Chocolate and sex
First chocolate oranges, now padded bras. Today the Tory leader has extended his warning that all business is not good business.
You may recall that very early on in his leadership David Cameron criticised shops for pushing cut price chocolate on to customers when they bought a newspaper or a magazine. Why not, he asked, push real oranges, not just chocolate ones? He was criticised by some for interfering with business and talking about trivia. This has not put him off.
Today he has warned British companies to resist the sexualisation of products to boost sales.
He pointed to the withdrawal by BHS of a range of underwear for kids - which the company initially defended as "harmless fun" - after some mums objected to the fact that padded bras and sexy knickers for the under-10s were on sale.
"Like many parents I talk to, I'm concerned by the impact on children of the increasingly aggressive interface of commercialisation and sexualisation," Mr Cameron said. "I have no desire to wrap kids in cotton wool. Growing up is about finding out what goes on in the real world. But the protection of childhood innocence against premature sexualisation is something worth fighting for."
What's the politics of this? David Cameron is looking for evidence that he is "prepared to stand up to Big Business".
It's all part of his campaign to surprise voters and to convince them that his party has changed. It's a great - indeed an irresistible - talking point for newspapers, phone-ins and, yes, blogs too. It involves no policy commitment, no money, just words alone - which is about all an opposition leader has to offer
I'm 
Comments
Ouch!
This David Cameron seems to talking more sense each and every day.
I find it disconcerting.. After all, Tories have always been the evil party for the last 33 years of my life.
....and yes, as Nick points out, they are hollow politician words, but I get the feeling that if this approach hadn't worked so well for Tony Blair, DC wouldn't be trying it for himself.
Good on him I say, it's about time kids were left to be kids. Perhaps they'll have a bit more respect for adults and themselves when they're not expected to behave like adults before they're able to.
David Cameron has certainly rejuvenated the Conservatives. However, I have failed to trust the guy. He comes across as too phony for my liking. Of course, he can become Prime Minister. He will certainly be helped by the bickering within the Labour Party. That said 'Dave' does not strike me as a man of substance. Indeed, he looks a Chameleon.
"It involves no policy commitment"
I've really had enough of Dave not offering any concrete policies.
With the government's concern of loosing the moral high ground to the Tories, I expect that we will see a new bill to allow automatic deportation of chocolate orange pushers in the next couple of days.
Good for Cameron! I'm no prude, but I confess getting more than a little cross when I see 10-year-old children wearing T-shirts that say "Love to FCUK".
Well what exactly is he proposing to do about it if he gets in to power?
Apart from that I totally agree with him. Never thought I'd hear myself saying that about the leader of the Tories.
New blue to the core. This is old-fashioned Tory morality dressed up in a padded bra for the modern age.
The earlier children learn and begin to explore their sexuality the less vunerable and healthier they will be.
I hate this targetted approach to politics, woo some votes from the green camp, woo some votes from the prudish camp. When is a politcian of any party going to come up with a consistent vision and strategy we can get behind as a nation.
We want a leader we can trust, one we believe in. Not another populist panderer.
There is no need to object - that just gives free promotion. Just don't buy the stuff you don't like.
The 'politics' of this is not only standing up to big business, it's also important gender politics - against the sexualisation and sexual exploitation of young girls, and child abuse and pornography more broadly.
I can see why some people will think that Camerons's comments are not "hard hitting" or relevant enough but I believe he has raised a good issue - what kind of society are we living in where a respected chain of stores will sell items like these? Children are forced to grow up too quickly these days and it is up to us to protect their childhood for as long as possible. I applaud David Cameron for bringing this issue to light. We have the 'respect' issue in this country because of issues like this - children forced to be little adults before their brains have caught up!
I'm undecided about David Cameron. On one level I'm pleased to see a modernising influence within the Conservative Party and thus the hope of some kind of actual competition come the next election. Anything which moderates the party away from the mindset of the Daily Mailitants whose motto of 'I'm afraid of everything and everyone!' dominated so much of the last Tory campaign.
On the other hand I get the distinct (but rootless) impression he's Satan incarnate and willing to say pretty much anything if he thinks there's a vote in it and not much chance of having to do anything off the back of it. Could he be the most cynical proponant of empty sloganeering since Blair?
I absolutely agree with the comments about sexualising underwear for children. I grew up happily unawares until I was old enough to appreciatea understand the implications of 'sexy' clothes. Why can we not let our children be children? Must we force them to be mini me's for our own vanity, what happened to childhood where concerns included dens and dolls, not make up and peer pressure!
David Cameron is absolutely spot on here. It is good that a senior politician is commenting on what amount to a continuing erosion of the quality of our children's lives by powerful commercial interests. Moral pollution is probably even more dangerous than the pollution of the physical environment but politicians and other public figures are afraid to say so because they do not wish to be seen to moralize. I say: for God's sake let's bring some moral principles back into public life and debate.
"all business is not good business"
Surely not even Cameron could shift that far from conservative values? Don't you mean: not all business is good business?
As the father of young children I completely agree with Cameron on this. We, as a society,seem to want to make adults out of children very young and then complain when they latch onto the "wrong" side of adult life. Sexy clothes at 10, STD at 14, pregnant at 16 .... Hyperbole possibly, but helps make the point. Funny how Sweden, who bans adverts to young children, doesn't need ASBOs.
Shouldn't let politics get in the way of doing or even saying what is right
Looks like Mr Cameron cares about the small things that mean a lot when bring up children in todays blair of media frenzy. Perhaps we have a champion to say what most will not.
I agree with Mr Cameron, vehemently. It is disgraceful to see young children dressed up as slappers, its bad enough that kids have not much to do these days, with youth centre number dwindling in favour for a high street bench, it is just asking for trouble!
And who are to blame? Parents 鈥 yes, but more so by the companies who influence the people to buy the padded bras and short skirts.
