said the collection aimed to record “those who have made a significant contribution to UK political life over the centuries” and added that the total annual budget for acquiring works of art for the collection has been reduced by around a third since 2010.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance said the sums of money being lavished on acquiring the paintings had “the whiff of an expensive vanity project”.

Update at 5.50pm on 14 January 2014:

The Hackney Citizen asked Ms Abbott whether she likes the portrait and thinks the acquisition of it by Parliament was a good use of public funds.

Ms Abbott replied: “The subjects of the portraits commissioned by Parliament are chosen by the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art. Many people seem to believe that these pictures are commissioned at the request of the individuals depicted, which is not the case. In the case of my own picture, when it was commissioned 11 years ago I had no knowledge of the portrait’s cost.”

36 Comments

  1. polly on Tuesday 14 January 2014 at 15:39

    I would like to know, by what authority the politicians have to waste taxpayers money ,
    on this project.



  2. Finn Arundssen on Tuesday 14 January 2014 at 16:04

    According to whom is there any useful contribution been made? In most cases, that would be a matter of debate where a politician is concerned.



  3. Fred on Tuesday 14 January 2014 at 16:50

    … [Deleted by moderator]



  4. Alan on Tuesday 14 January 2014 at 21:43

    Isn’t it about time the treason laws were dusted off to deal with this 650 strong gang of quislings, charlatans, fraudsters,thieves and downright lying bastards



  5. aa on Thursday 16 January 2014 at 22:31

    All the MP’s should pay back every penny. I hope the public will remember this for the next election.



  6. Alan Gilpin on Monday 9 March 2015 at 10:18

    Using public money to pay for a portrait of anyone, MP or not, is obscene. If they want one let them pay for it themselves. To pay nearly £12,000 for one is criminal no matter how good it is and whoever authorised it should be mad to pay out of their own pocket.



  7. Deborah Gibson on Wednesday 5 August 2015 at 14:55

    It all depends on how you view art and art-works. i think art is as good a way for the government to spend public money – better that than on weapons. the members of parliament chosen for their portratits are deemed to be important in the life of government and Diane Abbott has made a massive contribution, not least by way of being the first black woman politician who has had to endure a great deal of racism. By her very presence she has raised the profile of black women let alone the work she has done on behalf of the country, those who voted her into her seat and all her constituency.



  8. stewART on Wednesday 9 March 2016 at 10:37

    Utterly sickening and disgraceful on any level….making tax-payer pay….the price of the portrait…the quality of the portrait…aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! “Elp! Let me off this bus immediately! The hypocrisy of her stance as a ‘labour politician…as a rich socialist she can afford to pay for the damn thing herself and should be made to!!!



  9. GORDON FOX on Wednesday 9 March 2016 at 19:16

    JUST TAKE A SELFIE FOR GOD’S SAKE..!!



  10. GORDON FOX on Wednesday 9 March 2016 at 19:17

    ..P.S. AND PUT SOME CLOTHES ON..



  11. David cordier on Wednesday 9 March 2016 at 20:10

    Question , was her portrait the only one paid for ! Or are we just singling her out , and who decided that it could be purchased.



  12. John Creighton on Thursday 10 March 2016 at 11:22

    Food banks, Child poverty,0 contracts. DONKEY LABOUR MP. Posted by a union member Labour supporter.



  13. Derek Massey on Wednesday 12 October 2016 at 20:41

    Who’d want to buy that it’s okay if you want to frighten the kids



  14. patricia hunter on Monday 31 October 2016 at 09:22

    whatever it was…….. WELL SAID FRED 🙂



  15. Larry on Saturday 19 November 2016 at 19:28

    Inbelievably the artist has made her even uglier than normal



  16. glenn on Sunday 15 January 2017 at 16:40

    Gordon i agree 100 % mate , i personally think it would be much better if”she” wore a burka



  17. glenn on Sunday 15 January 2017 at 16:42

    Hi Derek , dartboard ?



  18. Steve Lane on Monday 16 January 2017 at 12:23

    “a significant contribution to UK political life over the centuries” ….Is this a joke? what an earth has she done except for repeatedly shaming herself.
    When I gave her evidence of blatant corruption in Hackney council she said she didn’t know who to believe and so she did nothing – the corruption continues. Thanks for nothing Dianne you are not fit for purpose let alone a portrait.



