Peter Franklin: Politics is showbiz for gorgeous people

The bumper book of political myths has a new entry. Filed under ‘Campbell, Menzies – reasons for resignation’, it states that Ming quit as leader of the Lib Dems because people thought he was too old.

This is nonsense.

Born in 1941, Michael Howard is the same age as Ming Campbell. Yet at the last election, few people were saying that he was too old to run the country. They may have said a lot of other things, but his age was not a problem. Howard’s greying hair may even have been an advantage, helping to soften his image – these things are relative.

Other prominent figures born in 1941 include Bill Oddie, Jackie Collins and Richard Dawkins. I’m not suggesting that any of these should run for high office. After all, one is a wildlife presenter, one writes trashy bestsellers and the other is Joan Collins’ sister. But despite being in their mid-sixties, all of them seem lively sorts to me.

The brutal truth is that Ming Campbell had to go because people thought he looked too old: His hair, complexion and physiognomy, when viewed through the distorting effect of television, gave the impression of a man older than his years. Thus it was aesthetic imperfection that the people took against not the year of his birth.

Of course, it didn’t help that he was a bit dull for our modern day media. He was, let us not forget, the first politician in history to have his career damaged by an entirely wholesome toilet-related incident. However, I’m willing to bet that if he’d been blessed with the spry good looks of a Ronald Reagan or a Jacques Chirac, he’d still be leader of the Lib Dems.

So am I saying that the public judge their politicians on looks alone? Well, no. Advancement to the ranks of the political papabile depends on a wider spread of qualifications. However, it does seem to me that a certain level of physical attractiveness, though not sufficient, is becoming increasingly necessary. If you look too frail, thin, fat, florid or just plain butt-ugly, then you might as well forget about your leadership ambitions.

It goes without saying that this is deeply unfair, but does it matter? It’s tempting to draw a parallel between the standardisation of our politicians’ faces and the standardisation of the words that come out of them. As an equation it plays to the ‘good looks / vacuous personality’ prejudice that makes most of us feel better about our own aesthetic imperfections.

However, the evidence does not support this assumption. For instance, the blogging MP Nadine Dorries only has to make an appearance to brighten up a dull day on the Tory backbenches, but she also speaks and writes from the heart, eschewing the pol-speak that does so much to deaden public discourse. As such, she’s breath of fresh air and better value than any number of identikit MPs.

Then there’s David Cameron, whose looks apparently meet with female approval (though in my opinion he’s a deadringer for Iggle Piggle of CBeebies fame).

Can he be described as dull and formulaic? Some have tried, but I’m afraid they’re just venting their spleen. Yes, he’s a master of presentation – but he’s also the change-maker in British politics today, in contrast to his enemies on the Left (and on the Right) who remain stuck in their same old positions.

So, attractive doesn’t have to mean unexciting. However, I am concerned that the raising of the beauty bar restricts the talent pool from which future party leaders might emerge. The current Lib Dem leadership race rather proves the point. The vaguely handsome Nick Clegg is already eclipsing the plainer-looking Chris Huhne – who’s the ballsier candidate by far. As for Steve Webb and David Laws, the most intelligent and interesting of the Lib Dem MPs, they’re not even standing. It’s not that any of these gentlemen is a physical monstrosity; just that the best-looking among them automatically takes poll position without any serious analysis of what he actually stands for.

They used to say that politics is showbiz for ugly people. Not anymore it isn’t

Comments

[Graeme Archer]

How true, but how very depressing. On all sorts of deeply personal levels.

[Richard]

What utter tosh! This might be the Westminster Village view of things, but out here in the real world we couldn't give a stuff what our politicians look like as long as they are competent.

Ann Widecomb for example is an excellent MP and has a popularity way beyond Westminster that most of her colleagues would kill for.

Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, ken Clarke, the list could go on. These are conviction politicians who actually believe in something. Sure they might not wear the best suits etc, but does any of that matter?

I and my friends want a good health service, schools, strong defence, lower taxes and a looser relationship with Europe. If the Elephant man promises to deliver those sort of polices then he has my vote!

[Tony Makara]

When I was a teenager I used to beat my brains out trying to understand why it was easy for me to pick up certain girls and impossible to pick up others. Over time it finally dawned on me that what makes a person physically attractive is all down to the individual. People are attracted to 'Types' and if someone isn't your 'Type' or you are not their 'Type' you can forget about 'clicking' with each other, even though you both might be good-looking in the general scheme of things. People have a fixed idea about what 'Type' they go for and thats it.

A similar situation does apply in politics, except that 'Type' isn't determined by looks but rather by personality and the way the person comes across. They are certain politicians who we like even though we don't share their politics and others who get on our nerves even though we like what they are saying. The problem Ming faced was that he just didn't 'click' with most people. Ming lacked dynamism and that was best seen at the Southhall bi-election when Paddy Ashdown turned up to lend support, Paddy hugged the cameras and Ming looked completely upstaged.

The ideal politician must 'click' with most people and have a broad general appeal rather than have 'niche' appeal to a small group. I don't think looks are the problem, or age, but personality is. I think voice is a big factor too, its all part of the projection package that people subconsciously buy into.