Competition is good, business is good 鈥 but targeting children this way is poor show, there are other ways to make money.
Well, he's bored me to tears so far, but this issue is well worth bringing to the fore. I'm fed up of not being able to buy clothes for my 4 year old girl that don't have some precocious slogan on them.
I think early on in the Cameron leadership a Tory backbencher asked him at a Conservative parliamentary meeting: 'I believe in tax cuts, grammer schools and big business, am I still a Tory?'
One has to wonder what traditional Tory voters make of this whole approach I guess many are prepered to let Cameron do as his pleases and hope when he get's into office he will be a 'traditional tory' does not always work out like that as Labour voters found out.
I find this latest gimmick a little strange but it has done it's primary purpose which is getting media attention.
I'm sure voters are really concerned about chocolate oranges.
Come on David, stop making mistakes with this sort of nonsense and for once take the opportunity to tear into the reeling Labour Party
Many may snigger at Mr Cameron's more conservative view on family matters, but it is society's liberal views on almost everything that contributes to children losing their innocence and childhood to our perversely oversexualised society. As a mother of a young daughter I say young children have no business with 'sexy' underwear or anything else with sexual undertones. You may say Mr Cameron is offering 'just words alone', but at least he is prepared to take a verbal moral stand - something sorely lacking in British society today.
He is absolutly right. 'Sexy' anything for children (大象传媒, please stop using 'kids') is just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
I would agree. I especially hate the 'playboy bunny' icon on children's tshirts. What kind of message is this giving off??
The trouble with Mr Cameron's comments is that they are hand-picked for their media impact rather than as a reflection of fundamental values of a new conservative party.
Can we deduce from this that he wants to take on the media industry and get a ban on teenage mags or stop provocative videos on TV before the watershed?
Good for him. He's criticizing certain business practices on rational grounds, whilst specifically not encouraging legislation against them. When the media throws a spotlight over the more insidious forms of advertising, that play upon our lesser demons and irrational quirks, they discourage them.
I'd encourage a trend of politicians using their positions to draw such attention, providing they are clearly standing on reasonable ground.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with you Nick. Surely someone, somewhere has to say enough is enough... this far and no further - and aren't our politicians, especially the opposition, supposed to view our nation without the rosy tint of government spectacles?
But for sure, he will have to back it up with sustainable policies and ones that the majority agree sufficiently enough with to vote for.
Whether Cameron is doing this cynically for political gain, or because he believes in it, the additional layer of cynicism you offer is not helpful. The marketing of Playboy(TM) clothes to children for the past few years is just part of a fashion trend which reflects a growing lack of appropriate sexual boundaries in our society, and a lack of awareness of the consequences. Dressing up little girls in sexy underwear because they "look nice" requres a level of irersponsibility I fand hard to comprehend. I treat people in their 30's and 40's who were abused, and make no mistake about it, although some children survive sex with adults relatively unscarred, some carry the burden for the rest of their lives in constant anxiety, guilt, depression, inability to maintain relationships, and often picking violent partners. Get a life and find something to write about to which you have actually given some thought.
Sounds like more hot air from Cameron to me. He said that the Blair government was built on soundbites and headlines.
Sounds to me like the Tories want the whole page dedicated to waffle.
Start talking about issues that really matter Cameron!
Nick,I don't see why you should think this is "part of a campaign to surprise voters". Cameron's comments, as you report them, strike me as those of a sensible and responsible parent.
As a lifelong socialist, I find myself in the remarkable position of being in complete agreement with David Cameron. Like Cameron, I feel dreadful unease at this highly disturbing trend. I'm very glad he's said it.
"Talking about trivia ... no policy commitment ... just words alone". Maybe, but there is no question that commercial behaviour increasingly lacks morality and is socially irresponsible. If Mr. Cameron is serious about his preparedness to address this issue he deserves high praise. But I have heard so many empty words from politicians of all hues that I will need convincing of his seriousness.
Not usually a lover of Tories but it's about time someone had a word in the ear of big business (given the party that would have done that traditionally has abandoned it to become 'New'). One of my local supermarkets has sold thongs for young girls (under teenage) for a while now. I complained about it and was told they are quite popular. Now Mr Cameron needs to address why parents would be happy to buy lingerie for their 8 year old?
I enjoy the fact that Cameron is talking about subejcts that aren't strictly political but remain totally relevant to the everyday lives of most Britons. Part of the job of the Conservative Party is to look at the way that society changes and say "Hang on, not all changes are for the goog". This doesn't make Cameron a fuddy-duddy, just someone who recognises that society now operates under huge commercial influences.
Well, at last a high-up politician talks sense about something. Sounds to me as if David Cameron is slowly turning into a bit of a Victor Meldrew. Or should that be a "Grumpy Young Man"? Good for him, if so!
I can make the same sorts of comments and never be quoted in the media. If Cameron makes the comment though it will get talked about. Government shouldn't need to regulate this sort of thing and negative publicity in the media will have the same effect.
My question would be why the media hasn't been screaming blue murder about t-shirts that say things like 'Your a naughty boy come to my room' (worn by pre-pubescent girls) already?
At 06:42 PM on 09 May 2006,
alex wrote:
New blue to the core. This is old-fashioned Tory morality dressed up in a padded bra for the modern age.
The earlier children learn and begin to explore their sexuality the less vunerable and healthier they will be.
Yes, very true.
Nothing quite like lots of teenage mums for invigorating the economy.
Does he really think Tony Blair wants 10 year old girls walking around looking like this? Both men probably share the same views - but let's face it - what can they do about it?
I'll believe that any politician is putting our children ahead of big business when they ban advertising aimed at them.
It's all part of his campaign to surprise voters and to convince them that his party has changed.
Convince us or convice you Nick ?
Nothing this man does changes my mind that he changes his colour and no doubt ego depending on who is watching or listening....
I want to read about policies, not about what shops sell.
