‘Obviously not’
Melanie McDonagh’s article about Hannah Spencer’s maiden speech should be read slowly, not because it is difficult, but because it is unusually complete.
“I was frankly distracted by her clothes”, she wrote.
Spencer was described as an “attractive blonde”. Her blouse and waistcoat were considered. The green trousers caused difficulty. Then came the question on which the whole thing turns:
“Would I say this about a man? Obviously not.”
I have read those words several times, and the one that keeps catching is “obviously”.
There is no uncertainty here. No unconscious prejudice waiting to be excavated by a panel of experts while somebody solemnly points at a diagram. The difference in treatment is recognised clearly enough to be called obvious. It is then presented not as a reason to stop, but as part of the entertainment.
A woman entered the House of Commons and made her first speech as an MP. A political magazine intended to discuss what she said, found itself distracted by what she was wearing, acknowledged that it would not normally inspect a man in the same way, and carried on inspecting.
The double standard does not need to be uncovered. It has introduced itself and is now asking whether everyone likes the waistcoat.
Breaking Westminster’s mould
Four weeks before standing in the Commons, Spencer had been at college, working as a plumber and learning to plaster. She began her maiden speech with that journey. Being elected was the honour of her life, she said, but she did not want it to remain exceptional that someone doing a job like hers could become a Member of Parliament.
She spoke about Gorton and Denton, about deprivation, poor housing, polluted air and work that does not provide enough security on which to build a life. She spoke about the political tradition of working-class women in Manchester and about people being treated as though something about them made them less worthy.
Then she listed some of those she wanted to see entering Parliament after her: cleaners, bus drivers, carers, teaching assistants, bin collectors, warehouse workers, kitchen porters, farm workers, mechanics, electricians, plasterers and plumbers.
“We deserve to be here”, she said.
There are serious questions that can be asked about this. What prevents people from those backgrounds entering Parliament? Is symbolic representation enough without policies that materially improve their lives? How does a political party turn the story of one former plumber becoming an MP into something useful for the plumbers who will never become MPs?
But the central idea of the speech was clear. Westminster should not feel like a sealed profession belonging to one educational route, one social class and one recognisable type of person.
The response was about whether lilac should have been permitted to meet green.
From the clothes to the woman
The Spectator was not alone in noticing Spencer’s appearance.
The reactions repeatedly reached for the same vocabulary. She was compared with Mr Tumble, a clown, a child, a children’s television presenter and an “Adult Baby”. One post asked why she styled her hair like a five-year-old schoolgirl, before moving directly from her appearance to what it called “the mentality of a child”.
That movement matters.
The criticism was not only that Spencer’s clothes were unattractive or unsuitable. The clothes were used to turn her into a type of person: childish, unserious, intellectually slight and not quite a proper political adult.
The outfit became evidence against the wearer.
A puppet image placed a brightly dressed childlike figure in the Commons. Another post described Spencer as looking like a “tuppenny clown”. A complaint about colour became a judgement about maturity. A judgement about maturity became a judgement about political fitness.
None of this means that every criticism of Hannah Spencer is misogynistic. She is an elected politician representing a political party. Her ideas, conduct, record and judgement are legitimate subjects for scrutiny. She is not owed protection from disagreement because people have also been unpleasant about her hair.
But hair is not an argument. A trouser combination is not a voting record. And there is something revealing about how quickly opposition to a woman can move from what she thinks to how she looks while thinking it.
Clothes do communicate
I know this is where the discussion can become slightly dishonest, because clothes do communicate. Politicians know this. Their advisers know this. Newspapers know this with an intensity that occasionally appears to require clinical observation.
A dark suit, an expensive pair of shoes, a rolled-up sleeve or a carefully cultivated state of collapse can all become part of a political identity. Male politicians are mocked for looking scruffy, excessively wealthy, awkwardly fashionable or like they have been assembled for a regional accountancy conference.
There has never been a complete prohibition on discussing a man’s jacket.
But the useful distinction is not whether men’s clothes are mentioned. It is what kind of political work the mention is doing.
