Last week David Cameron came under fire bacause of his ‘personal’ photographer paid for by the Tax Payer.
He was attacked in the House of Commons by Labour Leader Ed Miliband who mocked the Prime Minister saying ‘I can’t believe he is talking about hard choices this week because who has he chosen to put on the civil service payroll? His own personal photographer,’
Cameron’s spokesperson defended his appointment of photographer Andrew Parsons by saying that the Government’s communications budget has been cut down to a third of what it was. Cameron’s spokesperson also stated that the appointment of an in house photographer was a huge saving for the British tax payer compared to the cost of freelancers.
Downing Street stated that Andrew Parsons is not the Prime Minister’s personal photographer and would be used across several departments and for taking photos of several senior government workers.
In my opinion having an in-house photographer can only save money for the government. The cost of freelancer’s fees and the administration costs of hiring different photographers and getting them to sign the relevant confidentiality agreements would be far greater than having someone on the payroll.
You can see examples of Andrew Parson’s work here on the Guardian website
- Cameron’s crazy claim vanity photographer will save taxpayer “a lot of money” (leftfootforward.org)
- David Cameron: my ‘personal photographer’ is not vanity (telegraph.co.uk)
- David Cameron’s photographer allowed despite Tony Blair’s being blocked (telegraph.co.uk)
- Watch: Ed pokes fun at Cameron’s photographer (liberalconspiracy.org)
- David Cameron forced to defend appointment of ‘personal photographer’ (guardian.co.uk)