Race, class, and gender are the holy trinity of ideologies for the modern liberal-left politician. And Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has accused her National Party opponent Anne Tolley of transgressions on all three when the government minister called her a hypocrite for criticising National as being out-of-touch with poverty, because she wears extremely expensive corporate clothes. The Green leader has said that Tolley’s response to her criticism was ‘sexist and elitist and racist’. So should we take such allegations and counter-allegations seriously? On the one hand this minor scandal of insults and critiques of clothes is petty and trivial, and is hardly deserving of public attention. Yet the affair is also incredibly revealing about many issues in contemporary parliamentary politics – especially issues of racism, wealth, inequality, political rhetoric, aggression, and the use of social media by politicians. Therefore this blogpost asks a number of questions about the issue, and tries to find some answers. [Read more below]
How did the ‘battle of the blazers’ begin?
To get a full picture of the [scandal] it’s well worth watching the original media coverage of Metiria Turei’s designer clothes when she went on TVNZ’s Seven Sharp show about her new look in April last year. In the 6-minute video item, The Green Party’s corporate look, reporter Heather du Plessis-Allen traces the transformation in Turei’s image, as well as evaluating the dress styles of some other politicians. The item is notable for getting Judith Collins’ (largely positive) reaction to Turei’s embrace of the bourgeois clothing label, Adrienne Winkelmann, which is also worn by the likes of Hekia Parata and Bronagh Key.
This original item gives the impression of Turei being welcomed into the Establishment. But any fashion-based comradeship between the National and Green MPs has now dissolved. The best account of how this happened is Tova O’Brien’s 2-minute TV3 news item, MPs continue battle over blazers, which includes footage of Anne Tolley’s alleged racist statements in Parliament. See also, Hamish Rutherford’s MP's clothes jibe leads to racism call, which was one of the original reports on the ‘war of words’, which largely broke out on Twitter.
Is Anne Tolley really racist?
Yes, according to Maori politics blogger, Morgan Godfery – see his post, Anne Tolley: an agent of colourblind racism?. Godfery essentially argues that New Zealand is deeply ingrained with racism, even if it can’t be seen. Tolley’s statement might well have been devoid of any reference or relevance to race, but it was probably still based on racist assumptions or motives from Tolley, whether conscious or not or her part. Chris Trotter takes a similar line in his newspaper column, Racist imagery used in fashion row.
Many on the liberal-left have taken this opportunity to revel in the supposed racism of the National Party. For example, on the Daily Blog, Frank Macskasy has explained that ‘This public excoriation of Ms Turei is the Tory way of telling some stroppy “n—-r” to get back in line’ – see: New Clothing Standards set by National Party.
Others have argued that the issue had nothing to do with racism or race, and that Metiria Turei was simply using ‘the race card’ as a defence to against allegations she couldn’t easily refute otherwise. For instance, David Farrar says ‘Turei is playing the race card, as a defensive measure’ and that National MPs ‘were attacking her for being sanctimonious, not Maori’ – see: Playing the race card.
Similarly, blogger Pete George says that ‘What seems to have happened is Tolley made a point that hit a sensitive mark, and Turei had no argument against it. Defensively she resorted to the race card. That’s as bad, at least, as Tolley’s remark’ – see: Metiria’s racist claim nonsense.
George also makes some good points in his post, Metiria doth protest too much methinks, which takes a detailed look at whether or National had been targeting Turei in Parliament last week. He concludes that ‘in three days of speeches Metiria was criticised on one, by Anne Tolley. And her own speech was addressed by the following speaker. Otherwise she was ignored. There certainly doesn’t seem to be any singling out here at all, let alone because she is Maori or female’. Futhermore, ‘Metiria looks to have been left out of the debates more than included. Was her indignation spontaneous taking of offence? Or is it contrived attention seeking?’
Columnist Kerre McIvor answers the racism question, saying ‘I don't think so. Nobody begrudges Hekia Parata or Georgina te Heuheu an expensive power suit’ – see: The low end of our MPs' high life. This of course raises the question of whether there are other examples of Maori women from working class backgrounds in Parliament who wear incredibly expensive clothes and get discriminated because of it. Of course, both Hekia Parata and Paula Bennett fit that description, but their examples seem to disprove Turei’s argument, as they have both obviously been elevated to the top of the National Party and there seems to be no sign of racism towards these women. They don’t appear to have been blocked from progressing through party and parliamentary politics.
