Eye candy for the political girl

Last night I abandoned my pale pink flowery platform clogs by the front door and this morning Rex asked me if they were new.  I bought them for my first grown up wedding 18 years ago.  I had always wondered how my mother had managed to accumulate quite so many pairs of shoes and now I know.  

"I don't worry about things being fashionable," my unbelievably beautiful and glamorous colleague said today when we were discussing her shoes and my shoe story.  I believe her.  I don't believe in fashion either, which is a good job, because you can't always buy fashionable on ebay or from ethically sourced hippie traders.  That's the reason I give for second hand, I'm recycling.  

I probably face the same criticism as Natalie Bennett has about her clothing.  I have seen her described as "Too hemp", the party campaigners have been instructed to dress in a "mainstream" manner.  Could the party end up alienating some of their key voters in an effort to appeal to the general voter?  I quite like the idea of voting for a sandal-wearing, dreadlocked, candidate who doesn't believe in deodorant.  

In fact, comments on clothing and appearance in general have been quite a feature of this campaign.  That could be partly due to the number of women involved in the leaders' debates; suddenly the audience have something else to look at rather than 3 men in grey suits with different colour ties.  Remember Karl Stefanovic?  The Australian news anchor who wore the same suit for a year to highlight the sexist treatment of his female co-presenter.  We don't notice the suits, I haven't seen the Daily Mail trying to induce my husband to "Get the Look" on the high street with this similar grey suit from Next and a slim yellow silk tie from Debenhams; £25.99.  But Nicola Sturgeon , according to the Daily Mail again is "Living Proof" that women "become sexier with age, income and office".  That's an article is it?  A photo comparison comparing a picture of Sturgeon in 2001 and now.  I wore a lilac suit to a job interview in 2001.  And back then I used to try.  

What's slightly messing with my head about all this, and undermining my argument up to a point is that the men in the campaign are being treated in a similar way.  "Dead Ringers" tonight (www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007gd85) imagined a sketch with Justine and Sam comparing manicures and hiding from Diane Abbott in a "Real housewives ..." sketch and made the joke that Justine had picture of "Wallace and Gromit" on her wall at university.  I ended up googling Ed Milliband and Stephanie Flanders just because it all seemed a bit unlikely, rather like finding a friend on facebook who turns out to have worked with one of your former colleagues allowing you to say "Small world!" in surprised tones when actually I have lived and worked in the same town now for most of my adult life so it's not really that surprising.  Last election campaign it was Naughty Nick with his notches on the bedpost and this week even Radio 4 thought it was newsworthy to play a recording from a voter in Cheadle telling Nick Clegg that he was "better looking in real life".  Better looking than whom? David Cameron? Well, yeah?  

I can't quite figure out if this is equality, or trivia, or something worse.  I actually heard a woman on the radio today say that she wasn't going to vote for Labour because she didn't like Ed Milliband as soon as she saw his face,  It reminded why I like listening to the radio, I never really know what politicians look like, I thought I'd fancy Andy Burnham more than Tristran Hunt.  And if Steven Wolffe wasn't UKIP then who knows?  We do judge on appearance whether we like it or not, so perhaps it is a reasonable topic of conversation during this election campaign.  

There a two arguments in my life that I remember clearly on this topic.  The first was when I was about 16 and I shaved my brother's long hair at the sides - it was acceptable in the early 90s.  I had not anticipated my parents' reaction, or at least not the reasons for that reaction.  They were worried he would get suspended from school, I knew he wouldn't, he was too invisible, I'd been too good. We could get away with minor infractions, I never once wore uniform correctly.  My father was worried about people judging him, and that like it or not, people would see him as a yob.  A less yobbish individual than the future vegan that was my brother could not be imagined. I argued, rather well I thought, although I don't remember it reducing my sanction, that that was exactly why people like my brother should have that kind of hairstyle; to alter perceptions.  

Ironically, the second argument was almost the reverse of that.  A boyfriend of mine had a job interview at the place where I worked.  He chose not to wear tie, and wore a jumper over his shirt.  I didn't care, I wanted him to marry me in his Converse, but I believed that he was making a statement, something that he wouldn't accept.  

This seems to illustrate the fine line that politicians, journalists, commentators and all of us are treading; we want our politicians to look like politicians, and yet we don't like politicians.  We want our politicians to be different and yet we don't trust them to do the job when they are.  So if the female leaders look different, it's because they are different.  If Nicola Sturgeon looks more the part now, then that is because she is, she is now a leader mixing with other leaders and she has to make a decision whether to continue to dress as she likes or to try and fit in.  You can always spot Caroline Lucas on tv without the caption as she is wearing a floaty scarf, Theresa May's shoes caught attention once, so now she has to try and make a feature of them.  It makes her more colourful and look less like part of a "nasty" party.  

We all know we are judged on our appearance and to pretend otherwise is not very genuine.  If we choose not to wear make up, shave our legs, let our grey grow, we are accepting the message that that conveys about us.  If we expect our politicians to look a certain way before we take them seriously, then we shouldn't be surprised if they start behaving in the same way too.  

Votes for women

There is a General Election this year.  It is on Thursday May 7th 2015.  Put in your diary, make sure you are registered (https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote) and turn up to your polling station and vote.  Vote.  I care about this and I could spend a very long time trying to convince everybody which party to vote for, but at the moment all I care about is that everyone votes.  And if you are a woman (which, let's face it, there may be more than a 50% chance if you're reading this) it's even more important.

