Certain commentators have noted that David Cameron, our luscious leader, has gone in for a ‘charm offensive’ (his charm is indeed offensive) aimed at the Women of Britain. (Yes; at the Women of Britain.) This has been said to be a simple response to the episode about which Cameron was classed as being ‘sexist and patronising’ for telling a fellow Conservative MP, a woman, to ‘calm down’. Now telling a woman MP to ‘calm down’ doesn’t have to sexist or patronising. However, after a bit of ideological analysis, it is the case, one assumes, that women, generally, are seen to be prone to being hyper and/or moody, unlike men (or so it goes). But what if this female Tory MP was a little irate and did indeed need to calm down? Was Cameron’s comment necessarily sexist and/or patronising? I don’t know for sure. We should ask David Cameron himself or perhaps place him on a psychiatrist’s chair.
I think it is deeply wrong to misconstrue Lovely David.
Every politician, nowadays and for a long time before that, is spin- or image-conscious. It just comes with the territory. And is certainly didn’t all begin with Tony Blair and New Labour. Before that, Margaret Thatcher was meticulously groomed by her PR team or whoever it us who does these things. Overnight, Thatcher’s style of dress changed and even her voice was lowered by an octave or so.
Yet even the unfashionable are conscious of being, well, unfashionable. (Think here of Ann Widdecombe.) Such people often go out of their way to find deeply unfashionable clothes. Indeed I bet there are clothes shops which cater exclusively for the hard-core unfashionables amongst us.
Take Dennis Skinner MP.
Surely he had an image of being a Northern-working-class-bloke-next-door - yet he has spent most of his life in Parliament surrounded by middle- and upper-middle-class politicians. How on earth did he sustain his unfashionable style in that particular environment? Self-consciously, that’s how. Corduroys and leather patches on the elbow are just as much a fashion as a Mohican haircut or a Beckhamesque tattoo.
Cameron claims to recall ‘every detail’ of his June, 1996 wedding night. What’s the big deal with that? Perhaps he video-taped it and played it back to himself and a couple of his Tory mates.
Does he also recall how many times he went to the toilet that evening or the colour of his wife’s woolly socks? Who knows.
Anyhow. Not many women have bought into Cameron’s New Man - New Image. At least not any of those interviewed about this vitally important subject. Predictably, one woman called it ‘pure marketing’... and what’s wrong with pure marketing, you may ask?
Another woman said that she’s ‘not interested in Cameron’s family life’. I’m interested in what he’s like as a leader.’ Umm. Well, who is it, then, who buys all those millions of women’s magazines which seem to be primarily about the private lives of the rich and famous? Surely the women who buy this stuff are interested in David’s privates.
And what if one’s private life has some kind of affect on one’s professional or public life?
Who cares, anyway, about what Davey Boy is ‘like as a leader’?
This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)