Fiona McCade: Give me substance over style any day

THEY say that politics is showbiz for ugly people and, while on the whole that’s true, I like to kid myself that politics is for people who care more about the country than their coiffeurs.

Quite honestly, the more image-conscious I perceive a politician to be, the less I trust them. I prefer my activists to be dowdy and idealistic rather than primped to the nines. Golda Meir beats La Cicciolina, doesn’t she?

I always thought so, but Mary Portas, TV’s Queen of Shops and David Cameron’s new adviser on All Things Retail, isn’t convinced. She’s announced how painful it is for her to have meetings with Cameron’s female Cabinet members.

“I mean,” she shuddered to an interviewer, “what an ugly bunch. I could not look at them. They do dress up for my meetings, but I just want to go: ‘Please, no, not that necklace, not that skirt’.” Apparently, Mary would much rather be advising chic, French female politicians. She said: “They’re like, ‘wow’, aren’t they? What do we have? I’d say let’s just put a bit of sex and glamour in there.”

Poor Mary. Imagine the horror – stuck having to make conversation while trying not to look at the frumpy likes of Theresa May, when she’d much rather be sashaying down the Rue Saint-Honoré with Rachida Dati.

But Mary’s not half as poor as Theresa May, Caroline Spelman, Cheryl Gillan and Baroness Warsi, who are probably now absolutely dreading their next meeting with Picky Portas and desperately binning everything they bought in the Peacocks’ summer sale.

As Theresa “leopard-print heels” May knows better than most, female politicians still attract as much attention for their style as for their substance. People make jokes about the men’s sartorial efforts – Ken Clarke and his Hush Puppies – but it tends to be relatively affectionate and anyway, the extent of their fashion choices usually goes no further than, “Suit – grey or blue?”

Margaret Thatcher was lucky to be premier in a less image-conscious age, but she still had to consider her appearance. She understood that influential men and women are perceived differently and always have been. You just know that if Gandhi were alive today, Gok Wan would not be squealing: “Mahatma! You don’t look good half naked! Please, no! Not that loincloth! Nobody will listen to what you say when you’re wearing a nappy! It’s not sexy; it’s not glamorous! Agh! I can’t look at you until you get yourself a Nehru jacket!” Girls, on the other hand, are still constantly judged by how they look. Even in the 21st century. And even by other women.

When Ed Miliband unveiled his new shadow cabinet line-up on Tuesday, my first thought was: “Almost 50 per cent laydeez. Goodness, Ed. It’s almost like real-life.” My second thought was: “Mary Creagh – are you wearing your son’s lace-ups?” But only, please believe me, because I was wondering who Mary Portas wouldn’t be able to look at.

It’s such a shame that Portas never got to have a meeting with Anne Widdecombe – they could have sold tickets for that – but if she had, she might have learned something about the massive double-standards she’s helping to perpetuate. It must be hell to be a female politician. You try to say important stuff, but what makes the headlines is your Bad Hair Day, or your Vote For Me shoes.

I hope Cameron doesn’t let Portas loose on the hapless women of Westminster, or we’ll probably end up with Caroline Spelman (Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) in a Gaga-esque meat dress, or all the Cameron Cuties demanding Birkin bags instead of those horrid, red, boxy things they have to take home with them. Portas probably thinks we’ve never had a female Chancellor because no girl would be seen dead carrying that tatty old briefcase.

The thing is, Mary, it’s not a politician’s job to look sexy. Or glamorous. And you know that if any of these women did, they’d be criticised for that, too. Besides, if you want proper, sexy, pouting politicians, off you go to Italy. But I warn you, over there, they don’t always bother with clothes.