Whethertomorrow
I was wondering (again) if politicians in these modern times need a certain sex appeal in order to be noticeable or taken to be trustworthy.
I know past male prime ministers have not always been an oil painting eg Harold Wilson or Winston Churchill but then they were not photographed as much with the limitations of paper newspapers etc.
Were David Cameron or Tony Blair successful because they were youngish and handsome. They had that little twinkle in the eyes that people might have found appealing. Compare to Michael Foot and his shambling appearance and his lack of success.
Keir Starmer, to my mind, looks boring and stolid and not the dynamic leader we need to get us out of this rut we are in.
Do you think a physical image is more important than policies these days? Love to hear your thoughts.
I'm puzzling over how sex-appeal makes you trustworthy.

Do you think a physical image is more important than policies these days?
... could be. I'm sure it would be a great distraction to focus on a PM's physical attributes when you're whiling the time away waiting hours for an ambulance, or trying to hunt down an NHS dentist - or even flat-hunting on minimal wage.
Keir Starmer, to my mind, looks boring and stolid and not the dynamic leader we need to get us out of this rut we are in.
I'm not actually a fan of Starmer, and I think we are in more than a rut - more like a ruddy great chasm - but I doubt his or anyone else's looks (which can be deceptive) will have the slightest impact on sorting out the mess we are in.
... Boris Johnson said he thought his government had been the most dynamic in recent times, and quite a few women found him attractive. It didn't end well though.