Men versus women in the scrutiny of clothing
When a male politician’s clothing becomes part of the story, it is usually treated as evidence of something else: wealth, class, institutional respect, donor relationships, political branding or an attempt to look ordinary. The clothes are used to make an argument about the politician.
With women, appearance more easily becomes the argument itself.
Is she attractive? Does the colour suit her? Is the outfit flattering? Is the hair appropriate? Is she too polished, too severe, too young-looking, too glamorous, too dowdy or simply too visible?
The man’s suit may be read as a political signal.
The woman is more likely to be reviewed.
This is not an absolute distinction. Male politicians can be objectified and female politicians can use clothing deliberately. But research into political media coverage has repeatedly found that women receive more attention concerning their appearance and personal lives than men. The quantity of coverage is not always the issue. The content is different.
That difference matters because attention teaches an audience what is relevant.
For a man, the relevant object is more often his politics.
For a woman, it can still be the woman.
The blouse that became evidence
There are occasions when criticism of a politician’s clothes appears to contain a recognisable political argument.
A widely viewed post on X showed Spencer speaking in the Commons and claimed that nothing said “fight the wealthy elite” like delivering the lecture in a Gucci blouse.
This was not simply an aesthetic complaint. It was an accusation of political hypocrisy. The shirt supposedly revealed that Spencer’s progressive politics were fraudulent, or at least contradicted by her taste for luxury clothing.
Except Spencer later held up the garment in a video and said it was a 15-year-old charity-shop find, not a £2,000 Gucci purchase.
She called the video “HANtiques roadshow”.
The shirt bore witness
There is something almost perfect about the physical shirt having to appear as its own witness. It hangs from a coat hanger while Spencer explains its provenance, as though it has been summoned before a parliamentary committee to answer serious questions about luxury retail.
According to Spencer, she had not entered the chamber wearing a newly purchased designer blouse. She had worn something old and second-hand, consistent with the repairing, reusing and charity-shopping habits she described in the video.
The shirt had entered Parliament as a charity-shop find and emerged from social media as evidence of elite consumption.
The political argument did not follow established facts about the clothing. The clothing was assigned the biography required by the political argument.
The outfit was made to fit the narrative, until it didn’t
That is one of the risks of treating a woman’s appearance as freely available evidence. The outfit begins to tell observers whatever story they already wanted to tell about its wearer.
Colourful clothes prove childishness.
Long blonde hair proves immaturity.
An ornate shirt proves luxury consumption.
The object is visible, so the interpretation feels like observation rather than invention.
Spencer’s response is useful because she does not merely issue a correction. She turns the garment back into an object. Here is the shirt. Here is how old she says it is. Here is where she says it came from. Please inspect the evidence before assigning it a retail price and a political ideology.
At the time captured in the screenshot, her response had received more than 13,000 likes and had been shared more than a thousand times. The rebuttal travelled because it exposed something larger than a mistaken label.
Hannah Spencer’s clothes keep being asked to provide evidence against her.
Nobody appears to have interviewed the clothes first.
The advantage of being inspected
The Spectator article recognises the unequal attention given to women’s appearance and then attempts to convert it into female privilege.
Women, the argument goes, can use clothes, colour and hair in ways male politicians cannot. Their appearance gives them another political instrument.
There is a version of that claim which is plainly true. Women have more socially acceptable choices in political clothing. Male political dress remains narrow, repetitive and nervous around most colours that might also appear in a packet of felt-tip pens. A male frontbencher arriving in green trousers and a lilac waistcoat would attract attention.
But having more choices does not mean controlling how those choices will be interpreted.
The supposed advantage arrives with conditions. A woman may be distinctive, but not distracting. Attractive, but not unserious. Fashionable, but not vain. Formal, but not cold. Colourful, but not childish. Feminine, but not weak.
An outfit can demand attention
There is no neutral setting. An understated outfit can be called dull. An expensive one can become evidence of vanity or distance from ordinary voters. A bright outfit can be attention-seeking. Refusing to participate in the performance does not end it. The refusal simply becomes another aesthetic decision available for review.
This is why being looked at should not be confused with having power.
