How Much for Harper's Make-Up?

[Michael Bluth]

Yes, shakey. And as much as you might think of yourself, you don't really intimidate me all that much.

Nor have I ever attempted to. You really seem to have issues, seek help.

Quite the ironic statement shakes...

[jdobbin]

How many days left till Mr. "Mimi Bobeck" Harper has to report to committee on makeup costs? Whats the date this has to happen before?

The information has to go before the committee on June 4 or else Parliament can issue a subpoena for the stylist to appear before committee.

[Fortunata]

Steve looked only OK, first day he wore a jacket, an improvement over a fishing vest I must say. So the stylist psychick must have been there. She's probably not too well informed about appropriate wear for a war zone; she should have consulted a made in middle east crystal ball. If she's not even listed as an employee chances are her travel records won't be available. Heck, even all legitimate employees' (as in Ministers) aren't all available.

[jdobbin]

Wonder what Steve's image adviser thought of Afghanistan? She let him wear a vest.... again. Bet he forced her to let him wear it. He wanted to look like the big boys.

She may have travelled with him there. All people on the plane though are protected by National Security so the information is not available. It might turn up on an expense account unless that is being hidden as well for national security purposes as well.

[Shakeyhands]

Well, no big news happenings to bury this, it will be interesting to see how much it is costing us for Harper to look like he does...

I hope its not a lot.

[jdobbin]

Well, no big news happenings to bury this, it will be interesting to see how much it is costing us for Harper to look like he does...

I hope its not a lot.

It will be interesting to know if she has accompanied him again for the G8 meeting.

[Shakeyhands]

I believe today is the day it must be reported?

[jdobbin]

I believe today is the day it must be reported?

That was my understanding but I don't know if the committee meets today or not. I wonder if they will wait till Harper is back in the country.

[jdobbin]

So finally, we get an answer on Harper's make-up artist!

And here it is:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070607/.../harper_stylist

The response given to Judy Wasylycia-Leis, prepared by the Privy Council Office and signed by Harper's parliamentary secretary, was that there were "no records indicating Michelle Muntean is an employee (public servant or exempt staff) or that she submitted expenses for payment for expenses incurred by her or on her behalf."

Wha...?!

So who does pay for her if the PMO and the Conservatives don't pay for her?

That leaves only one possibility for the mystery of who provides Muntean's paycheques: the House of Commons.

Each MP - including Harper - gets a yearly budget through the Commons to help run their offices. The details of those budgets are not covered under Access to Information laws and Harper can keep the numbers concealed forever if he likes.

Still sounds like a double standard. Harper questioned his own leader about budgetary expenses paid for the Reform party. House of Commons office budgets should be used for offices, not for fluffing your hair.

[jdobbin]

I am trying to figure out under what category Harper would list his make-up artist under.

The constituency office allowance is $258,000.

I suppose he could list it as staff allowance but one wonders if she is paying for airplane tickets or it coming out of his office budget.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/pr...2005-2006-e.pdf

[Michael Bluth]

I am trying to figure out under what category Harper would list his make-up artist under.

The constituency office allowance is $258,000.

MPs are allowed to give money from their Office Budgets to other MPs for use in their offices.

So the allowance is pretty irrelevant.

He probably listed her salary, as a staff salary.

[Fortunata]

This is just yet another example of the Steve's idea of transparency and accountability.

[Michael Bluth]

This is just yet another example of the Steve's idea of transparency and accountability.

Do explain Fortunata.

All MPs have Member's Office Budgets. All MPs pay staff from those budgets. They are all accountable fotr meeting those budgets.

[ScottSA]

Good grief. This thread on nothing was old over a month ago.

[jdobbin]

Good grief. This thread on nothing was old over a month ago.

This thread calls into question Harper's previous stance when it came to Preston Manning. I believe the word hypocrite is a appropriate. Lack of transparency is another.

Using taxpayer money that is meant for your office seems a misuse of the money. I personally think they should have to account for every penny, don't you?

[ScottSA]

Good grief. This thread on nothing was old over a month ago.

This thread calls into question Harper's previous stance when it came to Preston Manning. I believe the word hypocrite is a appropriate. Lack of transparency is another.

Using taxpayer money that is meant for your office seems a misuse of the money. I personally think they should have to account for every penny, don't you?

I think this is utter foolishness. I think this is a measure of the absolute lack of any real issue with which to attack Harper.

[guyser]

I think this is utter foolishness. I think this is a measure of the absolute lack of any real issue with which to attack Harper.

It wasn't when Harper attacked Manning on virtually the same issue

[ScottSA]

I think this is utter foolishness. I think this is a measure of the absolute lack of any real issue with which to attack Harper.

It wasn't when Harper attacked Manning on virtually the same issue

Yes it was. It is and always has been a yawner without end, Amen.

[Fortunata]

It's only unimportant and a yawner if you don't recognize the hypocrisy and the lack of principle behind the issue. If you change your spots (or show your real spots were there all along thinly disguised) and/or cover up and/or lie about small things it is not long before you forget covering up and lying are bad, thereby making it easier and easier each time to lie about and/or cover up the big stuff.

Besides it's kinda (very?) funny how obvious Steve is. Criticize Preston Manning for doing one thing then do the same thing bigger and better. Steve would sell his own mother for a few votes.

[jdobbin]

I think this is utter foolishness. I think this is a measure of the absolute lack of any real issue with which to attack Harper.

That's amusing. It certainly drew attention to how Harper has different rules for himself. It also began his fall from majority ratings in the poll.

It also shows he lacks transparency. What has he got hide?

[jdobbin]

Yes it was. It is and always has been a yawner without end, Amen.

You probably found it to be hot news when Harper attacked Manning on the same sort of issue.

[ScottSA]

Yes it was. It is and always has been a yawner without end, Amen.

You probably found it to be hot news when Harper attacked Manning on the same sort of issue.

No. I thought it was contrived. I think this is contrived. It's like trying to discredit Churchill over the fact that the British taxpayer bought his brandy and cigars, or Chretien because he drove around in a limo. It's hogswallop, to paraphrase Momo.

[jdobbin]

No. I thought it was contrived. I think this is contrived. It's like trying to discredit Churchill over the fact that the British taxpayer bought his brandy and cigars, or Chretien because he drove around in a limo. It's hogswallop, to paraphrase Momo.

My personal feeling is that if a public official thinks it is necessary to spend taxpayer money, it should be available for all to see and that person should justify the expense. I think Harper used to call it transparency. So was he a liar then or is he a liar now?

[ScottSA]

No. I thought it was contrived. I think this is contrived. It's like trying to discredit Churchill over the fact that the British taxpayer bought his brandy and cigars, or Chretien because he drove around in a limo. It's hogswallop, to paraphrase Momo.

My personal feeling is that if a public official thinks it is necessary to spend taxpayer money, it should be available for all to see and that person should justify the expense. I think Harper used to call it transparency. So was he a liar then or is he a liar now?

Neither times. Your argument is best described as transparent. This is boring.

[jdobbin]

Neither times. Your argument is best described as transparent. This is boring.

Only boring for fervent admirers.