Nobody could have predicted that Keir Starmer’s waistline would have become one of the talking points of budget week. But a throwaway comment by Peter Mandelson, the Labour peer, that he could do with shedding a few pounds paved the way for the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, to poke fun at him in the Commons, and for shadow ministers to be quizzed over his weight.

Mandelson’s comments came in the context of a distinctly less personal critique of the dress sense of former Labour leaders; he recounted how he bought Tony Blair a collection of expensive, bright ties to project “boldness and confidence”. Ties are one thing, weight another: it’s rude to so publicly opine on a politician’s size, not that Starmer could really be labelled overweight.

But, like it or not, his general observation that appearance matters in politics is correct, and one no experienced adviser ignores. Of course, smartening up or losing excess weight won’t be enough to transform an unpopular leader into a popular one. But however unfair it is, the extent to which a politician is conventionally attractive plays into public perceptions.

A study of gubernatorial elections in the US found that people’s rapid judgments of competence, based solely on the facial appearance of candidates, correctly predicted election outcomes much more than if appearance didn’t matter. Depressingly, experiments suggest that the faces perceived as most politically competent are more masculine as well as more attractive and mature.

It’s not just politics: on a media training course I did 20 or........

© The Guardian