Another interesting but controversial blogpost, considered the racism charge by Turei, but decided that the allegation was disingenuous – see the guest post on The Ruminator: The sisterhood of the racist travelling jacket. The key part is the following accusation, that the ‘Greens are turning into real politicians after all these years. And by that I mean that they’re turning into the type of hypocrites quite happy to throw around accusations and vitriol in order to win votes. Turei’s comments were hypocrisy pure and simple. She knew she would get a rise out of Tolley by calling her out of touch, (or if not Tolley, then certainly Judith Collins). And when the inevitable retort came, which was no more personal or vitriolic than the usual daily attacks in the House, she deliberately invoked race. Why? Because Maori votes are up for grabs at this year’s election’
This explanation incited a barrage of criticism on Twitter – including a tweet from Morgan Godfery (@MorganGodfery) labeling it ‘disgusting’. Subsequently, The Ruminator issued An apology.
Obviously, this whole spat will increase sensitivities over issues of racism, perhaps leading to an escalation of allegations trading in this election year about racism. For example, one blogger, has taken the opportunity to question the Greens’ own orientation towards race. Joshua Hitchcock says, ‘Perhaps this presents an opportunity for the Green Party to take stock and reconsider some of their policy proposals that other groups consider racist. Anti-immigration, anti-foreigner policies which treat people differently based on the birth lottery have not gone down too well’ – see: This Week in Māori Politics: Friday 31 January.
Is Turei guilty of hypocriscy?
Anne Tolley has largely gone silent on the clothes spat since making the original allegations in Parliament. But she is reported in Adam Bennett’s article What the blazers...? Politicians' jacket spat as explaining that ‘I was talking about the hypocrisy of coming to the House and lecturing us on poverty and saying how out of touch we were’.
Metiria Turei’s has managed to deflect much of the criticism of hypocrisy by very strongly going on the front foot with a media PR defensive campaign. She has been letting the media into her ‘castle’ – see Shawn McAvinue’s Metiria opens the doors to her castle - and THAT wardrobe and Campbell Live’s 6-minute interview item, which includes a 30-second tour of her house – see: Inside Metiria Turei's castle.
By concentrating the attention on her humble but eccentric house, Turei has not only managed to refute National’s insinuations about her living in a luxury castle, and also managed to get her arguments across well, but also convey her personality to the nation. As Patrick Gower (@patrickgowernz) tweeted, ‘Metiria Turei clear winner of Battle of the Blazers. Anne Tolley and Judith Collins ended up getting owned’. And also being photographed and filmed wearing clothes from the Warehouse was a useful antidote to the allegations of her wearing designer clothes.
But as Annemarie Quill of the Bay of Plenty Times points out, ‘Turei doesn't have to dress in a sackcloth and recycled cans. But if she wants to wear $2000 jackets and lecture on poverty, she shouldn't be surprised about political barbs’ – see: Insults part of the job. This is much like U2’s Bono who gets some stick for campaigning about global poverty while wearing Gucci clothes and mixing with billionaires.
But is Turei the only one targeted for wearing luxury clothes? Aren’t her accusers singling out her for her wealth, when others – especially male Pakeha MPs – do not have to endure that sort of attention? According to David Farrar, ‘MPs often have a go at each other for their apparent wealth. We hear all the time about John Key having a holiday home in Hawaii, or David Cunliffe living in Herne Bay’ – see: Playing the race card.
Are clothes political?
‘The personal is political’ is the slogan – or indeed, the mission statement – of the liberal left movement, out of which the Green Party has grown. The slogan essentially means that you can’t separate politics from the characteristics and actions of each individual – hence the ethnicity, gender, occupation, and consumption patterns of all people are deeply political and should be judged as part of the whole. In a sense then, notions of ‘political correctness’ arise out of this idea that personal behaviour needs to be in line with personal ideologies. Similarly, the notion exists that only women MP can represent women voters and only Maori MPs can represent Maori voters.
