I loved her honesty – she knew she’d get flak for saying what she did, but said it anyway. I think it was brave and I think some of the criticism of her has got a nasty, sexist undertone to it.

Less convinced about the wisdom of her partisanship in that particular interview but all in all I think she comes across really well.

I wonder how far she thinks she can go in the Labour Party?

A tall, photogenic woman with absolutely no connection to Blair’s lies or Brown’s miseries.

I wonder how far you guys think she can go in the Labour Party. There are still winnable seats who need candidates, and the Party will want some fresh faces on its NEC too.

On the other hand I do wonder if it is constitutionally proper for an MP to sleep with the Speaker of the House?

“Speaking as young person, it’s brilliant to hear politicians admit to making a mistake (lying on her CV) or just behaving a little big outrageously.”

No, sorry. As a young person, I am not impressed to hear that a politician lied on her CV.

That just pisses me off and makes me think “dishonest, untrustworthy; shouldn’t be elected”.

The thing with being honest is that it’s only a wise strategy if you are…well…honest.

Paul – well, the point I’m trying to make is that she’s honest about her past dishonesty, rather than just blaming media spin. I like it that a politician refuses to let themselves be defined by previous acts of idiocy. Although I do think bloggers and journalists should retain a healthy scepticism about politicians and scrutinise their claims, just because she lied 10 years ago it doesn’t mean she should never be trusted again.

Also noticed a typo, bit not big outrageously! Sorry Sunny.

Honesty in politics, yes, I like this idea.

So, the announcement by Zac Goldsmith then: “I’ve obeyed the tax laws of this country all my life” precludes him from being allowed to stand for Parliament then, does it?

“So, the announcement by Zac Goldsmith then: “I’ve obeyed the tax laws of this country all my life” precludes him from being allowed to stand for Parliament then, does it?”

It doesn’t preclude him from being allowed to stand, and nor should it. Being “honest” (defined by who?) is not and should not be a pre-requisite of being allowed to stand.

But it should preclude voters from voting for such a person.

Except of course, life doesn’t work like that.

5/6 – I thought that Goldsmith had obeyed the tax laws of this country all his life? There’s been no allegation of illegality that I’m aware of. So far as I can see his statement is strictly accurate.

Paul,

Don’t be precious, my boy. Dina’s right – and I have to say that I found that interview refreshing as well.

Didn’t ever expect to use the words ‘good article’ and ‘evening standard’ in the same sentence, but what do you know.

This was a great feminist story about a woman who ISN’T A VICTIM. Such a nice change. She is a woman who:

- isn’t a victim of the so called patriarchy
- got an education
- is smart
- hasn’t adjusted her politics to suit the old boy (sounds like he’s adjusted his a bit to suit hers)
- fancies power and a career at the top
- likes booze and managed to mention it without implying it made her vulnerable to perverts/men/men perverts

Love her. Let’s invite her out for a few steams.

… may I say too that I don’t mind Mr Sally Bercow either. He is very, very good on abortion – ie, pro-choice with a sophistication and sympathy that one simply doesn’t find in high profile Tories. I’d give him one.

“fancies power and a career at the top”

Why is this good in itself?

I can’t remember who it was that said “I want to rise with my class, not above it” (sounds like a Nye quote, but I don’t think it was); surely that’s a relevant sentiment?

9 – eww. Really?

The sooner people realise that it’s more or less standard for single people in their twenties to drink heaps and shag around – and that there’s nothing wrong with this – the better. Sally Bercow sounds like fun. I don’t agree with her politics, but what she did on her nights out 15 years ago is really none of my business.

Good for Sally Bercow. I wish her and her husband well.

Kate,

You make it sound like the voices of those who HAVE been a victims of, eg, male violence, discrimination, objectification, prejudice are somehow less valid. Personally, I know many fine, strong and powerful women making a difference in politics who have at one point suffered at the hands of men and/or a patriarchal system. That doesn’t make them pathetic victims, nor bad politicians.

Sally Bercow has no personal cause to complain – good. How nice for her. But you then go on to list a number of personal features that are less about her ‘lack of victimhood’ than, quite frankly, her class.

Do you think the two might be related?

