There was no rout here, and no consensus either — just a chamber sawing back and forth over whether a prime minister's collar says anything at all about his competence, with No edging it by four points out of 142 votes cast. That narrowness is itself the story: this was not a settled question about standards in public life, but a genuine coin-toss dressed up as one.
The Yes side, though outvoted, built a coherent case around symbolism and slippage. Its most-respected voice argued that "fundamental to strong political leadership is sustained attention to detail and consistency of presentation," warning that "a scruffy appearance is a symptom of tolerating a dishevelled approach to tasks and duties." Another voter went further, reducing the whole spectacle to theatre: "Politics is a reality show now.." — while a third, more ambivalent, suspected stage management behind the casual look, asking of the PM's northern-everyman styling, "is he real?"
The No side answered not with theory but with shrugs and history. One pointed out that formal dress has always evolved — "People in politics and business used to wear tail suits, wing collars and bowler hats… obvious for clothing to progress with societal trends" — while the most-respected No argument conceded the PM still wears "designer or custom tailored" clothes and asked plainly, "why should politics?" be exempt from the informality now standard almost everywhere else. Neither side much engaged the other's terms: Yes treated dress as a proxy for discipline, No treated it as a red herring next to competence, and the two arguments largely passed each other by.
The split tracks a familiar fault line in British public life, from Jeremy Corbyn's open collar to Rishi Sunak's tailoring, where anxieties about declining institutional formality get projected onto whoever happens to be standing at the despatch box. Here, at least, the chamber couldn't decide whether that anxiety is substance or just nostalgia in a suit.
8 Opinions
Should be allowed to wear what is comfortable unless meeting other nations leaders
I think seeing ‘Andy’ playing the role of our man from the north , cutting through prejudices by dressing down like one of the people is a tad patronising. As are the interviews .He’s obviously following advice - but is he real? I do sympathise with men stuck in suits and ties in the heat while Rayner shows off her startling fashion. Perhaps there is a middle ground where some events - inspecting the troops for example which call for formality and respect.
Tbh I wouldn't care if he turned up in a bin bag, so long as he's actually doing his job. But on a serious note, his clothes are still majority designer or custom tailored, supporting British businesses by wearing British brands, and he still looks smartly dressed and stylish. Times have changed, very few professions still require suit and tie, why should politics?
Politics is a reality show now..
People in politics and business used to wear tail suits, wing collars and bowler hats. Obvious for clothing to progress with societal trends. City bankers have worn less formal attire for several years.
Informality and relaxed appearance has its time and place. But fundamental to strong political leadership is sustained attention to detail and consistency of presentation, regardless of your political leaning. A scruffy appearance is a symptom of tolerating a dishevelled approach to tasks and duties.
Since when does wearing a suit & tie make someone cleverer? As far as I'm concerned a PM can dress in jeans & a hoody if he wants to as long as he's got the knowledge required to do the job. It's about time the old school stiff upper lip b0110x was kicked into the long grass & the establishment moved into the 21 century and concentrated on skills rather than the old boy network & how folk dressed!
As StuOH says!