Well, it's not often I agree with a Tory leader on anything... but I also find padded bras, thongs and t-shirts saying 'Sexy' or 'Babe' inappropriate when they're marketed at eight-year-olds.
However, simply picking up on an issue which no political party has any practical means of tackling - and which the vast majority of people on all sides of the political fence are going to agree with - is pretty lazy, and it's precisely because staunchly anti-Tory voters like me are going to nod their heads in response to this one that Cameron has said it.
I'd be more interested to hear what his plans would be for the National Health Service, or tuition fees for students, or affordable housing, or the situation in Iraq (and now also Iran). Come on Dave, we aren't going to duped into voting Tory just because you disapprove of children's Wonderbras.
To Alex, I do not know how young you think children need to start exploring their sexuality but don't you think the legal age would be a nice place to start?
Tesco have 'Hot babe' on the back of trousers for 3 year olds (Yes three!) So I agree with him, my daughter is that age and I want her to be playing with dollies, not make up or high heels.
But it is really the thing the man on the Clapham Omnibus or Mondeo man is talking about? Maybe Worcester woman is - my sometime (in equal measure) Lib Dem/don't know/don't care wife certainly is though, so maybe he's on to a (vote) winner.
Nick,
There's a bit of a danger in your reporting that you assume some vast, cynical scheme behind all politicians' actions. I think this is your interpretation, and you'd better substantiate it. I'm no Tory, but DC is at least talking up stuff of genuine concern that more cautious politicians would never bother with; whatever the grounds, personal or political, it's a kind of risk-taking that deserves credit.
I do get a bit bored with the way you and your 大象传媒 colleagues report Westminster politics: it's all about games. Sure, that's the nature of politics, every sensible person knows that. But if you whip it up - you and Assinder's wretched search for the Punch and Judy vibe, the 'perfectly placed punch' of PMQs - you are directly responsible for the bloodthirsty, unflective politics of our country and our age.
Yes, it's boring for you to report without 'animating' the stories; and would be more boring if Brit politics were like Swedish, where I live. But what is your ultimate responsibility?
David is concerned about the children? I'm concerned that people still think the way he does. I thought Labour were supposed to be the tyrannical social engineers, forcing multiculturalism and PCness upon us, but here struts Davey boy trumpetting imposition of an outmoded Tory morality.
If he's sincere he's anachronistic and hypocritical. If not, well chalk another load of nonsense up.
The more "Dave" speaks, the more he morphs into "Tony".
If only I could believe that we would get a politician with the... erm... courage to tackle big business.
Wouldn't it be great if we made corperation tax voluntary.
20% tax would be written off if an employer demonstrated ethical treatment of staff (No compulsory redunancies, final salary pension scheme, Investor in people award etc.)
20% tax would be written off if more than half of the UK employees were not based in the South East.
20% tax would be written off if the company satisfied the Friends of the Earth's environmental guidelines.
20% tax written off if the company had never been reffered to Trading Standards or the Competition watchdogs and satisfied the local authorities.
and finally...
20% tax written off if the company demonstrated they treated suppliers fairly.
As the city would measures the success of a company purely by profits they would be forced to look at how a company operates in order to maximise profits.
That would be something for the crypto-capatalist debate!
Dave the Rave is really quite an idiot! Sadly, moer evidene that the Tories have not changed - just more gimmicks.
I too agree with David Cameron in this instance. Under 10's do not need padded bras or fancy knickers. They're not worn for comfort or even to be pretty but to be sexy. This is not something that needs to be encouraged in young girls.
However, I'm sure Tony Blair finds it disconcerting too. I'm sure most parents do. It just isn't something he gets the opportunity to talk about at the moment. And if he did would it be reported? We'll see how long issues like this are of Mr Camerons concern if he gets a chance at being anything other than the opposition.
Though I feel uncomfortable about even considering agreeing with a leader of the Conservatives, I absolutely agree with him as a parent. Our society is completely hypocritical /in denial about this issue - we're paranoid and terrified that paedophiles may be lurking in every corner, yet we're happy to have our children dress as aspiring sexpots.
Another post says the earlier children explore their sexuality, the better protected they will be! Can't disagree more. I don't think for one minute paranoia about 'pervs behind every bush' is justified, but I still would not allow my 10 year old daughter to wear padded bras and sexy knickers! Children are not sexual objects - and they shouldn't be encouraged to act like they are, dress like they are or think like they are. They are children - and they should be allowed to be so without greedy corporations pushing them to grow into consumers before it is right. Children should be taught that being able to have sex doesn't mean they are equipped with the emotional (let alone psyhical) consequences of doing so. If that makes me a prude, then it's a badge I will be happy to wear.
I don't find Cameron's comments particularly surprising. They are hardly an attempt to stand up to big business. And it's quite nice actually to have someone remarking on issues that have affected them directly.
The very fact that Cameron can speak from recent personal experience of buying his newspaper at the corner shop, or perhaps wandering around the kids' clothes section of BHS, is itself fairly refreshing. When did either of the Blairs do that? Not for many years, I think. And even when Mrs Blair does deign to grace a department store with her presence it would appear that a) it is usually abroad and b) she seems to have left her purse at home.
I'm not saying that things won't change for the Camerons, but at least just now they appear to have some grasp of the real world. Trivia it may be, but such is the stuff of life.....
yes, but what is he going to do about it? Pass legislation to stop shops stocking children's clothes bearing anagrams of certain swear words? Will police with dictionaries be called in?
This policy-free zone is great fun, but at some point he's going to have to come up with some serious ideas. Then, and only then, will we see how much they've "changed". Remember who wrote the true blue 2005 manifesto!
Davide Cameron raises a serious issue but I can't help thinking that anyone could have highlighted this. Its not the sought of target that you expect a potential leader to choose. With so many important decisions at stake why focus on this? Nice on presentation poor on substance (sounding awkwardly like a Labour activist).