Class is a massive factor in determining whether one will or will not feel most of the benefits won for women over the past few decades. But for people without Sally Bercow’s background and education, the ‘so-called patriarchy’ really does make a difference. None of this means Bercow is any LESS qualified to be a representative, note.

But I find your suggestion that ‘victimhood’, as you put it, makes women somehow less worthy terribly discouraging.

Tim J -

‘The sooner people realise that it’s more or less standard for single people in their twenties to drink heaps and shag around – and that there’s nothing wrong with this – the better. Sally Bercow sounds like fun. I don’t agree with her politics, but what she did on her nights out 15 years ago is really none of my business.’

Yes, this.

tim f -

Yep, as a money-lovin’ socialist capitalist feminist, I do think that it is encouraging to hear about women who want power. So much of feminist discussion atm pertains to women as victims of the patriarchy, rather than (very able) participants in it, while women who want to participate in power structures, get good jobs and earn good money (as I do) are written off as traitors to the socialist cause, when in fact we contribute hugely to it.

It is nice to hear from a woman who isn’t anorexic (or at least, doesn’t dwell on it if she is), got some book learning, and sees herself as the master (mistress? – whatever) of her own destiny, rather than as a punching bag. And sure, she needs to use those attributes to ensure others have equivalent access to education, work and power structures – hopefully, that’s why she’s pointing herself at Labour.

#15

We all make compromises with power structures all the time; I’m certainly not judging Sally Bercow (or you) for doing so. Even more so, as a man who therefore has an advantage in getting ahead in the existing power structures, I shouldn’t be judging either of you. Nonetheless I think the accommodations we all make do validate existing power structures, so I admire people more who maintain an antagonistic position to those structures more than they accommodate themselves to them. I think it’s possible not to judge you or Sally for your personal ambition, whilst not admiring you for it either (I can admire other things about you both, like her frankness or your commitment to and talent for grassroots inteview-based journalism.)

There are plenty of other things to laud Sally Bercow for (and you do so); I don’t think anyone should be lauded for personal ambition.

Also, the model you identify of raising yourself up, then using your position to help others, is one that is always going to be vulnerable to problems like the Westminster bubble & individual corruption, and relies on individuals maintaining principles and acting charitably. It’s a bit patrician. A model of rising with your class (eg relying on the working class organisation to get elected, so you know your position permanently depends on such) doesn’t have those problems.

Hey Laurie,

Am glad to see you here on this.

I agree with you totally – that women who have had terrible experiences are worth talking about, and that their experiences are worth reporting. Many, as you rightly say, go on to lead great lives in spite of it all. Like you, I know plenty of women in that category.

And like you, as a woman who has had great advantages (I come from money, was fortunate enough to get a university education through which I was financially supported, etc), I believe that I have also tried to give a bit back, in my own selfish, self promotional way. I’ve done a lot of voluntary work, played a very active role in campaigns for abortion rights, and worked very long hours as a trade union activist to the detriment of my own career advance (at the time). These days, I spend my time and money traveling here and there to get interviews from people whose stories might otherwise not be heard – you’ll note I’m running links from this blog to mine atm to stories about people who badly need public sector assistance. Don’t care if that list sounds cute – those are things that I’ve done. You’ve done similar stuff. That’s good.

What I am saying is that the other aspects of feminism – the wanting a career, good money, power, control, etc – are equally deserving of note and respect by the socialist feminist movement. I get very tired – as you know – of reading the stories about us as punching bags – we’re the raped, the anorexic, the domestic violence targets, the ones who feel they need ‘safe’ spaces, etc. It is true that some of us are those things. It’s just that a lot of us are not.

We’re portrayed utterly as the weaker sex – and it seems to me that we’re often portrayed that way by ourselves. This isn’t to say that people shouldn’t portray themselves or women that way – I’ve made the point very strongly that above all else,I believe that everyone is free to write as they wish, including you and I – merely that it annoys me because it is unbalanced and the left seems to dwell on the negative. There’s another side to the story, and that side is called ‘successful, strong minded woman.’ Sally Bercow’s story appeared to be such a story and I found it heartening. Sure, she’s a product of her class. Doesn’t change the fact she’s there. Socialism ought to be about making sure more women have her opportunities in my view.
I am not a working class woman. I am very middle class, and I like it that way. I write about working class people because I have sympathy, believe life ain’t fair enough, and also because I am a serial voyeur.

