Friday, April 21, 2006
OF HAIRCUTS AND PARTY SPENDING
Reuters:
Given that the Labour party is intent on taxing ordinary people to the hilt for just about everything save for breathing (which is likely in the back of some minor minister's mind, but hasn't yet appeared in the media), it is simply unconscionable that it actually thinks it can justify such profligacy. After all, considering Tony and Cherie Blair's combined incomes, she could certainly have paid for her own haircuts. And as my wife pointed out, doesn't she own a brush? Couldn't she have done a little something herself?
I don't know why Conservatives "could not resist". For the relatively far smaller cost doesn't fundamentally get Mrs Howard off the hook: Why did she charge the party even £65? At least Cherie Blair's costs look like part of the overall strategy, whereas a one-off cost looks oddish. After all, presumably Mr and Mrs Howard paid for all the others? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 21, 2006
Reuters:
Prime Minister Tony Blair's party shrugged off reports on Friday that his wife billed it nearly 8,000 pounds for a hairstylist during last year's general election.
Newspapers had a field day over reports that Cherie Blair had cost the party's campaign fund 275 pounds a day for the full-time services of a French stylist from a trendy London salon for a month.
Other Labour party members of parliament complained that her hairstyling bill was more than they had spent on their entire campaigns. But Blair's party said it was money well spent.
"So what?" a Labour party spokesman said. "Mrs Blair worked fantastically hard during the election and visited more than 50 constituencies during the campaign. She is enormously popular with the party, and don't forget, we won the election."...
Newspapers had a field day over reports that Cherie Blair had cost the party's campaign fund 275 pounds a day for the full-time services of a French stylist from a trendy London salon for a month.
Other Labour party members of parliament complained that her hairstyling bill was more than they had spent on their entire campaigns. But Blair's party said it was money well spent.
"So what?" a Labour party spokesman said. "Mrs Blair worked fantastically hard during the election and visited more than 50 constituencies during the campaign. She is enormously popular with the party, and don't forget, we won the election."...
Given that the Labour party is intent on taxing ordinary people to the hilt for just about everything save for breathing (which is likely in the back of some minor minister's mind, but hasn't yet appeared in the media), it is simply unconscionable that it actually thinks it can justify such profligacy. After all, considering Tony and Cherie Blair's combined incomes, she could certainly have paid for her own haircuts. And as my wife pointed out, doesn't she own a brush? Couldn't she have done a little something herself?
...Conservatives could not resist pointing out that their candidate Michael Howard's wife Sandra -- a former Vogue model no less -- had billed his campaign for just a single haircut, costing a mere 65 pounds.
"It is a slight contrast to Sandra Howard's expenditure," a Conservative spokeswoman said of Cherie Blair's hair bill...
"It is a slight contrast to Sandra Howard's expenditure," a Conservative spokeswoman said of Cherie Blair's hair bill...
I don't know why Conservatives "could not resist". For the relatively far smaller cost doesn't fundamentally get Mrs Howard off the hook: Why did she charge the party even £65? At least Cherie Blair's costs look like part of the overall strategy, whereas a one-off cost looks oddish. After all, presumably Mr and Mrs Howard paid for all the others? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 21, 2006