I am not sure how far David Cameron will go with his views, but I could not agree more. As a teacher, I have witnessed the decline in the behaviour of children and young adults during the last few years and big business has in my view helped this decline.
I find it hard to believe sometimes that a certain board of directors have approved a particular advert for showing on daytime TV. This lack of morals is evident in many other areas for example designer clothes and the film censors.
This is a good game isn't it?
The environment and now "sexy children". He picks items where everyone thinks "something must be done" and says "I think something must be done".
No commitment from him, but a good way to get people on his side.
"Sensible and responsible parents" are able to speak freely if they are not intent on running the country. It would seem that those who harbor such ambitions are becoming increasingly aware that substanceless posturing is not restricted to rabble-rousers like Mr Galloway, but used more subtly can get them much further.
I know at least two otherwise sensible people who have considered voting for these 'new blues', seemingly on the merit of a fresh face contrasting well with an increasingly haggard one.
I think I can decide for myself whether to buy a chocolate orange with my newspaper, but I wholeheartedly agree on his stance on provocative clothing for children. The growing 'pornographication' of society is a very disturbing trend. Thanks to this and to certain appalling celebrity 'role models', many young girls today aspire to be pole dancers and porn stars. I hadn't even heard of those career choices when I was young, and that wasn't so long ago either!
I agree wholeheartedly with Cameron's comments but I'd need to see evidence of a fully formed understanding of gender politics translated in policy proposals to believe this is any more than a catchy headline he's heard from a passing feminist
I think David Cameron may well mean what he says - just like Tony Blair did in his earlier years.
However, I fear that all politicians end up the same after some years in power; jaded, cynical and obsessed solely with grimly clinging on to power.
Much as i am loathe to agree with a tory i do find it sad when children as young as six and seven parade around in mini skirts and make up. And why anyone would stick a kid in a thong is beyond my comprehension
DC is saying what most normal people are thinking..... what's wrong with that?
This is so cynical it's nauseating.
Pick a subject you know most people agree with you on; pick as your example something which happened three years ago; let the big bad business man attack you; but don't worry it's Philip Green so it won't upset your core business community; and then you don't even have to worry about actually committing your party to anything.
This really is the worst sort of gesture politics
what sense he speaks, kids grow up too soon as it is, however what can one do about it,if there are stupid parents out there letting their kids wear the stuff.
I'm an American and I dont know much about British politics, but I do know that David Cameron hit the nail on the head with this one. Having never gone to Great Britain, and therefore having never been shopping there, I cant really say anything solid about what trash they might be selling for kids clothes. All I know is that that type of children's wear is running rampant over here too, and no one seems to notice or for that matter care. Be it Brittany Spears or just tv itself, we have six-year-olds trying to learn provocative dances, wearing mini skirts and crop-tops yet there is not a peep from either the media or the parents who buy this rubbish for their kids. I wish Mr. Cameron could help spread his thoughts on this side of the Atlantic.
Actually... spot on! Cameron has finally stuck his neck out on something - and it's not bad either. Children need space to grow up not be sexualised.
Actually the one who's getting up my nose is you Nick. Cameron has hit a nail on the head with this one. It's sickening to see the way sex is used in this way on young kids, and on the macro level it's absolutely right that a Conservative leader is doing this. Under Thatcherism business was allowed to run 'life' in an almost unfettered manner. That led to terrible social consequences. We must have some moral leadership, and ethical judgement, that does not allow the simple capitalist market free reign to do whatever it wants.
Well done Cameron. As you will see from the above, you've got the majority behind you on this. The cynical politicos in the Westminster transmission vans are way out of touch.
alex wrote:
"The earlier children learn and begin to explore their sexuality the less vunerable and healthier they will be."
The criticism that Cameron made wasn't of children exploring their own sexuality, it was of commercial companies exploiting childrens' nascent sexuality for commercial gain.
Although I am both economically and (very) socially liberal, this is one thing which has concerned me for a while. I remember reading a newspaper article which pointed out the hypocrisy of society for (understandably) reviling paedophilia while at the same time openly sexualising children.
Whatever political gains Cameron may be intending to get out of this, I'm glad that it's been brought up.
Lots of cynicism here. I rather imagine Dave sitting at home and being a bit vexed about this issue over a cuppa with Mrs Dave, and having the idea that if he believes in it strongly, he ought to pronounce on it. What better than a politician who says what he thinks? How else are we to suss the man other than by such insights? If he thinks it he should tell us so. Trivia? I think not. If he didn't tell us anything, we'd only criticise him for it. How cynical we are. It must be that great slice of Tony pie that we're all struggling to digest.
If David Cameron is willing to stand up to business, will he stand up against the pressure from big foriegn business to extend the reach of copyright, and to extend patents to cover abstract ideas?
Big business has too much lobbying power, and is using it to stifle the next big thing that may unseat them - at potentially huge cost to the general good.
I'm with you, Hannah - what has happened to the world when soft porn magazines have gone from being something strictly for adults to something we encourage our children to identify with? What is the message a small girl wearing the Playboy bunny is giving? I'm all for children being educated about their developing sexuality, but sexualising our children (and then complaining about molesters behind every bush) is unpleasant.
Having said that, I'm glad to see I'm not the only person with a conviction that Cameron is really the Antichrist.
Cyncial as I am about politicians, I have to agree with him on this issue, whether it's just a ploy or not. I'm not a moraliser on the whole but I'm fed up with children being used in this way.
Dear Nick
While it sickens me to agree with anythign a Tory has to say after all they've done to ruin this country; I have to say there is nothing trivial about complaining about the nature of sexual underwear being marketed to under-10's. For sometime now BHS (which used to be a good wuality store) have been stooping so low in what they sell (eg: automatic fart machines at Christmas) that I didn't think they could get any tackier. But this is way beyond that, this is the sort of thing that is spreading, children are targeted as if they are adults and can make adult decisions. Dressing children in this way is sick and it encourages peadophiles..