[William Norton]

Peter: I expect Iggle Piggle's lawyers will be on the phone to you any moment now.

[Letters From A Tory]

Ming Campbell never had any spark and always looked like he was dragging his feet. You are absolutely right that he looks a lot older than he is, which is compounded by his lack of energy and vibrancy.

The Lib Dems really did have to get rid of him.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

[Old Hack]

Age was not as important as character or even name in this overall mix of how people perceived Campbell.

He looked like a patrician, sounded less than authorative and underperformed at PMQs.

Age is not an insurmountable barrier, neither are baldness or gender. Ming blamed the media for questions about his age hidering his leadership but frankly that's a cop-out. He simply did not lead his party.

People expect their leaders to lead, and leadership is something quite undefinable but when you see it you know it. Ming didn't have it, Brown is finding out he doesn't have it and I strongly suspect that Clegg doesn't have it either, unlike Huhne.

[Cllr Adam Tugwell]

Peter, what concerns me most is that you have such a good knowledge of CBBC characters that you feel able to identify similarities between DC and 'Iggle Piggle'. This aside, if the suggested likeness goes further and DC can even produce a fraction of the power of attraction on voters that Iggle Piggle et al effect upon children like my own, then he's on to something.

As far as Ming is concerned, there may well be an element of truth to what you are saying, as aesthetics seem to have become by far the most important thing in many areas of life as opposed to the substance and content factor which isn't quite so easy on the eye. Aesthetics are of course a matter of ultra importance to our yellow friends, as what they look like on the outside is so very important. Painting the vacuum within is one challenge too for them far me thinks...

[Matt Wright]

Personality and passion is the key not so much looks. Well thats the only hope I have anyway!!!

Matt

[Nicholas Bennett]

Although I disagree with his views on Europe, Ken Clarke (b 1940) has the energy and passion which Ming lacks.

[TaxCutter]

Maybe its me but there's a distinct lack of decent crumpet on any of the Parliamentary benches

[Lucy]

Always surprises me how much short politicians are.

[Graeme Archer]

Maybe its me but there's a distinct lack of decent crumpet on any of the Parliamentary benches

Posted by: TaxCutter | October 24, 2007 at 01:10 PM

It's better than it used to be though, innit? Just!

[Roger Evans]

Lucy - well observed, but politics allows short people to cast long shadows...

[Fred Kite]

Very well observed Peter but I think you stopped short of the reason that looks are so much more important than - the female vote.

When it comes to selling to women, looks are the most important factor and the editors who design covers for women's magazines are not the only ones who know that.

Many US pundits have claimed that it was Kennedy's appearance in general that led to his victory over Richard Nixon (not just Nixon's uncomfortable appearance on the famous TV debate)

Fact is that women could have ensured a third term for Bill Clinton in the US if the system had allowed it. They could also have ensured that Churchill would never have been elected leader.

Australia's current leader not withstanding, we will probably never again see a short, bald male as an elected leader - never mind an older one like Ming.

[Simon R]

I think it was Barbara Castle who opined that Thatcher maintained her hold over the Tory Party for so long because they all fancied her. I wouldn't like to comment.

Personally I would agree that it's looking like an individual and standing out from the grey mass that matters. Politicians are on the whole an ugly bunch, so looking vaguely normal like David Cameron is one way of doing it. But not the only one. Gwyneth Dunwoody is one who I would say has done well out of looking like an old battleaxe. Anne Widdecombe has already been mentioned. New Labour women as a rule tend to look the worst, like awful lesbian school teachers. Blair's babes my arse. You have Ken Clarke with his impressive paunch and suede shoes, which projects a very 'don't care' sort of confidence. The same could be said of Boris Johnson's unkempt albino mob. It's all part of his carefully crafted bumbling image, and has become a powerful trademark.

[Dale]

'Australia's current leader not withstanding, we will probably never again see a short, bald male as an elected leader - never mind an older one like Ming.'

Rudy Guiliani
Fidel Castro
Jacques Chriac only just left office.

This is rediculous, all poticians are hideous!!! david Cameron is not a handscome man, he has the same head shape as iain dale, which is a large cranium and small mandible which makes them look like they have large pointy noses and receding hairlines.

Gordon Brown is one of the ugliest people I have ever seen, and I think that the less I say about him the better.

[Simon R]

He is revolting isn't he? His face looks like it's melting. Certainly not someone you'd care to meet in a dark alley.

[Sally Roberts]

There could be worse things than being compared to "Iggle Piggle" I think! He's described as "...physical and energetic like a well-loved teddy, always jumping and bouncing. He's curious and adventurous,..." and so what if he DOES need a comfort blanket? - Don't we all?!

[Sally Roberts]

Roger Evans @ 3:50 - Very well said! I am only 5ft 1in myself and my mother (who was even smaller) always used to say "The Best Things Come in Small Packages"!

[Serf]

Rudy Guiliani
Fidel Castro
Jacques Chirac

Castro isn't exactly elected and horrible policies aside, LePen was the uglier than Chirac. Rudy? Only time will tell