On Monday I reported that a scandal was unfolding concerning Samantha Cameron’s “£65 M&S dress” worn at Conservative party conference.
On one level, it really doesn’t matter what the spouses of party leaders wear, and, within reason, how much they pay for it, particularly since the Camerons are well remunerated for David’s parliamentary work, as well as being privately wealthy.
On another, when strenuous efforts are made for one thing to appear as something else entirely, that’s hypocrisy and it should be exposed. So when, as the Mirror reported last Sunday, strings are pulled to obtain an off-the-shelf dress that hasn’t been on the shelf for months, it’s worthy of comment in organs such as this.
Today, a story appears in the Times that deepens our understanding further, and unveils a further set of complications.
Mrs Cameron set in train a series of events that led to her getting the dress. The Mirror reported it as finding too large a dress and having it altered. Today’s Times suggests it was more radical than that:
M&S said initially that they could not get hold of the garment in store but it was believed that they eventually found a press sample.
In truth it was a practically bespoke £150 sample, not a £65 off-the-peg garment as previously claimed.
The controversial viscose shift was run up specially as a favour to the company by Amanda Marshall Ltd, run by Alison Mansell, which supplied the dresses. This was despite M&S having dropped them as a supplier in February, placing 15 jobs in jeopardy.
And a further few interesting details:
Mrs Cameron, who was charged £57 for the dress after being given a staff discount of 20 per cent, strode out on to the Conservative Party conference platform wearing the very same garment on October 8. Ms Markeviciene, who was at her sewing machine when she spoke to The Times this week, said: “It’s a great dress — it’s famous.”
A spokesperson for David Cameron stated that Mrs Cameron was not aware of the history or the fact that the dress cost the company nothing. Mr Cameron delivered his speech in a £3,500 bespoke suit from Richard James although, Conservative Central Office insisted, he paid only £1,185.25.
… which just begs many more questions! Why did the Camerons get M&S staff discount when neither of them work there? Why would M&S go to such lengths to obtain a dress, without taking credit for those lengths by telling the client? How on earth is a suit worth £3,500? Was Mr Cameron shopping in the sales to get an almost £2,500 discount? Was the difference in price declared in his register of members’ interests? (I can’t see it here?)
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
8 Comments
On the day when it was confirmed we are in the longest and deepest recession in modern economic history, this is what you choose to write about?
Smeary tittle-tattle of no consequence.
Sorry Alex, but this really is beneath you
zzzzzz – is this really of any interest?
I agree, its not of earth shattering importance, but nor was the kerfuffle made by the press about the chuffing dress in the first place. I’m getting a bit sick of this ‘first wives’ club that seems to be seen as vitally important, when its really just window dressing. Sam Cam made a play by appearing ‘one of us’ wearing an M&S dress when the reality was something out of an Ab Fab script. That’s why its interesting, but not necessarily important.
I have to admit that I don’t see why a price tag of £65 is at all significant.
As for the £2500 discount… that’ll be vanity pricing at work. A lot of clothing and high-tech retailers do this. They advertise a huge sticker price for an item, but everybody gets a discount on the order of 60%-80% off that price. Why do they do this? Because we think things with a high sticker price are more valuable. It’s a marketing trick to raise the prestige of the product. It also means each customer thinks they got a good deal. It’s deceptive but completely legal (they can’t advertise it as a ‘reduced price’ when they’ve never sold it for that amount, but there’s no rules against giving each customer a personal discount); ethically it’s no worse than most marketing activity.
Thanks for that Andrew. I shall pop round and ask for an identical suit at the identical price. When I explain that, like David Cameron, I am a politician they will no doubt provide the same deal.
If there’s any difficulty can I mention your name?
Anyone who pays £3500 for a suit is an idiot. Anyone who pays £1185.25 slightly less so.
Yes I would tend to agree with Simon and Rachel except that it was the Tories that briefed the press to make this ‘woman of the people’ personal profile story to go with their leader’s rant. Its Blair / Campbell etc all over again. am I impressed? NO…
But its the papers and the TV who covered the original story that should wise up, they’re being duped.
Marks and Spencer knew it would be hyped up in the press and that they would get a positive mention, and the Tory marketing-men knew that Mrs Cameron needs to look ordinary…”she must be ordinary, look, she is wearing an ordinary off-the-peg dress just like most women who shop at M&S can buy, so, clearly, she is no different to people like you.” Gives all the women-page writers something to talk about… thats why it was done that way. What a lot of thought and planning went into all this…just goes to show, the devil is in the detail. Slickness will clearly soar to new heights when the Tories start to spend their £50-million war-chest at the next election.
The only losers here is the firm who knocked up the dress.