It’s never quite a case of black and white. One can be a socialist and a capitalist. One can be hard and soft. One can love power, and want others to have the opportunity at it. We all count, and that’s the point.

tim f –

Really appreciated that response – that was a good piece of writing.

You say:

“Also, the model you identify of raising yourself up, then using your position to help others, is one that is always going to be vulnerable to problems like the Westminster bubble & individual corruption, and relies on individuals maintaining principles and acting charitably. It’s a bit patrician. A model of rising with your class (eg relying on the working class organisation to get elected, so you know your position permanently depends on such) doesn’t have those problems.”

Well, I agree with you in principle, especially on the model of rising up with class – that’s why I’ve devoted so much time to trade unionism, both as an activist and a journalist. Problem is, unionism at the moment has been horribly compromised by the big-union affiliation to the Labour party (will be posting on this next week, as a Unison activist employment tribunal hearing against unelected Unison officials kicks off again). The relationship between the party and the working class organisation that puts big-union MPs in parliament has possibly been damaged beyond repair.
Still, I think the model has merit and trade unionism of some form is the answer — that’s where the decent salaries and care provisions that women need can be won. I do believe in capitalism and the workplace and the pursuing of personal ambition and requirements in it – but there always needs to be a means by which workers get the best possible salaries and conditions. Trade unions ought to be those means, but at the moment, are very weak.
I’ve interviewed a great many low paid women, and their main complaint is salary (usually already low salaries that have been cut) and the difficulties of juggling the need to earn with childcare. Westminster is seriously difficult, as you rightly point out, but you’d hope that people like Bercow would pursue childcare and minimum wage issues. She’s a bit bloody more likely to than old Mad Nads.

As I read it she’s a socialite who lived the free-loving, bed-hopping, intoxicated high-life for a while – screwed up her education – and has now decided to tap into her sexual past for some free publicity.

Now, as a single guy in his 20s in London I definately have nothing against bed-hopping women who like a bottle of red with their GnT. Nothing wrong with looking for fun rather than love. Though granted I pitty those who pass love up because it would get in the way of that lifestyle. (They don’t know how lucky or stupid they are).

But imagine if Willie Bean (recently elected in Glasgow North) had done an this interview, replacing wine with beer, and drink-buying men with drunk women. I for one would consider him just another sad publicity whore like Lembit Opik rather than a real politician who aspires to achieve something of substance.

And even then I don’t think that’s what bothers me with this interview.

I think I’m more concerned that her willingness to exploit her sexual past is being commended, and so becomes a stick with which to beat those women in Politics and indeed other careers who have too much dignity to whore their pasts to the press.

So is this not just evidence of the “let it all hang out” cult of sex-obsessed celebrity – dressed as politics so a higher brow audience can indulge?

“So is this not just evidence of the “let it all hang out” cult of sex-obsessed celebrity – dressed as politics so a higher brow audience can indulge?”

Yep, that’s exactly what it is. It was in the ironically named Evening Standard and thus was largely gratuitous shit. My point is that it was slightly better than their usual shit. I take what I can get.

Ah – I overlooked the damning by faint praise that you intended. I do apologise.

Please allow me to send a hypothetical drink your way by way of amends.

[19] are you suggesting that serial shagging and real politics are mutually exclusive activities?

#22

No.

I’m suggesting that it is undignified and tacky to to use serial shagging to boost one’s public profile and further one’s career.

I’m also suggesting that this creates a pressure for other women in her chosen career to do the same – when in fact many would much prefer to maintain their dignity and prosper or falter on their ability at that career.

And by extension I’m suggesting this is a damaging trend for women in particular rather than men – as her “honesty” is being hailed as something positive – whereas her male equivalents, such as lembit opik, are rightly denigrated as the sad column-inch chasing jokes that they are.