In the sense that the ‘personal is political’ clothes can be seen as having real meaning in this liberal-left tradition. For such reasons, many former Green MPs were determined not to conform to the elite expectations of dress. Rod Donald, for example, refused to wear a tie, unless forced to. Nandor Tanczos was similarly unenthusiastic about changing his dress sense for Parliament.
Of course, it’s also simply the reality that appearance has become important in parliamentary politics, which is why MPs pay so much attention to looking good. This is why, according to ‘Fashion figure Colin Mathura-Jeffree’, ‘a politician's clothes were important as a "first line of communication". "The way you dress represents who you are and in an instant we recognise and judge the person accordingly. Dress to represent your people or at least wear clothes that fit," – see Adam Bennett’s Full battle jacket as MPs squabble.
The ‘Jacketgate’ scandal has certainly brought about further focus on what the politicians are wearing. Jane Bowron has analysed the bourgeois type of jackets worn by Turei, Tolley, and Collins: ‘They come with panels, tassels, a bloat of bling, a plethora of patterns, florals and flamboyant cuts, and are very look at moi, look at moi in a unique kind of way. There is something almost of the military dictatorship about them - screaming out for braid, medals, perhaps a whistle or a pair of gold epaulets to imply self-appointed rank to show someone uppity in the lower orders what a real general looks like’ – see: It's all rather OTT in the girl armour dept.
And other fashion writers are suddenly exploring critiques of those involved – such as this one about Anne Tolley: So how do they dress?.
Is the focus on Metiria Turei’s clothes sexist?
At the start of the last election year of 2011, then Labour leader Phil Goff achieved a lot of unwanted media and public attention for dying his hear brown. He expressed disappointment that his personal appearance warranted any attention. But of course, politicians always get attention on their personal appearance precisely because they attempt to use their appearance as a key technique in their campaigning. The fact that politicians – and not just Metiria Turei – spend tens of thousands of dollars making themselves look more attractive is an important part of winning votes.
Nonetheless, there is a certain pettiness and ugliness about some of the extreme scrutiny that gets put on politicians’ appearances. Whether or not it’s sexism is up for debate. TVNZ’s Katie Bradford has written an opinion piece that puts forward a gender-based analysis, sympathetic to Turei – see: Jacket spat demeans everyone. She says ‘It's hard enough being a woman in politics without being criticised for how you look or what you wear’.
Have the Greens become part of the Establishment?
The re-branding of the Greens is one of both style and substance – the party has been slowly but surely attempting to professionalise and de-radicalise. On the surface, this has meant that the party has ditched its sandals and regular clothes in favour of designer suits, ties, and corporate suits. The party wants to look like part of the Establishment. It wants to conform. In terms of substance, too, the Greens have been ditching or watering down their more radical policies. Take a central policy issue such as tax, in which the party is decidedly more conventional these days. On GST, for example, it once advocated its complete abolition in favour of progressive taxation. Then it shifted to accept GST, at 12.5%. These days the party even advocates a 15% rate (despite previously labeling such a policy as radical rightwing neoliberailism). This is, of course, why the more radical and working class oriented Sue Bradford was marginalised and forced out of the Greens.
So despite moving to the right over the years, and increasing the party’s votes in middle- or high-income electorates, the party wants to cling onto some of its former radical chic and working class image. This is increasingly difficult to do when wearing a designer or corporate suit. Quite simply the Greens are trying to have it both ways. They want to ride two different horses – a working class one and a middle class one. There’s a glaring contradiction in trying to do so. But as long as no one calls them out on it, or points out the issue, there are few problems. However, when someone like Anne Tolley does so, it causes great problems.
As Paul Buchanan has recently said, ‘The Greens have stripped out the Red in their watermelon ranks in order to become a Blue-Green alternative with a lunatic fringe that can work equally comfortably with the two big parties (by ignoring that fringe)’ – see: Nothing left.
Therefore, we can understand Turei’s change in dress sense as clearly part of the political shift of the Greens. This is further examined in John Moore’s blogpost, The Elite politician that cried racism.
Finally, for more amusing and insightful opinions and views on the whole issue see my blogpost Images and cartoons relating to Metiria Turei’s clothes and racism.
