Soft focus Cameron

The official David Cameron portrait - photographed by Jane Bown - is already adorning the walls of many Conservative Association offices and today it has caught the attention of the Mail on Sunday:

"Gone is the traditional austere look favoured by generations of Tory politicians.  A casual, open-necked shirt replaces the customary old-school-tie attire...

Politicians are usually photographed in a setting that depicts a sense of authority.  This is often achieved by the camera being at their eye level or even lower than the sitter.  However, Cameron's portrait was shot from above.  This makes him look more approachable and appear a 'man of the people'."

For more on Jane Bown, click here.

Comments

[Jack Nevinson]

You'd hardly guess from the picture that he takes cash from arms dealers, would you?But then that's the value of these glamour photographers.

[AlwaysAmazed]

Hugh Grant had his sleazy side too, if I remember correctly. Do these guys really think that pretty pictures will work better than good policies?

[Jack Nevinson]

It won't be long now and they'll produce a doctored photo to make even Rachel Whetstone look kind and inclusive.

[Editor]

That's nasty, Jack. Let's raise the tone please.

[Buxtehude]

Quite right, Editor. What Rachel Whetstone looks like is neither here nor there. But I do wish they would put rather more effort into their behaviour/policies/strategic thinking and rather less into posing.

[Geoff]

Yes, this is a vaguely disconcerting thread. I wouldn't personally have a picture of Rachel Whetstone on my bedside table - my better half would ask awkward questions if I did; although if a photo of DC turned up then I'd expect at least a legitimately arched eyebrow too.

We need portrait photographs for Association walls. This one has been tailored to fit the new image, and has been snapped by someone who knows what he is doing and has effectively captured the pose that the Party is trying to put across. Let's accept it and move along...

[Buxtehude]

I think you're right, Geoff. I should concede that neither Michael Howard nor IDS ever go round to having decent photos of themselves and, in this age, that was rather silly. At least they've got this particular angle sorted.

[john Skinner]

Four anti-Cameron threads in a row. Nice one Tim. You must have been disappointed with the press this morning; plenty of stuff about New Labour sleaze and very little about wicked Dave.
Do try to lighten up. You've got an army of whingers to satisfy, but you're going to lose out to Guido and Iain Dale. They come up with some good stories and you get a chuckle or two thrown in.

[Richard]

"Hugh Grant had his sleazy side too, if I remember correctly. Do these guys really think that pretty pictures will work better than good policies?"

In the age of modern politics, I fear they may have a point.

[Editor]

You are probably the most boring visitor to this site, johnSkinner, always complaining about anti-Cameron bias.

Have you noticed that the whole of the last week has been dedicated to unpicking Gordon Brown's record?

Did you see the very positive response - from many Cameron critics - to DC's Budget response?

Did you see the anti-Blair thread about Humphrey the cat!? Or William Norton's Week at the Movies - poking fun at Labour?

This blog will say it as it sees it - please go to conservatives.com if you always want the party line.

[Richard]

"Do try to lighten up. You've got an army of whingers to satisfy, but you're going to lose out to Guido and Iain Dale. They come up with some good stories and you get a chuckle or two thrown in."

Yes, how dare Tim criticise the party and offer alternative viewpoints? Just because we're Conservative supporters (and I think most, including myself, are Cameron supporters) it doesn't mean we will remain silent if we think there's a problem that needs to be addressed.

[dick wishart]

For goodness sake lighten up all of you its only a photograph.

[matt wright]

Looks like a good modern photo to me presenting a fresh image, something we desperately need to do.

Matt

[Rob Largan]

"Do try to lighten up. You've got an army of whingers to satisfy, but you're going to lose out to Guido and Iain Dale. They come up with some good stories and you get a chuckle or two thrown in."

No idea what your talking about, this site to its credit has always had the perfect balance of attacks on Labour, supporting the Conservatives and being constructive in its criticism. Keep up the good work Tim!

[Selsdon Man]

On £23k a month, Mr Hilton can afford to buy his girlfriend, Ms Whetstone, some decent clothes. Every time I see her, she is dressed like a poor student.

Mr Cameron should taker some lessons from William Hague on dressing. Savile Row is much better than Italian designer tat.

[Geoff]

I wouldn't personally have a picture of Rachel Whetstone on my bedside table

and

...can afford to buy his girlfriend, Ms Whetstone, some decent clothes...

well, as someone who might be mistaken for a gentleman in fading light, I wasn't going to put it quite that bluntly *grin*

[Annabel Herriott]

What I said on my other post, obviously the wrong one, ....portrait of our leader by JANE Bowen. While it would seriouly disincline any red blooded woman to throw him out of bed, would it get us the womans vote?? And after thinking about it today, probably yes. At age 71, I am allowed to say he looks eminently fanciable, and doesnt there have to be an element of that too? ie. Could you imagine the same reaction to a soft focus pic of IDS? Sorry Iain!!

[Chris Palmer]

Does anyone honestly care?

[Geoff]

Does anyone honestly care?