Also, it may seem like empty words but there's not a lot else a politician can do when he's in oposition. We should be asking why Tony Blair (with 5 children?) hasn't grabbed this subject by the horns and tackled it before now. It's just another way in which this country is deameaning itself and its young people.
I was sitting outside a caf茅 drinking coffee with a friend, and this crowd of young girls floated past. Some of them were dressed in low cut jeans and short tops, and swaggered in a provocative way. Like a magicians trick, it had all the style of a performance from a barroom tease in a movie. Taking a closer look, the girls in question couldn鈥檛 have been aged more than 12. Some may think they鈥檙e educating their children, but they鈥檙e neglecting the broader context.
There鈥檚 plenty of similar examples I can think of, like people wearing hooded jackets in broad daylight. And no, it鈥檚 not always a youth style thing. They鈥檙e worn like that to intimidate people and deliberately hide identities. In the same way some punks carry guns to look cool, there鈥檚 those who carry for a purpose. While wearing hooded jackets in broad daylight might not be illegal, as with any action there are consequences.
The bottom line, here, is if you dress and ape the mannerisms of a prostitute or gangster, don鈥檛 be surprised if it gets you into trouble. Yes, inside your internal world you might be sweetness and light, but the big message you鈥檙e sending out says the complete opposite. It might not be right, it might not be fair, but there鈥檚 another side to the story. One persons freedom of expression is a rudeness to another person. Testing this edge, ultimately, does more harm than good.
I myself am only 17, but I disagree that this kind of stuff is avaliable to children, even pushed onto them.
I think it's not right when you see a 10 year old walking down the street with say a bag with the playboy logo on, or how the new idols for children these days are porn stars or even druggies.
That's just my view.
In response to George's comment: children encouraged to dress up in 'sexy' clothes, isn't that a good game to destroy childhood innocence? It makes me sad to see eight year olds strutting around in heels and make-up, dissolving what is left of their precious, fantasy-world of childhood. And considering the enormous health and financial burden that obesity is placing on this country, I think cameron has every right in suggesting that newspaper's change their business tactics to oranges and not chocolates. Good for him.
Alex wrote something about children exploring their sexuality early...
Heaven knows I'm not a prude, but there's an enormous difference between a 12 year old boy or girl exploring their sexuality, and a 4 year old child wearing a see through lacy nightie.
Yes, you can buy them. And they sexualise children when they have no idea what sexuality is - and that is simply not appropriate.
Cameron is a politician, and has an eye to the main chance, but on this he is pretty damn spot on. Children grow up very early now. Sexy nightwear for pre-pubescent children is simply not a good thing.
You may be quite right Nick about Cameron's motivations - but your rather snide comments don't help your case. Maybe David Cameron is playing a clever game - but at least he shows that he is aware of the issues - be they the environment or this - that matter to people. And what's to say that he does have some sinister alternative motivation? Perhaps - just perhaps - he is saying these things because he believes them (as much as he is aware that they may be popular with some sections of the public). I confess that I have found very little to disagree in what I have heard him say. And if, as you say, this is all an opposition leader has to offer - then what's the problem, he's just offering what he can, so why the jeering tone?
Would you rather he talked about issues such as this or followed Blair's line and suggest sending even more of our troops to their needless deaths?
I agree with most of the views presented above. David Cameron is a bit too much of a 'show-off'; but never-the-less is making sense.
I do not see what is everyone expecting from an opposition leader in terms of action? He will just have to bring meaning to his words when and if he gets the chance
I'm glad David Cameron has stated his view on this. It's about time someone did. But is this a policy or just a tactic? I fear this is more about the marketing of a "modern" Conservative party and its leader than the proposal of a workable policy. By the way, if I hear him say the phrase "it's the right thing to do" again I'll emigrate. We're not daft, so I wish the Tories would stop trying to drop it into every soundbite.
interesting call to alienate Philip Green: one of the few men who could bank roll a political party for a parliament, not notice the difference in his monthly interest payment statements AND doesn't seem interested in peerages or knighthoods.
I think the world should be thankful that there are political leaders who are concerned about such moral issues, even if they seem ridiculous to certain individuals. I'm sure the majority of people believe there are more important issues to deal with than 'moral issues', but I find it sad to think society is fighting so hard to keep morals out of their lives. This world seems to feed on immorality in mainstream society, and I for one think it's gone on long enough. When it comes to solid 'moral teachings', I find it sad to see people who would rather come out of the closet than clean it. Once again, we should be thankful that there are political leaders who are fighting for your children. (And their safety that comes with it)
Alex(#25) and Simon(#38) surely said it.
Children (and we are talking about girls here, I think) don't get the urge to "dress sexy" by walking down the isle at BHS.
It's the whole environment and culture.
And what happened to feminism...or is this all a post-feminism ironic we are going through ?
I doubt that Mr. Cameron has a solution, but since many (from whichever side of the political divide) will agree that there's a problem here, it's an easy "win win" for him.
I don't see how he, or any other possible government, can really affect this trend. The pretence that he might is a little absurd. It is a little bit New Labour !
kim
"First chocolate oranges, now padded bras."
No. First chocolate oranges, now sexy clothes for children. Why begin by suggesting his point is trivial when it is in fact series and something that few people would disagree with?
It is usually at times like these, with so much scandal and the likes going on with the governing party, that the leader of the opposition sits back and lets the other party fall apart; maybe landing the odd punch here and there. However it has amazed me just how well David Cameron has managed to stay within the public eye, even with the interesting events firmly on the other side of the fence. You may argue that the Conservative party deserve the press that they are getting after they did so superbly in the local elections. But in my mind David Cameron possesses the ability to keep his finger on the pulse of popular culture, and knows what he can say to keep himself within the central focus. Now that is an indespensible attribute for any budding leader.
