[align=left]Anger Over Cherie's £7,700 Hairdresser Bill[/align]









[align=center]

[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Winning look: Cherie Blair at the time of Labour's election win last May[/align][/align]





The Labour Party has defended footing a £7,700 bill for Cherie Blair's hairstylist during last year's general election campaign.

Her personal hairdresser kept her immaculately groomed during her husband's successful bid to lead the party to a historic third term at a cost of £275 a day for a month.

Details of the spend was revealed in the party's accounts submitted to watchdog, the Electoral Commission, the Times has reported.

It said the cost had caused anger in the party - which took controversial multi-million pound loans to secure enough cash for its campaign.


But a Labour Party spokeswoman retorted: "So what?''

"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.''

An invoice from Andre Suard, a stylist at Mayfair salon Michaeljohn, is believed to have been declared to the Electoral Commission as an election expense.

The Times said Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle - a former minister under Tony Blair - complained that the situation was a "real problem''.


It was more than twice the cash spent campaigning in his Liverpool Walton constituency, he told the paper.

Mrs Blair was involved in campaigning right up to the eve of the poll when she met with a group of mainly Asian women at a Leeds community centre.

Her employment of the "pricey'' hairdresser had already been the subject of a dig by Sandra Howard, the ex-model wife of then Tory leader Michael.

In an online diary of the campaign, she wrote: "Back to Campaign Headquarters where Susie in Michael's office tells me my hair looked a mess on television. We agree it's time for action.

"I have heard on the grapevine that a certain other leader's wife has booked arguably the best and certainly the priciest hairdresser in town for the entire campaigning month ahead; I reckon that gives me some good leverage in getting across that my hair deserves a look in, too.

"Sadly my own hairdresser doesn't go a bundle on the idea of home visits at dawn and tells me I'd faint away at his out-of-hours charges. Susie offers her services. She does an instant, on the spot blow-dry; it's marvellous, she's a genius and we make plans for regular early morning hair-salvation sessions - one panic off my long list.''

It is not the first time the hairdo of a senior Labour figure's wife has caused controversy.

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, facing flak for using an official car to travel a few hundred yards down an esplanade within the secure zone at a party conference in Bournemouth, explained that wife Pauline did not want to mess up her hair.

The comment, he then had painfully to explain, was a joke.

What she does need is plastic surgery to alter that stupid looking face of hers. She looks like something out of Wallace and Gromit too rahtid.

Not if i'm gonna have to spend the rest of my flippin life contributing to it! she can stay there with her over stretched mout!

The most insulting this is that she EARNS enough money to cover things like this. She earns my yearly salary in the space of a month yet the government wants to skim money off the top of my likkle part time wages to pay for someone to comb this womans hair?

:Xkmt!

Not that I agree with that amount spent on hair, but didn't it come from the labour party and their rich, house of lords wannabe donars rather then from the public purse?

your taxes didnt pay for her hair

rich labour sponsors payed for her hair

Point of correction: the Labour Party (or more specifically its members) paid for this rather than the Government, so it has nothing to do with our tax dollars.

Still don't think she got good value, mind, but not my problem...blktrainers

TBHi agreeshe should have spent that money on plastic facial surgery



thewoman is ugly to gutside.

stick-upKid wrote:
On this basis I take back the comment for you to grow up



Our Taxes pay for war (and to a lesser degree Welfare and Education)