How Much for Harper's Make-Up?

jdobbin · April 26, 2007

It's good to know that everything is going so well in the world that Harper's fashion consultant is 14 page news.

And yet the question remains unanswered about what Harper pays to have a make-up artist travel with him and what her job description is.

sharkman · April 26, 2007

It's good to know that everything is going so well in the world that Harper's fashion consultant is 14 page news.

And yet the question remains unanswered about what Harper pays to have a make-up artist travel with him and what her job description is.

So, are you involved in politics? I noticed you've only been a member on this board for less than a year, and yet you've made over 6400 posts, or about 22 posts a day 7 days a week. They say politicians love to talk and most of your comments seem pretty political, which is why I'm curious.

cybercoma · April 26, 2007

It's good to know that everything is going so well in the world that Harper's fashion consultant is 14 page news.

And yet the question remains unanswered about what Harper pays to have a make-up artist travel with him and what her job description is.

I don't know what she's paid, nor do I particularly care. Whether it comes out of taxpayers money or Stephen Harper's pocket makes no difference, the money comes from the same place in the end.

I'm completely on the fence about it. Do other politicians have make-up artists? Should the head of our government have a make-up artist for appearances(yeah yeah, governor general...like any Canadian, let alone nation recognizes her as the leader)?

I don't know the answer to the first question, but my opinion about the second question is "probably". On a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being absolutely yes and 1 being hell no, I'm hovering around a 6.5 on this one.

Do I think there's probably a better place and time for this issue? Absolutely. When soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and this is what's making headline news, I get pretty disgusted with our country's priorities.

Shakeyhands · April 26, 2007

perhaps because of this the CPC should just tell us then, how much and who is paying?

guyser · April 26, 2007

Already dealt with this one, but here goes again.
Harper got on Manning about having his clothes paid for.

Nobody has suggested the Government of Canada is paying for Harper's clothes.

That's why it is a false "debate".

So introduce something else to change the debate. Uh huh. Very good.

cybercoma · April 26, 2007

perhaps because of this the CPC should just tell us then, how much and who is paying?

Perhaps, but I don't see why anyone cares. The longer this drags out, the worse it looks for the opposition. There's a war being fought in Afghanistan and they're stuck on Harper's make-up bill.

Although I agree, it may be a waste of taxpayers money, it certainly isn't going to be to the tune of millions.

Fortunata · April 26, 2007

Do I think there's probably a better place and time for this issue? Absolutely. When soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and this is what's making headline news, I get pretty disgusted with our country's priorities.

Well I dunno about you but it seems some of us can be interested and/or concerned about more than one thing at a time. Government coverup and corruption is an ongoing concern; this particular issue may be small in itself but generally points to more serious issues, which are how our glorious PM does the same things he has screamed about others doing; how our taxpayers money gets spent in secret - how many more examples of secrets (spending and otherwise) don't we know about? So all in all, when you look at the wider picture, it is but one indicator of many of what our government is about.

cybercoma · April 26, 2007

Do I think there's probably a better place and time for this issue? Absolutely. When soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and this is what's making headline news, I get pretty disgusted with our country's priorities.

Well I dunno about you but it seems some of us can be interested and/or concerned about more than one thing at a time. Government coverup and corruption is an ongoing concern; this particular issue may be small in itself but generally points to more serious issues, which are how our glorious PM does the same things he has screamed about others doing; how our taxpayers money gets spent in secret - how many more examples of secrets (spending and otherwise) don't we know about? So all in all, when you look at the wider picture, it is but one indicator of many of what our government is about.

Ok, so how about arguing about the bigger picture than. WHere's the government corruption? Where is the mass misspending of tax dollars?

If, an arguably necessary make-up artist, is the best the opposition has got, then I'm led to believe our government is running pretty well.

Get back to me when there's some serious coverup and corruption to be concerned about.

Fortunata · April 26, 2007

Get back to me when there's some serious coverup and corruption to be concerned about.

Maybe you could give us all a list of topics you think are serious enough to be concerned about so we know what we should all discuss.

cybercoma · April 26, 2007

Get back to me when there's some serious coverup and corruption to be concerned about.

Maybe you could give us all a list of topics you think are serious enough to be concerned about so we know what we should all discuss.

Discuss what you want. I'm entitled to be disgusted with something so insignificant as Harper's stylist being headline news.

And don't give me that line of, "it shows corruption and coverup, so who knows what they're hiding," because it doesn't. It shows he has a stylist that is being paid out of taxpayers dollars. Yeah it's crap, but not as crap as the millions of dollars taken from taxpayers by the Liberals, or the Senate being changed by Mulroney to get the GST pushed through.

This is hardly worth the bandwidth used to host this thread, nor the materials used to print it in newspapers.

jdobbin · April 26, 2007

So, are you involved in politics? I noticed you've only been a member on this board for less than a year, and yet you've made over 6400 posts, or about 22 posts a day 7 days a week. They say politicians love to talk and most of your comments seem pretty political, which is why I'm curious.