The sexualisation of children is the forerunner of reducing the age of consent.'Dont they grow up quickly nowadays?'
A childhood is a human right, what's a childhood ?
That period of innocence that provides a refuge of fond memory in the storms of adult life.
Without the warmth of a childhood what cold grown ups we are becoming.
I'm glad David Cameron has taken a stand on the sexualisation of children by business. It shouldn't just be down to opposition leaders, though.
Why hadn't the Churches got together with other faith groups and children's groups to fight against this pernicious trend in our society?
Perhaps Cameron's lead will give them nudge they need.
Some politicians will do anything to get elected.
Dave's Tories are using child sexexploitation.
In a word-disgusting!
Gary
Are thongs and crop tops a consequence of global warming do you think?
These are truly hollow political words, they may have had more meaning if they had been contemporaneous to the examples David Cameron offered.
One of the main problems on this subject is the broad spectrum of opinion that exists, from the unnecessarily strict, most commonly religiously driven to the wholly liberal.
I personally feel that children are dressed 鈥渢oo old鈥, especially girls; although there will be those who will claim this is driven from the children themselves; this is incorrect it is driven by advertisers and compounded by mothers. Mothers most often are 鈥渄ressing dolls鈥 and 鈥渓iving out their own missing wishes鈥.
David Cameron, or his advisers have a serious point to make, unfortunately down to poor preparation and lack of proper research the message is lost, with most discussions being about the imperfections in his presentation.
In order that these items are launched with little or no leaking, I feel these items are not exposed to challenge and realistic evaluation; come on David take the risks or risk the ridicule.
Nick, it's a pity you don't show the same amount of cynicism for Blair and Brown as you do for Cameron.
Well done Mr Cameron!
Morals in this country have been on the decline for too long and they crossed the line when they started dragging children in to it.
We are not religious, but there is a line of decency and dressing little girls like 18 yr olds crosses it. As for young children exploring their sexuality - I've never heard anything more ridiculous, or disgraceful in all my life! Children who are exploited do not grow up to be 'normal and healthy' adults.
If the government had come up with this there would be screams of 'the nanny state' telling people how they should live their lives! What will the 'born-again tree-hugger' Cameron say next? how about some policies? of course he can't do that, he may show his real agenda!
Whatever happened to David Cameron's line that, "I believe in trusting people and letting them get on with their own lives". Surely this would mean allowing parents to control their own children and decide by themselves what is right for them instead of politicans hectoring at them?
I agree with Cameron's wider point about the dangers of aggressive, sexualised marketing aimed at the the outh market, but I feel that the public are by and large intelligent enough to make that call for themselves and draw the fine line between what they want to buy and what is "good" for you.
At last! David Cameron makes a noise about something that matters to us, the moral of this message is that business itself is a great thing but with business comes responsibility. Well done Mr Cameron, thought I'd never say it!
Interesting. I think a number of the comments on this blog show up a classic problem: even if Cameron is saying the right thing (and I agree with him), how do we know that he's motivated by the issue itself, and not a cynical wish to grab headlines?
Nick is absolutely right that it's probably the latter. But that doesn't make the discussion of the issue any less valuable. Do we want politicians we trust, or politicians that ask the right questions? Do we value them by what they say, or what we think they're really up to?
May a humble novelist, journalist, beginner-blogger, father of six and occasional guest on 大象传媒 radio programmes offer a thought and indulge in a spot of self and 大象传媒 promotion? I'll be a guest on 大象传媒 Radio Wales's lunchtime phone-in (at 12.45) debating this matter with a representative of the fashion industry. My take, in brief, is that like David Cameron I'm unhappy about sexualised clothing for young children (in fact, we're talking about girls really, aren't we?) and wish the industry would be more responsible. However, as a parent, I'm less convinced by arguments about 'preserving innocence.' I don't want my kids to be 'innocent' about sexual matters if 'innocence' means 'ignorance'. Rather, I want them to be wise about them. That means open discussion and helping my daughters in particular to understand why looking sexy when you're ten is not a wise or good idea.
David Cameron is speaking for most of us, but there being so many other major stories "out there" today (mainly about Labour) why divert attention to this interesting, but otherwise lightweight, story?
More so than the specific issue, it's interesting that Cameron isn't talking about new legislation to ban it; rather that industry and consumers should stop it as they choose. After years of "New Labour, New Legislation", it'd be nice to have a party that doesn't try to micro-control behaviour through more and more laws.
I see Blair has made light of this in PMQs. Clearly he doesn't care about it...
Are we parents supposed to feel grateful that at last a politician is 'standing up for our right to provide our children with healthy, happy, hassel-free childhoods and not have them grow up too quickly.' Count me out please. BHS had already pulled the range - he's commenting on its withdrawal after all - and was acting not in response to pressure from Cameron as he would like us to think, but to pressure from its customers. So, if anyone can stand up to Big Business, it's us, the public, not fatuous politicians like this one.
Nick, why are you always so cynical towards Cameron? This is a serious subject that deserves airing, irrespective of who it comes from.
Yes, Cameron's certainly in his stride this week, ably assisted by some inevitable mistakes by a long-standing leader.
Most of us posters are slightly off-topic here but it's one of the column-inched cultural debates of the century, so I'm certainly not going to complain...
The exact extent to which sexualisation of children should be actively discouraged has always been always contentious. Personally I find news of the range pretty abhorrent but evidently BHS must have seen a market somewhere down the line. The (unanswerable?) questions are: was there already a market of parents buying such clothes for their children; were the children themselves eager to wear such items; or was the clothing store seeking to create one?
We are aware from psychological theory that there is a good possibility that much of our sexual self develops from birth to puberty during non-sexual but bodily and interpersonal experiences, so we probably shouldn't try and limit that, but seeing just how much of this particular case is accounted for by our biological makeup isn't easy.
