Jo Swinson (of the real women campaign) kicked things off this morning tweeting about the airbrushing of *that* Cameron photo. The Daily Mail, New Statesman, and Sam Coates have followed it up. The latter two calling for the original photo to be released if there really hasn’t been much touching up.
You can of course judge for yourself.
Airbrushed?!
If you want to compare that with other potentially flattering shots there is the one where Cameron was named GQ’s second most stylish man. And that was in 2007. A quick google images search would suggest that there’s been a touch more than a bit of red eye removal and change in lighting.
Why does this matter? After all how people look shouldn’t effect people’s vote. Although we know it does, despite suggestions that politics is show business for ugly people. This matters because Dave is building a campaign around him, that you can trust him. So why can’t he just be honest about how he looks. Most fathers in their 40′s have a few lines. It’s hard work doing that and being leader of the opposition. Why hide who you are, and why should people trust you if you do?
Related posts:
We should air brush Brown sadly they do not have enough air, we end up with a blank space….
Peter look closely, his forehead has been heightened, his nose slightly thinned and a little taken off his cheeks to make him look leaner…he better watch it cus senn will sketch him with his tongue hanging out with rotten teeth if he aint careful!..nah only kidding senn has hung up his pencils,