  19. Eddie Abley (@EableyEddie) on Monday 23 January 2017 at 00:28

    She’s been subject to it? She is the biggest racist going look on YouTube and watch some of her interviews, she’s vile!!



  20. Richard Watts on Wednesday 1 February 2017 at 13:13

    Well said Alan.



  21. Richard Watts on Wednesday 1 February 2017 at 13:36

    So Deborah, being black makes a “massive contribution” to British politics?? Are you kidding? I would have thought that it’s one’s ability to perform, not ones skin colour, and what other things has she been so great at, apart from raking in loadsamoney and being very racist herself? Maybe people in London should poke their heads out of the “Big Bubble” occasionally, there are whole countries full of people surrounding it, what they think matters too, unfortunately it seems to be only the “London club” that gets listened to.



  22. Richard Watts on Wednesday 1 February 2017 at 13:46

    I agree with you both. But please, not a Burka. There’s far too many being worn, besides, I think Abbott would enjoy wearing one. A Sack would be more appropriate for her, that’s if there’s one big enough for her fat chops.



  23. mickfattorini on Friday 10 February 2017 at 14:38

    Why is it a waste to purchase art? Can’t stand Abbott but that’s a different matter



  24. Darren on Tuesday 14 February 2017 at 12:59

    This is exactly the kind of reason why Trump won, it wasn’t all about immigration. People trust him to stop this kind of waste and he will….. The UK need someone with the same strength and resilience.



  25. Mike on Tuesday 14 February 2017 at 21:48

    “In the case of my own picture, when it was commissioned 11 years ago I had no knowledge of the portrait’s cost.” No and she didn’t care because other people were working and paying taxes to pay for it.



  26. Mark Horney on Tuesday 14 February 2017 at 23:54

    and yet children with cerebral palsy are being denied treatment to walk on NHS for the same cost are being denied treatment.

    How sick is that.



  27. Damien on Wednesday 15 February 2017 at 11:52

    More important than a boy with cerebral palsy who could not have a £10k operation on cost grounds . I think not



  28. Vee on Wednesday 15 February 2017 at 23:45

    MP Means Magpie in my eyes.The thieving Barstards



  29. Chrissie Horsley on Thursday 16 February 2017 at 18:01

    What racist and sexist crap some of you guys come out with! With men around like you, wimmin will never have equality. Shame on you all!



  30. Mark P on Monday 20 February 2017 at 07:18

    Their authority derives from the fact that a democratic election brought to power those that made and those that did not oppose such decisions on our behalf. If you don’t like it, statrt a movement to get those in power to resign or run against them in the next election ….



  31. Mark P on Monday 20 February 2017 at 07:22

    Read the article, Dave – The answer’s in the text …..



  32. Mark P on Monday 20 February 2017 at 07:28

    I’m sure you spelled ‘women’ the way you did to elicit a response – well there you go, Chrissie, you got it….. If you don’t have the education to spell ‘women’ correctly, how can your comments be taken seriously …..?



  33. Mark P on Monday 20 February 2017 at 07:35

    £11,750? “Commissioned 11 years ago” (2003 tracking back from date of post) – what would that be worth in today’s money (Feb 2017)? Around £17,500 today (Bank of England inflation calculator)



  34. Mark P on Monday 20 February 2017 at 07:38

    The reason I posted the above comment was to indicate the true value of what was paid; even so, £11750 today to pay a portrait artist, is not peanuts, let alone £17,500!!



  35. Edward Dawson on Monday 16 October 2017 at 11:09

    Art is always a good thing, even if you dislike the subject. It also costs money, and shouldn’t be decried. This is one of many contemporary pictures in Portcullis House. Some are better than others, and the Art Collection should encourage public subscription, in order to avoid such accusations.



  36. DG Oubliette on Tuesday 4 May 2021 at 13:58

    Can’t they just take a photograph? Portraits were the only method of record before cameras were invented. They are no longer needed especially at that cost!



Leave a Comment





This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.