Perhaps one of our most effective and presecient critics of the sexualisation of the culture of young children was Aldous Huxley, whose 1932 "Brave New World" predicted by extension from the flaws in our own society that in the future children would be engaged in "erotic play" as soon as they could socialise. Key character John's horrified response to the cultural situation marks the fear we should have of it.
So, I'm definitely for regulation further than the ASA's remit currently extends (although it does a very good job in many important ways) or even the banning of advertising to children. Some kind of limitation on products actually allowed to be sold - and not just allowed to be markted using external advertisments - might also be a reasonable step to take, although of course considerable difficulties of enforcement would abound.
You're doing a great job so far with a long-needed blog, Nick, keep it up!
"Padded bras and sexy knickers"
Sounds like a new department that John Prescott could run.
So, there we have it, Cameron will in future check all items of clothing sold, especially underwear, to ensure they comply with his standards of morality. Next, he will personally MOT every car in the country, to make sure they reach his 鈥榞reen鈥 standards. Finally, he will talk to each person to make sure they understand that they are responsible for global warming. Welcome, to the fascist state of Cameron!
This is all very lovely - as a lifelong Labour supporter and a party member of ten years or so, I find myself nodding in agreement with many of the things he says almost without realising it.
Then my brain kicks in - what do any of these fine words really MEAN? What POLICIES is he going to introduce that back them up? On this issue, is there going to be a law against certian types of clothes being sold for children? Who is going to enforce it? Will company buyer have to have everything vetted by police or some new quango?
And once I start thinking like this, I do have to the wonder why the media is giving such fluffy nonsense such a flattering airing, when similarly nice-sounding but utterly impractical ideas coming form the mouth of Tony Blair (e.g. frogmarching ASBO kids to the nearest cashpoint for dropping litter etc.) are universally and resoundingly derided?
OK, so one luxury of opposition is that your daft ideas are as irrelevant as your good ones, but this is a man who hopes to be Prime Minister one day - shouldn't he start getting into the habit of not making policy off the cuff?
After all, isn't that one thing none of us like about the current government - shouldn't Cameron be DOING things differently, instead of just SAYING them differently?
Lots of (Labour leaning ?) contributors seem to be really concerned about Cameron's 'lack of policies'. The government seem to have an obsession about this.
Could it be that that's why NL are suddenly completely clueless ?
No Tory policies to filch.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but i completely agree with david cameron. But let me qualify that shocking statement - while he's right that children shouldn't be subjected to sexual imagery, suggestions or products before they are old enough to understand and make decisions for themselves, I do not see that there is a need for him to raise the issue to try and score political points.
As Nick Robinson pointed out, he referred to a BHS product which had already been removed because PARENTS COMPLAINED! This is a clear example of when people on the ground have raised the issue and made changes already, meaning there is no need for politicians to try and intervene.
DC is clearly just trying to jump on a bandwagon and get a few cheap headlines. I agree with everyone else who has said they are fed up with him having no real policies and making vaguely pleasing statements which don't actually mean a thing. Congratulate the mothers who got the result and tell him to get on with trying to do his proper job rather than pandering to the press.
It's definately a serious issue, I think people criticising Dave for this are probably just wearing their anti-tory hats. I'd never vote conservative on principle, but if he's getting stick for airing his fears as a parent, regardless of any wider alterior motives then people probably are being a bit too hard. Although he's definately a hard-line conservative somewhere beneath that colour changing skin.
Oh, Nick, the title of your blog posting got old Edna all hot and bothered... as long as the chocolate's expensive and Belgian, and there's coffee and Scotch on offer, just count me in: just look over your shoulder, I'll be there.
Well, now that I feel all let down - you spotless, shiny cad, you - I might as well comment on the subject at hand: we live in a free-market consensus democracy. The Tories ought to be proud of Blair for promulgating their sexy capitalist dream so, so well. Better than they did, in fact.
But what does it produce? We can all attest on an anecdotal level that Cameron's actually right: it produces degraded, sexualised imagery of children (as well as, some would argue, degraded, sexualised children and some pretty twisted perceptions among the downdumbed general populace).
(Cameron's hardly breaking new Tory ground here, by the way. Thatcher la neoliberaliste par excellence had her censorious Whitehouse phase and Major's family values went down a treat with Edwina.)
What does it all add up to? The ruling classes (and I actually highlight the monarchy and the politicians ABOVE the corporations and big-money interests here) need a damn good... "renewal". Edna can envisage a Britain freed from the ugly filth of New Labour and the Royal family. I've already mentioned Major - just two more cases: Prescott and Prince Charles. It isn't just a spinny case of being "whiter than white" or a little bit of "dirt" to sell newspapers. This is some serious ****, "man". These people are so removed from reality and yet so powerful, they can't see that this country is going down the damn plughole and that their pathetic, carefree, money-grabbing antics are actually contributing to it in a significant way. We make the society we live in. They least of all are not exempt. They've all got to go, Nick! Edna has spoken.
Wo is me. I've been a socialist as long as I can remember. Ever since I was conned into supporting a war in Iraq it's been a downhill slide. How can a life long socialist be persuaded to vote Tory at the next election?
I don't know, but Tony Blair has managed to do it for me. Now with Dave being all sensible and managing to pick his own issues rather than just attacking the government, I'm starting to think it's time to start deciding which is the lesser of two evils.
I find it interesting that people think that sex (like nudity) should be 'hidden' from children. Anyone who knows anything of children will realise that something hidden away and not talked about will become irrisitable to the average 12 year old. I have friends who were taught the facts of life at 6 and they are the ones who have grown up comfortable with their sexuality and decidedly not pregnant. What is dangerous is not sexy clothes aimed at children, but the combination of a sex obsessed culture with the inability of British people to sensibly discuss sex with their children or (in fact) anyone.
I agree that sexual exploitatiuon of kids is wrong but I am not sure on the statistics of 3 yr olds buying clothes. It's the parents that firstly buy them and secondly parents let them wear the items.
