Anyone else think political wives should be not seen and not heard?

[darcymum]

Its always wives, never husbands, who are paraded on stage at conferences, in their pretty dresses and I'm sure we will be hearing a lot more from them in the weeks to come. You could never imagine Mr Thatcher (what was his first name?) doing that.

If they have something to say then they should get elected themselves.

He was Dennis. I think Norma Major is how political wives should behave. Kept in the background, and had her own interests. Cherie Blair is the example of how NOT to do it, and I must say I'd put Hilary Clinton in there with her too. I thought both Mrs Bush senior and junior were self-effacing as well.

Dennis! thats it. I'm quite glad I couldn't remember his name, because its irrelevant.

why do they need to be wheeled out at all... why do we see them or hear them? they are irrelevant (to use your word )

It is so the electorate can see them as family people which can appeal.

I for instance think GB is a bit of a twat, but his wife appears so lovely and down to earth.
SamCam also looks like alot of fun.

I think it's cynical electioneering. Just because they have a nice wife, doesn't mean their policies are great! It's in the same vein as all the baby kissing/school visits/candid family man shots that appear at this time

Agreed. Window dressing.

I guess what I am annoyed about is the fact that they are election assets. Some (many) people may be more inclined to vote for somebody because "they have such a nice wife". This is they sort of advantage female politicians just don't have because husbands are not seen in the same light.

Not seen and not heard.

I don't feel like I have to know about my doctor's/solicitor's/bank manager's [insert profession of choice here] family to judge whether they will do a good job or not. Don't see why a politician is any different.

I'd rather see less of them, frankly & Miriam Clegg has the right idea imo. Sarah Brown's background is in PR so I take her action, 'my husband my hero' nonsense and inane Twitterings as pure PR activity and pretty cynical. sure, Samantha Cameron is lovely to look at but she's being tactically paraded as a counterpoint to Sarah. On the other hand, remember how most of Mumsnet swooned over Michelle Obama?

I'm in two minds about this.

I don't like the attention thrust upon them. In a way, we'll never, really know what Cherie Blair was like, she was portrayed in a very negative way. She, like Hilary Clinton, was a feminist and a prominent woman in her own right. And was given a lot of negative coverage because of that.

Eleanor Roosevelt used her position positively. And why not?

There's always a lot of attention, mostly negative, on the women-of-men in power. And the negativity seems to ratchet up a notch if the women are anything other than a subservient doormat. Which speaks volumes about ambivalence about women, if not downright sexism.

Sarah Brown has had to tread very carefully - and she's managed it very well.

I actually hope it will be OK for Samantha Cameron, should she be the next PM-wife (as looks likely). It's a position fraught with difficulty, just because they're female. People/media seem to project so many wants/desires onto these women, it's impossible to fulfill them all.

Doubt very much she'll be pushing herself forward, though I'm not sure she'll be allowed to remain invisible - by either her party's PR machine, or the media.

I do not know which I find most annoying - the ones who are just a pretty accessory or the ones e,g, Glynnis Kinnock, Hilary Clinton who use the fame as a step up the ladder for themselves.

And why is a pregnancy during the campaign an electoral bonus for a male politician but a disaster for a female one?

I like Cherie Blair. She is her own woman, and that made me like TB more too. She was an asset as far as I was concerned.

I agree.

Was watching ITN News the other night (a silly blip, don't worry I shan't be doing it again in a hurry) and they have a Leaders Wives Correspondent. Some poor junior whose job it is to follow them all around on the campaign trail. He didn't get very far with Nick Clegg's wife as she, very sensibly, is quietly getting on with her own career.

Good point Granny.
I agree.

Oh god yes, please get them out of the picture! We're not voting for them so their irrelevant. All very nice and dandy that the politicians have lovelydovely wifes who look after their needs but frankly its none of my business - very nice and dandy and so 1950s dogooder women. I'd much rather see professional wifes of politicians who went about their own careers and lifes rather than try to further their husbands. Its not the kind of rolemodels I want for my dd ("the you can't really make it on your own kind, you have to have a husband who is successful to be happy in life"). I know both Sarah B and Samantha C both have done things with their lives and have or have had careers but in my humble opinion if they want to be on telly that bad why don't THEY stand in the election? Who knows, if they did they might be more popular than their husbands!

Agree with the above comment, keep them out of the way. Good on Nick Cleggs wife for carrying on with her own career and letting him carry on with his.

I can't understand why so much importance is attached to Sam Cam and Sarah Brown. Far better for the parties to focus on a few policies. Roll on May 6th when it is all over for another four years.

Window dressing definately, but it appears to be necessary in this media age presumably as pretty wives get more tabloid inches thus garnering more attention for their husbands. They all want to come across as solid "family men" and wheel the wife and kids out when ever they get the chance but in all actuallity, how much time can you spend with your family when your the leader of one of the main political parties? Suppose that's why they're all having affairs with each other all the time.

It's all about bloody image, it's so fake. Where's all the openly single/gay/lesbian politicians anyway...oh yes I forgot they're all married too . Cowards

[odette realises that was a bit of a rant and gets her coat]

Cherie Blair was involved in politics way before TB stood for pm

Snuppeline, I'm sure neither SC nor SB have any desire to be on telly. It's just media isn't it - they make a brighter front page than some middle aged man in a grey suit.

To be fair, Miriam is far less likely to have her husband elected as PM.

I think its a shame that spouses get involved. In politics in general there seems too much emphasis on personality, celebrity and status and not enough about policies.

PhilipaD that's exactly what I wanted to say in my earlier post but didn't manage it quite so consisely

Ooh I agree with this alright.

All that guff about what a thoroughly bloody nice bloke he is, always puts the toilet seat down; look here were are being The Waltons in our spare time and do you like my frock..?

I respect them more if they have their own lives and own professions i.e. Miriam Clegg and Cherie Blair. I like the fact that they have made their careers in their own right. Most of the time, I'd rather the political wives were in the background...

I am that there is a Leaders Wives Correspondent.

Isn't there some kind of standard that news reporting has to adhere to? I guess not, as that sounds so daft a proposition written down!

Am always so disappointed that people will put up with watching stuff like that (assume that's why they broadcast/cover stuff like that). But do you really think it's true that they cover eg "leaders' wives" because they believe that people want to know?