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?}

Fairyjay, he didn't live there, just was there all day, every day in case she needed him. I actually read that in her memoirs I think.

Could have been worse, could have been the tax payers paying for it!!!

what exactly is`left wing about new labour, can anyone tell me? Oh yeah, high taxation, but to spend on wars. hmmm.

actually I don't see what the fuss is about. 275 quid per day presumably paid someone to follow her around all day like someone said. since we're not talking 9-5 that's quite reasonable for a professional. it's not like it was tax payers' money and sadly, the kicking she would have received in the press had her hair not looked perfect may have cost them votes, such is the shallow society we live in.

ruty - there are some left wing things, but high taxes isn't one of them. try living in any othereuropean country.

have to disagree with senaroPostrophe re tax. high taxes and left wing politics are definitely related (do you live in a London borough; you see it everywhere) and London is v expensive to live compared to many European cities, and getting more so with congestion charges etc. these are NEW taxes...

The Blairs must be SO tight! They are always trying to blag holidays, freebies, flights etc and they simply must KNOW they will get bad publicity - but they can't stop themselves!

They must be MASSIVELY materialistic.

flobble flobble - i agree. when you see the house they have bought in London, you think 'why can't she just pick up her own hairdressing bill'. I hate it when people with money are SO mean. It's as if they have no connection with reality anymore becauise they spend too much time with Sir Cliff in Barbados .....

I simply cannot imagine someone like Edna Healey or Mary Wilson or Shirley Williams or Barbara Castle being so cut off from the mainstream members of the Labour Party, that they would think it reasonable or necessary to spend their member's money on hairdos.

Really, I'm not a puritan and it's true that the Daily Horror et al would have laid into her for a bad hairdo, but they lay into her anyway. And those other Labour women knew that and knew damn well that that didn't give them the right to get their hair done with party funds.

Caligula - lol on Shirley "bad hair" Williams spending £200 a day in her hair.

on not 'in' her hair!

But in effect, she is doing the labour party a service by taking unpaid leave to fight their election campaign. It isn't taxpayer's money and all political parties spend silly amounts of money on all sorts of trivial nonsense.

I don't see why we should be having a dig at what they earn or how much they spend on their houses. I think we forget that as an oxford educated barrister in one of the top chambers he would be earning double his current salary if he wasn't PM. We whinge about MP's salary but yet many of them would be earning a huge amount more in the private sector!

Mommie, I think SP's point was that we have lower taxes than most other western European countries.

\link{http://www.sas.upenn.edu/home/assets/img/news/Cherie-Blair.jpg\they do a good job for £275 though don't they?}

Lol JT!
I can't believe it's taken all day for someone to post a wig reference!

homemama - i take yr point re tax. i read the post too fast!

But with regard to the Blairs, no one forces you to give up yr job as a lawyer (Tony Blair) and go into politics which is less well paid. It is called self-sacrifice (tho the side benefits are huge). When you are in politics, I think you have a duty to stay in touch with the vast majority of people who will think that Cherie claiming £275 a day for hair when she earns what is, by anyone's standards, a massive whack is plain greedy.

and i am a cherie fan --- or rather was, til she started doing daft things.

Mommie, I agree to a point but I think she takes a lot of flack when it's not even her job (or responsibility)

I was thinking the queen's hair looked pretty immaculate earlier and I'm sure she has her own personal stylist which in effect we are paying for, yet nobody complains about that.

I also read somewhere that the queen never rewears the same pair of knickers. New ones every day. How much taxpayer's money is seeing it's way to rigby&pellar(sp?) then?

hmm, not sure i want to think about the Queen's knickers, but comparing Cherie to the Queen is making my point! . She thinks she's royalty.

Because Cherie abuses her priviledges and the queen does not.

And I think the knickers suggestion is plainly rubbish and untrue!

Actually, I disagree Flobble. I think she did abuse her privilege when she dictated to the country who their PM should be (Douglas-Hume)

I also don't see why Cherie should take such a hammering in the press regarding how she looks or how she spends her money (thinking of her sons flat in Bristol). She is not a polititian and doesn't have to justify anything to us unless it's our money she is spending.

For what it's worth, I think the PM and his family should travel on the royal plane or a government appointed plane. Too much of a security risk otherwise. (this should go for all PMs and Foreign Secs too)

And there may well be privileges associated with the job. As I mentioned earlier, many give up a higher salary and quieter life to be there. I don't begrudge it whoever is in office.

Actually, I disagree Flobble. I think she did abuse her privilege when she dictated to the country who their PM should be (Douglas-Hume)

I also don't see why Cherie should take such a hammering in the press regarding how she looks or how she spends her money (thinking of her sons flat in Bristol). She is not a polititian and doesn't have to justify anything to us unless it's our money she is spending.

For what it's worth, I think the PM and his family should travel on the royal plane or a government appointed plane. Too much of a security risk otherwise. (this should go for all PMs and Foreign Secs too)

And there may well be privileges associated with the job. As I mentioned earlier, many give up a higher salary and quieter life to be there. I don't begrudge it whoever is in office.

When M&S opened an hour early just so Margaret Thatcher could shop for underwear in private there wasn't much complaint!

homemama, M&S took a commercial decision to open early to sell knickers to Margaret Thatcher - AFAIK (do correct me if I'm wrong) neither the taxpayer nor the Conservative Party paid for the early opening. (I find it hard to see why M&S thought it was worth it though - did selling underwear to the Iron Lady really attract customers?)

I agree, Hallgerga. Just as the labour party took a commercial decision that Cherie needed her hair done regularly.
It wouldn't have surprised me if some labour spin doctor hadn't convinced the poor woman that it was necessary.

Oh I have no sympathy at all for politicians who whinge about how much more money they could make in the private sector. The reason this bunch of greasy pole-climbers have gone into politics is because long term, politics is massively highly paid with far more glory and status than being a private barrister or businessman.

It leads to the lecture tour circuit, the TV appearances, the journalism - look at Roy Hattersley's column in the Guardian, it's unreadable, if he were a real journalist there's no way he'd be paid the big fat fee he gets paid because he was once a big noise in the Labour party. (Pause here to have a moment of nostalgia about when Hattersley used to be on the right of the party.)

Oona King may have lost her seat, but I don't think she's exactly on her uppers - all sorts of offers of work head your way when you've been an MP.

Really, save your pity for someone who deserves it. Like estage agents.