The only thing business listens to is money or lack of so boycott the shop and send a letter to the store in question.
The other point I would make is that someone designed it, and someone on behalf of the shop gave approval for the design and subsequent stocking of the item. Where are they now.
Of course people are cynical about this; Cameron didn't say it to the media by accident, politicians and their advisors plan lines to take in interviews.
It also shows how Cameron is targetting messages at key voters in the same way that Labour has done very sucessfully with the help of Philip Gould etc. The Tories here are targetting "school gates mums" an important sector of the population who were expected to go Tory at the last election based on previous trends but whom Labour managed to keep on-side.
The A-list is similarly to have candidates who will reach beyond the Party's base.
I'm American and live in Italy so i don't exactly know too much about English politics, but i really feel Cameron should target something worth voting for. I feel that if he wants to be appreciated by the majority he should start addressing more serious matters and when he becomes more appreciated, if he bacomes more appreciated, he will be in the position to address such subjects.
I personally am quite surprised that this subject has not however been brought up earlier. The fact is the governement and the average citizen has been turning a bling eye on the sexualisation of children for two long. Big companies and clothing brands are not the only problem. The ammount of access to pornography and other sexual material on the web is infinite. A young child has only to type the word 'but' under immages in google and will find a vast ammount of pornography. Children are exposed to many more inapropriate things and I believe the goverment and citizens should first address more serious matter such as the one i have listed before complaining about the type of clothing which is beging sold to todays youth.
Al Ainsley Green - the Childrens Commisioner for England - has said the exact same type of things as DC has said.
We push our children into adulthood too early at our peril - we just have to look at what we already have because we allow the sexploitation of our young. Increased crime, alcohol and drug use. The know it all attitude, soaring teenage pregnancy and STD rates. And then the chattering classes moan that it's all gone down hill.
Ones clothes are the outward sign of our inner being and thoughts.
Let's allow children to be just that, children. Learing and exploring to become the fully rounded and grown up adults, after all they are the ones who'll be looking after the rest of us when we get old!
Hold on, this is an old story. The picture in the press with the t-shirt "So many boys, so little time" is at least three years old. And surely responsible parents won't let children wear unsuitable clothes, so isn't DC taking responsibility away from parents? And what would he do, submit clothes designs to government approval? None of this makes sense, it's simply raising a moral panic, hardly responsible leadership from DC.
Cameron keeps side-stepping the ribbing he gets about not having any policies, and that's certainly better than knee-jerk reactions. But how about making a virtue of it? Leaders that command enough respect to have an impact just by the force of their beliefs and arguments, without being so insecure as to rush straight to their desks and start drafting new laws every time they come across something they would like to change, are exactly what we need. More leadership, less legislation: that should be Cameron's warcry.
You may say that Camerons views are just verbal but look at the debates this topic has began! Without political movement or a bill passing he's had the top moguls of big business explaining themselves (BHS etc). And if these companies have any sense they'll reduce marketing of provocative clothing aimed at children. It shows you what influence Cameron could have as the concerned parent, enviromentalist and citizen he is.
He could triumph every little issue that you or me have. This isn't a political spin as some cynicals like to put it, and he doesn't need to run a campaign and champion ideas as of yet because what happened when the Tories unveiled their ideas last election? The Government denounced them and snuck them in through the back door like encouraging people to go private and reduce queing on the NHS.
I for one can't wait to get back to basics under a Conservative Government that recognises the need for change but not for the sake of it and at the expense of things that actually work.
Shelly,
I'd hope that teenagers know all the basics and fundamentals BEFORE they reach the legal age!!! Thats half the reason we have a teenage pregnancy problem.
Girls and boys have sexual urges even before puberty, they should be prepared for them, and allowed to express them.
I'd say an open attitude towards sex in a family is vital from day 1.
Ironically this is part of the new feminist agenda. A return to the 70's notion that women (of any age) can't be sexy and be respected.
I think its a disgrace.
Oh come on... Ok, we all agree that 'sexy' clthing for those under the age of 10 is pushing the envelope. HOWEVER, just because a politician says something that the public can find appealling, it doesnt make him/her an effective policy maker. Anyone can say whats wright and wrong...can Dave make policies that meke sense? i feel he has his fingers in 1 to many of the electorates pies to be completely trustworthy
Further to my previous comment (no. 97) I wrote a piece on the subject of 'sexed up' children's clothes for the Guardian's Comment is Free website (https://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dave_hill/2006/05/post_79.html) which may be of interest to people. It's a big, important subject about which there seems to be a great deal of confusion and a whole lot more to say.
Why do you feel it necessary to ridicule David Cameron for saying something sensible? He was commenting on something which is an indicator of the Nation's morality and that is a topic which is just as worthy of political debate as Blair's repeated failures to reform th NHS or the fact that despite the fact that Brown has more than once fiddled with pensions legislation most workers can now look forward to lower pensions than they did before Labour took up office.
Good to see David getting to grips with the real issues effecting Bristish society and the economy!
I don't actually care whether DC believes what he says or means it, I'm just glad he said it... Why?
Cameron makes a comment ->
Media makes a big deal of it ->
Tabloid Media drag the whole thing out due to lack of more interesting news by doing opinion pieces ->
Majority of general public (sheep) take on board tabloid opinion that something needs to be done ->
Parents of preteen fashion queens feel pressure to restrain their childrens clothing for fear of being judged ->
Retailers amend stock based on demand (or lack of) ->
Inappropriate clothing becomes decidedly 'un-PC' ->
Problem solved,
You only have to look at topics like smoking, eating habits etc to see how much of an impact the tabloids can have on the behaviour of the masses, its scary how many will believe and emulate anything their daily rag tells them to without a second thought, I'm just pleased that this time someone that the press loves to quote has raised a topic that legitimately needs dealing with.