Shirley Williams vs. Alexander de Pfefell: a noxious double standard

Commentary on Shirley Williams in the past few days has often referred to her being the object of extremely unfair and hypocritical comments about her personal appearance, her perceived dis-organisation, her tendency to be late for engagements etc. Much of the press has always subjected female politicians to minute scrutiny, a standard of judgement which would never occur to them to apply to male politicians. Most notably, Margaret Thatcher (and, to a large extent, Barbara Castle and Theresa May) responded to this double standard by consciously curating their self-presentation.

As I have just remarked, male politicians have never been subject to the same offensive criticisms. However, something that has been less noticed is that our dear prime minister has weaponised this double standard. He curates himself, but to achieve the opposite effect. He regularly fosters the impression that he has been just dragged through a hedge backwards, and displays an entitled nonchalance about his personal appearance that strike many people as a component of what they perceive as his 'charm'. A recent example of this is an 'official'photograph which showed Alexander with his feet on a desk. This was widely reproduced in newspapers, and so, one assumes, is crucial to the prime minister's self-presentation.

The use of slovenliness as a political tactic appeals to feelings of guilt and vicarious feelings of entitlement to privilege in the voters. In other words, Alexander is expressing voters' repressed desires. 'I wish that I were in a position to do that, or to avoid doing that, or to do that extremely badly, and I want to be in a position to do (or not to do) that, but can't admit it, even to myself' (fill in the blank with whatever Alexander is supposed to have done, or not done). Many people would like to behave extremely badly, but cannot do so, so they experience pleasure at witnessing the prime minister validate this behaviour. The fact that this thought process is unconscious is integral to its power as a political force. That is precisely the point about repressed desire : it has to find an outlet somewhere.

There is a gendered dimension to this. Many men find solace in such a public display of a certain kind of 'toxic' masculinity, in which Alexander specialises, while it appeals to a significant number of women because it confirms Thatcher's view of gender relations. Thatcher believed that feminism was superfluous, because she believed that women were inherently superior to men. As she famously said, 'If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.' Alexander's carefully curated and calibrated displays of incompetence and dis-organisation are core components of his electoral appeal, which one underestimates at one's peril. Long ago, it set a motion of spiral of ever lower expectations, which he has been managing for many years, and can only rebound to his benefit.