All those who voted for DC because he looked cute, cuddly, harmless, nice and therefore electable in our media and spin-driven world, yes.

The country won't have a bald PM again, the US won't have a fat President again, and a prospective MP has to know how to dress for a selection meeting. Sad, but true.

[Richard Carey]

The country won't have a bald PM again, the US won't have a fat President again, and a prospective MP has to know how to dress for a selection meeting. Sad, but true.

Not sad at all, just an acknowledgement of human nature - we make a judgement, even if subliminal, on first impressions. What comes out of your mouth is crucial, but if you don't have the savvy to recognise that you can close your own argument down before you even start speaking, you probably have a lot to learn before being elected.

Before you speak, people have to be ready to listen. The problem in the Conservative Party, that David Cameron has been quick to address, is that people in the last few years haven't been willing to listen.

Now at leaat they are sitting up and listening.

[Margaret]

So looks are everything. This is the dumb blonde syndrome.

He looks more like a girl to me. I prefer a strong masculine face.

[Matthew Oxley]

I like this portrait,

I don't see a big problem either, Dave is just setting out, by a photo, the way he would like people to see him.

What's wrong with using a picture to convey a message if that message is along the lines of 'Hey, I'm here to listen to you'. I've never heard of somebody being for criticised for inviting people to be approach them unless it's contradictory to the way they work in practice.

It seems nearly all stories about Dave are turned into a style vs substance on here, but if the Interpretations are accurate I think he is conveying a genuine political message here.

[Jack Stone]

A lot of people are suffering in this country right now because of the failures of this government.
Nurses and doctors are losing there jobs and patients are going untreated. Pensioners are fallind deeper into poverty by rising council tax and live there lives in fear of being mugged or burgled because of rising crime. Kids are leaving school barely able to read and write.
With all this happening I find it outrageous that so many Conservatives on this site continually attack David Cameron and the party leadership.
The party as a great chance of winning the next election not inspite of David Cameron but because of him. If everyone doesn`t back him and get of there backsides and start attacking our opponents not our friends all of this hope will turn into sawbust and deservably so.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Jack have you got any evidence to back up your assertions? Or any evidence that David Cameron will take a different approach than the current government to the problems you rightly identify?

Unfortunately, until people see tangible evidence that our electoral fortunes will improve thanks to the leadership of David Cameron (such as a sustained improvement in poll ratings as a starting point) and/or that we will be offering substantial policies to tackle the problems identified (which we probably won't be in a position to reveal until the policy groups report their findings), then many people will feel that their criticisms in this regard are entirely justified.

[Jack Stone]

Frankly I think the last comments are nonsense on two points. Firstly there as been an improvement in the poll ratings. Most now show the party either in the lead or neck and neck with Labour a situation that as only happened rarely since 1997 and secondly any new leader needs time to really turn things around.
I think those who attack Cameroon now are like those football fans with no brains who call for a new managers sacking after he fails to win both his first two games in charge.
My message to Daniel and all those like him is grow up and live in the adult world where quick fixes never last and the only way for political parties to be successful is through hard work, thoughtful preparation and above all loyalty and unity.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Thanks for that completely unwarranted ad hominem attack Jack. (Are you and Paul Staines acquainted?)

"Firstly there as (sic) been an improvement in the poll ratings. Most now show the party either in the lead or neck and neck with Labour a situation that as (sic) only happened rarely since 1997."

Jack, there was an initial boost to the poll ratings, but this improvement has, at best, stalled or, at worst, been in decline.

As I've had to point out repeatedly, both Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard achieved longer periods of higher ratings than those that your ilk continue to soil yourselves about.

I repeat that any improvement has to be sustained and continually improving in order to count for anything, and I also repeat for the benefit of your clearly overworked mind my point that we won't be in a position to assess any progress made until May and beyond so take your straw man and go and play somewhere else will you?

"Secondly any new leader needs time to really turn things around."

*sigh* Jack, I acknowledged that we wouldn't see any substantial policy initiatives for about 18 months, so you've effectively repeated my point which you dismissed as nonsense. Well done!

"I think those who attack Cameroon now are like those football fans with no brains who call for a new managers sacking after he fails to win both his first two games in charge."

Yet another flurry of straw, with an insult thrown in for good measure!

Has anybody called for the removal of David Cameron? No.

In fact Jack, seeing as you chose to attack me personally, I'm delighted to inform you that I've actually been rather supportive of Cameron.

However, people do have a right to criticise when they disagree with something, and it was this point I was making in my previous comment which you seem to have taken such an exception to.

"My message to Daniel and all those like him is grow up and live in the adult world."

Strong words for somebody who cannot spell 'has'.

"Quick fixes never last."

Nobody is calling for a quick fix for goodness sake.

That is the whole point of many of the Cameronsceptics - we need substantial answers, not superficial grandstanding, and many Conservatives feel that we haven't seen enough of this from the new leadership so far.

"The only way for political parties to be successful is through hard work, thoughtful preparation and above all loyalty and unity."

And I suppose 'serving the people' and 'showing that you have the answers to the problems we face' can just go hang, can they?