Cherie Blair (or rather the Labour Party) spent £275 per DAY on her hair ...?!

[roisin]

\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4929026.stm\is this for real?}

Caliguila
I understood that the figure was taken from the official labour party election accounts, and was the amount claimed by Cherie for hairstyling - so whilst she may have settled the bill initially, she reclaimed the figure.

Oh, we so have to have a gay PM next time in order to annoy Robert Mugabe, definitely.
No-one has mentioned John Ligga Prescott in this melee of old vs new Labour snouts in the trough, I see Mr Two Jags proudly maintaining the Union tradition of sending back the catering order for the meeting because the champagne last time was too sour, a better marque was needed...
As others have said, I think Cherie and Tony are too keen to be liked and too impressionable even after all this time - they've allowed themselves to be turned into spendthrift idiots. Too long at the top sends you mad - Margaret Thatcher is another good example.
I think CB especially has a poor body image and people like Carole Caplin are just queueing up to exploit it. Just because she is a QC doesn't make her sensible...

Great idea, Caligula. Particularly as I don't think Tony Blair would be very happy about it either!

LOL at annoying Robert Mugabe.

I nominate Peter Tatchell for the role

I believe that much of Cherie's adverse publicity stems from the fact that no previous PM's spouse has interpreted the role in an American First Lady style; her predecessors have remained in the background. There is some disquiet (I certainly feel it) about the undue prominence of an unelected spouse.

Why should the PM's wife have any role at all? I believe there is some value to the traditional PM's spouse role of handing out tea and sandwiches and making polite uncontroversial conversation, but could it not be done by a civil servant - someone who had been a senior personal secretary in a Government department would probably be better at it than a high-profile lawyer. (Sleeping with the PM would of course not be in the job description. An Official PM's Wife role could even be filled by a man, which would have the side benefit of annoying Robert Mugabe).

I read in the Guardian today that Labour Party HQ are stressing that she paid herself. If so, then I don't care. But the BBC said it was an expense claim.

So what's the truth then? Anyone know definitively?

no none cares if Cherie wants to spend £275 each day on her hair if she pays herself as she can well afford to do. I think gives herself the image of an undignified blagger and freeloader by filing this as an expense claim

Undoubtedly she uses a high end, prestigious person to do her hair - probably the same sort of person that does hair for movie stars, models and pop stars. That price will be based on the fact that whoever does her hair must travel with her (or at least to wherever she is), and therefore is unavailable to do other clients when dealing with Cherie. I agree it is an outrageous amount, but it's nothing compared to the hair/makeup people who travel with people like Madonna, Mariah Carey, Sharon Stone, etc. They get in the region of £1000 per day. But as I said before, that means they travel with the "star" and do no one else but that person.

I wonder if she'll declare it to the taxman?!

I think the hairdresser would have been on a retainer, or on call if you like, even traveling with them around the country. There be no other work available in that scenario, so they'd demand a daily fee for work lost, IYSWIM. I'm really ambivalent about this, it costs money to be in the public eye, she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't and is regularly. I'm very glad I don't have to negotiate such traps. At least she doesn't get facelifts and nosejobs gratis like the US first ladies do.

But MT she didn't pay the going rate. Certainly not the going rate of your average Labour party member, worker or voter.

It simply does not cost £275 for a hairstylist to come in and do your hair.

If it were a genuine expense, fair enough, she could have filed an expense claim for £30 a day. Although I very much doubt if my employer would accept my personal grooming costs as a genuine expense - and it is genuine, because I wouldn't necessarily get my hair done if I wasn't working. I still don't think I'd get that past my employer or the Inland Revenue though.

But £275? This is not about her relationship with the media imo, it's about those creep's relationship with the party. And where they are psychologically, socially and politically in relation to the people who work and vote for them.

AND can I just add that if the papers spent more time on the politics instead of '1st ladee head garden rubbish' then I'm positive she wouldn't bother with a hairdresser anyway. I remember when she never used to bother and was absolutely savaged in the papers for not being media savvy enough about her 'image'. So she got a stylist. And we all know what happened there. The media are just impossible to please!

She can't win - she gets criticised because of the way she looks then criticised for paying the going rate for personal hairdressers. She's hardly in a position to pop into Hair Express now is she?

it's over between me and Tony forever now.
This is SO ridiculous.
What a sinful waste of money.

Agree with Mommie, they spend so much time hanging out with multi-millionaires they have lost the plot. And with Caligula about Keir Hardie turning in his grave. A lot of ordinary people give up their time and their money to help the party because they believe in its values - or at least the values it had before Blair ripped the heart out of it. And then Cherie, who really should know better, pisses all their contributions away on her personal hairdresser.

FWIW I thought the shot of her opening the door the day after the '97election was really sweet. Made her seem normal. Hah!

Cherie Blair is so intelligent she is clueless.
She should use my hairdresser-a cut is a fiver

Just came back on to add that DH has just told me that the consultancy he use to work for were the ones brought in by the tories to revamp John Major's image when he became PM.
They did 3 days work and charged 7.5k! The party picked up the tab. So nothing new it seems.

Cherie Blair does represent our country and I think her conduct is frequently undignified and inappropriate - needless to say the same can't really be said about the queen.

as a closet Antiques Roadshow fan, I happen to know that several of Queen V's bloomers have survived and v virginal looking they were too!

I can't believe that someone who is so cost conscious (turning off lights/re-using string) would only wear knickers once.

Urban fairytale I fear!

I don't really care what Cherie has spent, as my money hasn't gone towards it, but i. Did she look £275 per day better than she would have done without the hairdresser, and ii. Doesn't she recognise a rip-off?!!

That could turn out to be an incredibly important historical underwear collection some day.
Imagine if we had one like that for Queen Victoria - think what a lot of questions it could answer.

it's 19,710 pairs, altho' a lot must have been destroyed at Windsor

OK 365 days per year x 54 years....

And also, I now want to calculate how many pairs of knickers she must have worn since becoming queen in 1952. I am stopping myself from doing this arithmetic.