Postcard from Britain

The Brits, who I recently observed at close range because I was in London hiding from a certain ominous birthday, seem more interested in the US elections than we are.

Because Britain has far too much news media, its reporters compete by trying to outdo one another in the art of minutia.
Fashion writers, who have little cred in political comment, want to join in, so they come down to comparing the campaign garments of the candidates. From there they speculate on how style may affect the voting outcome.

One columnist in The Times just couldn't get over Hillary Clinton's 'revolting suit'. Previously, the columnist said, Hillary had been scoring well in 'sound greys and blacks', but in a recently televised debate, slithered south in 'a hideous, lumpy brown trouser suit with chunky turquoise jewellery, a combination that hasn't looked good on a woman since Pocahontas. Her clothes express precisely what people are suspicious of - that she is stuck in a 1990s time warp'.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, came in for a heady praise with 'his dark, two-button, beautifully tailored suits, cut with the slightest nod to retro styling and worn with the eternally crisp white shirt and shiny black Oxfords.' He looks like foreman material.

In our own recent federal election and what do we remember about John and Kevin's clobber? John donned an Akubra for outback appearances and Kevin wore some vivid ties, but you couldn't say that either of them chased votes with clothing.

And that goes for most Australian politicians. Not since the late Al Grasby dressed himself like a vaudeville performer have we managed to stir the media to show interest the appearance of candidates. Okay, so Paul Keating had nice Italian suits but he was a long way from making a fashion statement.

That our politicians pay little heed to how they dress doesn't say much for the Australian fashion industry. If fashion was making more of an impact on public perception we'd see some effort going into interpreting policy and personality through dressing.

Feeble promo
A deal that was heralded as a win-win for mankind in London, turned out to be a just-okay when you looked closely.
The deal was this. You went home and dug out all the no-longer-loved gear you bought from Marks & Spencer and you took it down to the nearest Oxfam op-shop. The grateful Oxfamians accepted the clothing from you (which they would later sell to the needy) and rewarded you with a five pound voucher for M&S. Then you bolted around to M&S (before the offer ended) to get five quid off - but you had to purchase at least thirty five pounds worth.

To me, that all sounds like much ado about not much. The Australian equivalent would be to take your old Target clobber to St Vinnies and get a $12 voucher only applicable at Target if you spent $83. I don't know how many people would participate in this outpouring of human kindness.

Another one like the other one
The recent court case won in the Federal Court by the retailer "Review" against Charlie Brown for copying a dress has demonstrated that at last the law has teeth in the defence of originality. In This case Charlie and Danny had to fork out $18,000 for being overly inspired by the Review dress.

Now I don't support copying but I question the real financial damage that is done in a case such as this, and the competence of a judge to arrive at a realistic compensation figure.

Let's go hypothetical. A designer produces an original dress. That dress is sold through the designer's limited outlets, which run it until it, is judged to be out of gas. Maybe the designer gives it another life with different fabric, but it still has sales limitations.

Another company knocks it off, probably in an inferior fabric, and sells it through a different set of outlets to a different market segment - most likely at a cheaper price. To my way of thinking, you'd have to show that the original and the knockoff were going head to head in the same market at the same time to make a convincing case for compensation. Knocking off makes people angry, damages egos and affronts artistic originality, but how much does it really cost the wronged party? I don't begrudge Review its 18 grand, and it might make Charlie and others hesitate before they knock off another Review garment, but there is more than one agenda going on here, the least of which is about monetary loss.

Another side of the knock-off saga is where a style comes from in the first place. Many Australian designers might feel faint if overseas labels rampaged around our boutiques looking for knockoffs.

By Fraser McEwing