I allude to that item of apparel as worn by those of the political class who aspire to greatness. It is, of course, the plain, dark blue, single-breasted suit.
Most senior politicians wear The Blue Uniform nowadays. It consists of the aforesaid suit, probably bespoke. Other essential accessories include a white shirt, a loudish, plain coloured tie in some primary colour (purple is in vogue currently), and shiny black traditional shoes.
I can just imagine one of these statesmen opening their wardrobe to find a row of Blue Uniforms, presumably numbered or identified in some form, because they are all identical.
It is evocative of old communist Chinese regimes, whereby the old boys lined up and waved at military reviews, wearing their standard issue grey outfits, something akin to tunics.
The Blue Uniform, too, is egalitarian, cautious, aware of public relations, so-called "spin-doctors".
What would happen, were they to arrive for work one day, wearing a fine, subtle, grey flannel chalk-stripe suit? This could not happen, because they would look different from their peers.
What is my point? Individuality in these circles has vanished. Anybody who dresses differently is castigated as being eccentric, not fitting in.
I do not possess The Blue Uniform, I am glad to say. I have a wardrobe with a two flannel chalk-stripe double-breasted, one navy and one grey; an Oxford grey flannel three-piece flannel; a dark grey three-piece; a summer linen suit.
They are all quiet in colour, they do not shout at you, if you know what I mean. They are, however, individual and to my own personal taste, unlike the neutral Blue Uniform (it would be unkind to call it tasteless).
Indeed, I have white shirts. I have very few plain coloured ties. most of my ties are quiet in colour and pattern. I detest those ghastly purple ones as worn by many within the political class.
So there you have it. To our current political leaders, I say Take some inspiration from statesmen like Sir Winston Churchill, a gentleman who dressed well, with gravitas and decorum, with style.
Most senior politicians wear The Blue Uniform nowadays. It consists of the aforesaid suit, probably bespoke. Other essential accessories include a white shirt, a loudish, plain coloured tie in some primary colour (purple is in vogue currently), and shiny black traditional shoes.
I can just imagine one of these statesmen opening their wardrobe to find a row of Blue Uniforms, presumably numbered or identified in some form, because they are all identical.
It is evocative of old communist Chinese regimes, whereby the old boys lined up and waved at military reviews, wearing their standard issue grey outfits, something akin to tunics.
The Blue Uniform, too, is egalitarian, cautious, aware of public relations, so-called "spin-doctors".
What would happen, were they to arrive for work one day, wearing a fine, subtle, grey flannel chalk-stripe suit? This could not happen, because they would look different from their peers.
What is my point? Individuality in these circles has vanished. Anybody who dresses differently is castigated as being eccentric, not fitting in.
I do not possess The Blue Uniform, I am glad to say. I have a wardrobe with a two flannel chalk-stripe double-breasted, one navy and one grey; an Oxford grey flannel three-piece flannel; a dark grey three-piece; a summer linen suit.
They are all quiet in colour, they do not shout at you, if you know what I mean. They are, however, individual and to my own personal taste, unlike the neutral Blue Uniform (it would be unkind to call it tasteless).
Indeed, I have white shirts. I have very few plain coloured ties. most of my ties are quiet in colour and pattern. I detest those ghastly purple ones as worn by many within the political class.
So there you have it. To our current political leaders, I say Take some inspiration from statesmen like Sir Winston Churchill, a gentleman who dressed well, with gravitas and decorum, with style.
Tim i see the "skinny" ties last worn in the 80's are back too.
ReplyDelete