My identity isn't hidden. I'm not presently a politician nor do I work for any party. Do you? Your comments are fairly political. Am I to take that anyone who contributes here is a politician?

As for the rest of your comments, is this some kind of personal attack?

jdobbin · April 26, 2007

I don't know what she's paid, nor do I particularly care. Whether it comes out of taxpayers money or Stephen Harper's pocket makes no difference, the money comes from the same place in the end.

Unlike yourself, I like a full accounting of what money is being spent whether it is for tanks in Afghanistan or a make-up artist for the prime minister. If one shows a lack of caring one, may as well show a lack of caring for the other.

jdobbin · April 26, 2007

Perhaps, but I don't see why anyone cares. The longer this drags out, the worse it looks for the opposition. There's a war being fought in Afghanistan and they're stuck on Harper's make-up bill.
Although I agree, it may be a waste of taxpayers money, it certainly isn't going to be to the tune of millions.

The worse it looks for the Opposition? Any time the government tries to hide an expense, it looks bad for the government. And if they get away with the little stuff, the easier it is to justify the bigger stuff.

jdobbin · April 27, 2007

It is now 40 days to go before the issue goes before the Parliamentary committee.

As CTV points out, this was the first mistake of many in the last several days where the Tories avoided coming out with the truth.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...27?hub=Politics

For a minority prime minister consumed with air-tight image management, make-up artist Michelle Muntean's role should not have come as a great surprise.
But the Prime Minister's Office stonewalled, refusing first to say how Muntean was paid, then stating her expenses were being picked up by the party, before finally being forced to concede she's working on the taxpayers' dime. A one-day curiousity turned into a three-day story and _ with the government still refusing to say how and how much she's paid _ promises more headlines down the road.

Shakeyhands · April 30, 2007

I'm amzed by this government time and time again, and not usually for good reasons. What is to be gained from dragging this out?

jdobbin · April 30, 2007

I'm amzed by this government time and time again, and not usually for good reasons. What is to be gained from dragging this out?

It is 37 days now till they have to report to the Committee. It must be a long complicated process.

Fortunata · April 30, 2007

I'm amzed by this government time and time again, and not usually for good reasons. What is to be gained from dragging this out

It's only wrong and bad politics if the Liberals do it. The Harpercrites can see nothing wrong in anything Steve does.

jdobbin · May 2, 2007

Another day has passed and we still haven't heard what Harper pays for his make-up artist. 35 days till he has to report it to Committee.

Michael Bluth · May 3, 2007

Another day has passed and we still haven't heard what Harper pays for his make-up artist. 35 days till he has to report it to Committee.

You missed May 1st.

Obsessed much? :lol:

Shakeyhands · May 3, 2007

You missed May 1st.
Obsessed much?

Aren't you irritated that Harper flat out refuses to tell you what it is costing you for this? I am, and not because he does it or needs it or whatever, but simply for the outright arrogance and haughtiness that makes him believe he doesn't have to tell us what it is costing US!!!!

cybercoma · May 3, 2007

Aren't you irritated that Harper flat out refuses to tell you what it is costing you for this? I am, and not because he does it or needs it or whatever, but simply for the outright arrogance and haughtiness that makes him believe he doesn't have to tell us what it is costing US!!!!

Her salary will be published at the end of the year with the rest of the public service employees. That is if she's making more than $100,000/year. If she's not, then it's kinda pointless talking about it anyway.

jdobbin · May 3, 2007

Her salary will be published at the end of the year with the rest of the public service employees. That is if she's making more than $100,000/year. If she's not, then it's kinda pointless talking about it anyway.

She is not listed as a public service employee though according to the the request the media made. The only indication we have that she is paid for by taxpayer money is that the PMO hastily admitted it after Canadian Press started asking Conservative headquarters how much she made and who was paying for it.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone (just ask Shane Doan), can be called before or questioned about the job they do if taxpayer money is involved. Parliament has made an official request and in a minority government it will have to be honored one way or the other.

Michael Bluth · May 3, 2007

Her salary will be published at the end of the year with the rest of the public service employees. That is if she's making more than $100,000/year. If she's not, then it's kinda pointless talking about it anyway.

IIRC what you are talking about applies to employees of the Province of Ontario only. i.e. declaring salaries over $100 K

jdobbin · May 3, 2007

Aren't you irritated that Harper flat out refuses to tell you what it is costing you for this? I am, and not because he does it or needs it or whatever, but simply for the outright arrogance and haughtiness that makes him believe he doesn't have to tell us what it is costing US!!!!

And day and after day it goes on. They simply refuse to reveal the cost.

guyser · May 3, 2007

And day and after day it goes on. They simply refuse to reveal the cost.

They still haven't released the numbers on this psychic and make up artist? Why not ask her, she will be able to "channel" the answer to Harper and then he can say it.

Talk about a guy making a mountain out of a molehill. His advisors should have warned him .