Money for old rope

[davywavy]

Reading a copy of the Daily Whinger which someone had left on the train to work this morning, I couldn't help but be amused in a bleak sort of way at a piece on how the Labour party had spent £7,700 of party funds - £275 a day - on Cherie Blair's hairdo during the last general election. For some reason a number of paid up members of the party seem to be taking umbrage at the way their funds had been spent - they seemed to think that Cherie's hair wasn't a good use for their subscription money.
Leaving aside the irony of spending that sort of money on haircuts for someone who works in the last profession which requires regular wearing of a wig, Labour members are (unsurprisingly) wrong - the modern Labour party is so switched on with marketing and image that they wouldn't spend thousands of their own money on something with no return*, which means that someone in central office worked out that this expenditure would result in more votes for Tony & co.
I can imagine the thought processes of a floating voter on election day...
Hmmn. £80bn black hole in pension funds caused by Gordon's removal of tax relief...constant and ongoing erosion of civil liberties...that war thingy which so many people seemed to take against...but then again, Cherie has lovely hair so I'll vote for them anyway...

As more and more people become disillusioned with Labour and Tony, it will become harder and harder for them to convince Mr. Floating Voter to tick the right box and so it's reasonable to expect that expenditure on Cherie's hair will increase exponentially from now on. In fact, thanks to highly-placed contacts within the government I can exclusively reveal her outfit for campaigning during next month's local government elections:



I'm wondering if I should make a donation to Cherie's Hair Fund - after all, with any luck doing so will result in me getting a rather fancy new wig of my own.

^{*They would, however, gleefully spend billions of other people's money on just that, and often do.}

Comments

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

"Hmmn. £80bn black hole in pension funds caused by Gordon's removal of tax relief...constant and ongoing erosion of civil liberties...that war thingy which so many people seemed to take against...but then again, Cherie has lovely hair so I'll vote for them anyway..."

Worrying thing is that it's most likely true.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, they were hardly going to be thinking that she's got a lovely smile, now, were they?

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Maybe we were lucky it was just the hair; could have been daily tooth-bleeching treatments as well to keep that colgate sparkle.

Make-up by Michael Howard.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Seriously, though, this is a non-issue. It's an account, not a claim for expenses. ANY money spent on an election has to be itemised, REGARDLESS if that money is spent by the individual or by a pot of party funds. The idea is that High Court Judges can't spend more than tubthumping working class 'blerks'. In all probability, Cherie Blair probably paid for her own make-up and hair from her own pocket, not the scrimpings of Liverpool ex-dockers, but because it had an impact on the electioneering, it still needs to be declared as an election cost.

To quote the article:

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Do you actually read the source material?

In all probability, Cherie Blair probably paid for her own make-up and hair from her own pocket, not the scrimpings of Liverpool ex-dockers,

From the BBC:
the Labour Party had to foot the bill when she appeared at its events has angered some in the party.

Re: To quote the article:

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I also listened to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on PM last night.

The 'funds' are often put into the account by the individual in question. By saying she's 'dipping' into the pot, essentially she's taking out money that she's put in there in the first place.

You cannot spend miscellaneous individual money on election expenses - any money that you spend has to come from 'Party Funds', or at least be put through their books, for reasons of transparency.

It's the opposite of what you, as a self-employed businessman, try to get away with by writing things off as tax-deductable; by putting these expenses on their list they contribute to the 'cap' that is on election spending, so really it's in the politicians' interests to avoid putting as much as they can on that list.

In the same way, to be apartisan, I doubt that Michael Howard spent £3k of the Countryside alliance's money on bronzer and head wax.

To assume makes an ass of 'u' and 'me'

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

How do you know what I 'try to get away with'? Have you been reading our accoutns?
Or are you just letting your prejudices show through yet again?

Re: To assume makes an ass of 'u' and 'me'

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Sometimes, David, you remind me of my wife.

There is a difference between flippancy and maliciousness.

I'm sure that your accounts are as pure as the driven snow, and that you even exclude cash register ink as you like the smell so much.

Expense fiddling is what happens with people who don't have so much of their personal income invested in the company.

Re: To assume makes an ass of 'u' and 'me'

[(Anonymous)]

"Sometimes, David, you remind me of my wife."

Tell her to shave

Re: To quote the article:

[(Anonymous)]

Doesn't really explain why £7,700 on hairdos for someone with no electoral mandate is regarded as an "election expense" though does it? If a high-ranking human rights barrister chooses to contribute to Party funds, that's her own private decision; if she then removes that same contribution to fund the upkeep of her own coiffure, it becomes a matter for public debate.

BTW, how can anyone conceivably spend £7,700 on hair??? Linda at Chop 'n' Change does mine for £6.25 a go.

H

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I thought that wig you wore that made you look like a terrifying version of Angus was rather amusing.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Much more interesting are the large sums paid by both Labour and the Conservatives on PR. (I haven't heard any figures for the LibDems.) BBC Radio Scotland this morning had a report that Alastair Campbell charged £47k for tw or three months work in the run up to the last election, whilst the Tories spent over £400k on their imported PR team (over several months) (I think - I can't find anything on BBC.co.uk).

I can't help thinking that being the Tories PR wouldn't look good on the CV; perhaps that's why he charged a premium.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Found it - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4940182.stm

I could agree more...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

...because by that logic Labour's payment of £530,000+ to Mark Penn for PR services during the election shows that working for Labour is the most shameful and embarrassing act of all.

No argument from me...

Re: I could agree more...

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

I missed that one. Jeez.

Re: I could agree more...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Front page of the Times today - I noticed when I was browsing the papers whilst buying my lunch.