Visibility may help a politician become recognisable. It may also ensure that the recognisable thing is not her argument.
Spencer’s clothes made her memorable. They also provided an excuse not to listen.
The most revealing response may have been the use of artificial intelligence to replace her colourful outfit with a white blouse and black pencil skirt, while also making her hair shorter and more subdued.
The clothes were not merely disliked. They were corrected.
Spencer was returned to the familiar visual category of the professional political woman. The colour disappeared. The individuality was reduced. The imagined improvement was not simply greater formality. It was a recognisably gendered office uniform, offered as though political seriousness could be downloaded by changing the skirt.
This gesture contains a whole argument about permission.
Politics has inherited an idea of seriousness created over generations in which most of the people permitted to exercise power were men. The dark suit became so normal that it stopped looking like a costume. It became the absence of costume.
Male MPs can dress similar to other men without any questions asked
A male MP can enter the Commons dressed almost identically to the men surrounding him and appear visually neutral. A woman makes a visible choice simply by getting dressed. The burden then falls on her to ensure that this choice communicates competence to people whose image of competence was established before she arrived.
I am not sure that burden is always imposed consciously. Nobody needs to announce that women wearing bright colours do not belong in Parliament. Nobody needs to demand that plumbers entering politics immediately dress like management consultants.
It is enough to treat convention as professionalism and difference as an event requiring explanation.
The correction carries a quiet instruction: you may enter, but please try to resemble the people who were already here.
Belonging, with alterations
This is what makes the response to Spencer’s speech more than a minor episode of fashion snobbery.
She was talking about access. She wanted people in working-class occupations to imagine themselves in Parliament. She described communities that had been neglected and people who had been made to feel less worthy because of who they were or where they came from.
Then part of the political conversation demonstrated how the sorting process works.
A newcomer arrives without looking like the established template. Her difference becomes the first subject. The institution may have admitted her, but the commentary reserves the right to assess whether she has presented herself properly.
This does not physically prevent people entering Parliament. It does something more ordinary. It tells them what may need to be surrendered on the way in.
The accent can be softened. The clothes can be muted. The hair can be corrected. The biography can remain, provided it is translated into the approved visual language of professional politics.
Representation is welcomed. Alterations can be arranged upstairs.
Political misogyny
There is a temptation to imagine political misogyny only in its loudest form: the threat, the slur, the declaration that women are irrational, incapable or unfit for power.
Those things exist, but misogyny can also operate through a sequence of apparently minor judgements. A remark about hair. A joke about clothes. An observation about attractiveness. A suggestion that a woman would be taken more seriously if she altered the surface through which seriousness is being measured.
Each individual remark can be defended as trivial.
That is part of its usefulness.
Nobody has stopped her speaking. Nobody has denied her office. Nobody has explicitly argued that women should leave Parliament. They have simply created an environment in which a woman’s entry into politics comes with a permanent visual commentary track.
The woman speaks.
The packaging is reviewed.
The answer is not to declare Spencer’s outfit beyond criticism or to insist that every colourful waistcoat is an act of feminist resistance. It is possible to dislike the clothes. It is possible to find them distracting.
It is also possible to notice that the distraction is not distributed equally.
“Would I say this about a man? Obviously not.”
The sentence stays with me because it acknowledges the unequal treatment and then treats that acknowledgement as the end of the problem.
Clothes or political arguments, what should be judged?
Spencer’s speech asked Parliament to make room for people who do not arrive through the usual routes. The response suggested that entering the building is only one stage of belonging. The newcomer must still survive the inspection.
A serious political culture would judge Hannah Spencer by what she argues, how she votes, what she achieves and what she fails to achieve. It would allow her the privilege routinely extended to politically unremarkable men in dark suits: the right to dress badly, brightly or without universal approval while remaining recognisably a political person.
Her trousers were not the speech.
Her blouse was not proof of hypocrisy.
Her hair was not evidence of a child’s mentality.
But the speech asked whether people who do not look like the usual political class can belong in Parliament.
The reaction supplied an answer, then opened the alterations department.
The shirt has denied being Gucci. The trousers remain unavailable for comment.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