Pip, my precociously intelligent princess has been wandering around the house saying "Ed Milliband" in various voices for the last few weeks.  She likes the sound of it, more than many people would like the reality of it, and although she doesn't quite understand his job, she knows "He wants to be Prime Minister."  That already puts her head and shoulders above approximately half of my sixth formers, one of whom, gazing at a picture of Nick Clegg displayed on the interactive white board asked; "Is that David Cameron?"  She votes for the first time this year.

However, after an event organised by our sixth form team a few weeks' ago, she is now much better informed, and she cares, she even told me she would vote.  They organised a "Question Time" style event with some of the local candidates and representatives of the main parties.  For the students, the fact that anyone cared enough about this "stuff" was enough to ignite a very small pilot light.  And it wasn't just that these people had turned up at the school, they got to hear some of their peers asking sensible, well-considered questions and they started to realise that politics wasn't just the shouty stuff at PMQs; it is wind farms and tuition fees and ooh did you know there used to be an EMA for 16 and 17 year olds? No, didn't think so.

I know people are disillusioned with politicians, but that should be giving us more motivation to vote, not less.  We have a responsiblity to find out how to use that vote correctly on a national and local level.  If you don't like the way things are done now then vote for a party that would change things. Liberal Democrats have pledged electoral reform although I'm not sure if they are still promising Proportional Representation.  If you are worried something specific then look at the figures for your local area and make your vote count against the current MP - look for the candidate that would be most likely to remove him or her. Even if you can't remove your MP this time, putting a dent in an MP's majority changes the way that candidate is treated for selection next time, so may cause a change.  Your vote can count.

Back to women voting though.  Why is it so important?  Not for the lecture, what these amazing women went through, the force feeding, the chaining to railings, although all of that counts, but because we have to make sure our voices are heard.  18 year olds also need to be heard but MPs don't always care about them, they haven't paid tax, they haven't earned the right.  Parties and spin doctors know that most people who vote are old.  Older than 18, older even than me.  I love my parents, but we are worlds apart in our interests.  My dad used to be a Labour voter and now seems to have moved so far to the right that he asked me not to talk to him last time, even though we have always had productive debates.  At the moment the Houses of Parliament does not reflect the make up of the population and nor is it likely to unless we vote for change.  While the only people voting are wealthy, or middle class, or male or old it is no wonder that they are the people who are being catered for,  Become a voter and parties have to take account of what you say.  Rick Edwards believes that 18 year olds should be made to vote at least the first time, but argues that if voting is compulsory then you need a "none of the above" option.(In his book; called None of the Above.)  That could happen.  There is a chance that things could change and it feels this time like it really might.  Vote for change.  Work out the best way of making it happen and vote for it.  But vote.

Loss leaders

A yougov poll says Nicola Sturgeon won the itv leaders' debate tonight, as the election campaign "proper" begins. ( https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/02/leaders-debate/)  Apparently the most "googled" leader was Leanne Wood.  I'm not really sure that is surprising since most if us probably know very little about her.  

Most of us can't vote for Nicola Sturgeon, not even me and I live near Corby.  It's also easy to see her and Leanne Wood and possibly even Natalie Bennett as the Will Self contributor to Question Time, the Ian Hislop of Any Questions, the anti establishment political commentator who can make some off-the-cuff critique of all the political system in general and offer a trite solution or even worse - the Russell Brand - no solution because they do not have an election to win; they know they will never be called to account for their policies.  Who cares if Natalie Bennett gets her sums wrong? She's never going to have to actually do them.  

I think this new type of politics offers hope for our parliament.  I disagree with all the commentators who told us that after the last election we got a government that none of us had voted for.  In actual fact that seems to me to be exactly what everyone wants, the general public does not trust politicians, and the idea of them having to work together appeals to us.  A rainbow coalition, a vote for consensus politics is what we hoped for.  

Maybe it can work, Germany does ok.  It's tempting to think that that is one of the reasons for the rise in popularity of minority or single interest parties such as UKIP.  I find it difficult to watch Nigel Farage without wishing he spoke in "meeps" like Beaker from the Muppets of whom he reminds me. The idea that he speaks for the common people makes my skin crawl; I've never even met a banker.  However I think our democracy is strong enough and established enough to accommodate even more than a handful of UKIP MPs.  It's tempting to believe that they will be the first to shoot themselves in the foot even without a fake sheikh to catch them in another sting.  If there are a number of parties represented with no overall majority then all policies will have to be negotiated and compromised on.  Extreme views will not be able to dictate policy.

  

One of the reasons that Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and particularly Nicola Sturgeon may have come out slightly better than the three leaders of the three main parliamentary parties is one of the things they should be capitalising on.  People do see Nigel Farage as a man of the people but maybe they can see the other three as women of the people.  They don't look like our idea of the establishment.  They are women.  They don't sound like most other professional MPs from the Bullingdon Club, independent education or even London.  They speak English with regional / national (!) accents.  And Nicola Sturgeon actually has leadership experience.  We may not all be able to vote for all of these parties but it may start to engage non voters in politics in a way that doesn't involve patronising working people by assuming we are fooled by a pint and a sneaky cigarette.