Oh, and obviously mine is a somewhat exagerated case. She hardly took her top off for the Sun or anything. But even so…

[23] prospective, or indeed actual MPs, are not cyphers, they are real people (or so I’m led to believe) – some enjoy a rather chequered sexual history, some even have a penchant for “cheeky” girls – so, should MPs wait until the Fail or Scum dig up the dirt or take the initiative themselves?

@23: “I’m suggesting that it is undignified and tacky to to use serial shagging to boost one’s public profile and further one’s career.”

Try:

“Boothby had a colourful, if reasonably discreet, private life, mainly because the press refused to print what they knew of him, or were prevented from doing so. Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, said in a 1991 interview with Woodrow Wyatt that ‘The press knew all about it’, referring to his affairs. She also described him as ‘a bounder but not a cad’. . .”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Boothby,_Baron_Boothby

For more:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6374107.ece

A&E

you seem to be labouring under the misconception that sex is some how chequered and thus a possible story for the Sun or the Mail.

I can tell you know there are MPs in Parliament who far from have one night stands in their past, have them now. And no one cares. The press don’t dig it up as a bad story. The only times such things make the papers are when the MPs themselves use it to get in the papers.

So Lembit Opik screwing just another pretty young researcher isn’t news. It is just something that happens every now and then. Lembit Opik arranging a photo shoot with an underwear model after smiling for the cameras with her at a big reception so as to hint at his sexual prowess is news – because it will get an entertaining caption in the celeb pages.

So don’t kid yourself the press are interested in digging up such mundane and normal sexual activity as Sally Bercow is confessing to. They don’t bother doing it for existing women MPs, and yet with few exeptions they all have what you seem to think is a chequered sexual past.

Obviously this discounts people who have affairs when promoting family values – but the reason that’s a story should be obvious.

[28] well I still remember the furore surrounding Parky following his affair with his secretary.

The aftermath is still being talked about, long after Thatch’s golden boy zipped up his pin-stripped trousers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1380529/The-only-promise-Cecil-Parkinson-ever-kept—never-to-see-his-daughter.html

I’ve never heard of Sally Bercow before but I already think I prefer her to ‘MadNad’ and certainly compared to some of the female MPs that have found their way onto NuLab’s front bench – hell, she might even a few good political ideas?

Ever mindful of its onerous responsibilities to its readers, the Daily Mail provides periodic surveys of rumours, gossip and reportage relating to Parliamentary Affairs, recent and ancient:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-384312/Sex-scandal-corridors-power.html

We can safely conclude that that survey is incomplete with no mention of Lloyd George, the last Liberal PM:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1023182/David-Lloyd-George-A-promiscuous-Premier.html

His daughter, Megan, kept up with family traditions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Noel-Baker,_Baron_Noel-Baker

The omission of Harold Nicholson MP and his wife, Vita Sackville-West, suggest serious deficiency in historical dedication on part of the Mail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Nicolson

A&E

You quite prefer her to other labour women because she publicises her shagging around in order to promote her political chances?

That’s pretty hollow and sums up my concern that the praise she gets is evidence of the “let it all hang out” cult of sex-obsessed celebrity infecting politics.

Worst of all – she could have suggested some of her political ideas – but instead used an interview with a newspaper to talk about sex.

That’s pretty shallow in itself.

And lets be clear here – while Parky did what he did as an MP and as a part of a government that promoted family values – no one ever bothered to dig up Betty Boothroyd’s “chequered” past as a Tiler girl. Because no one cared. It wasn’t news. It was a human being’s past.

“That’s pretty shallow in itself.”

FWIW my guess is that Sally Bercow did it to pre-empt the prospect of an exposé by the tabloid press – which is the reason Brooke Magnanti came out and revealed, in The Times, that she was Belle de Jour.

“Because no one cared. It wasn’t news. It was a human being’s past.”

C’mon. The tabloids wouldn’t devote so much space to romp stories if the editors really believed their readers aren’t interested. I’m not a redtop tabloid reader but I can glimpse the latest romp news just glancing around the newspaper stand in the supermarket.

Btw Betty Boothroyd was more than just a Tiller Girl. She left them to work for Lord Walston:
http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/catalog/book.htm?command=Search&db=main.txt&eqisbndata=0099427044

Lord Walston was the husband of Catherine Walston, who inspired Graham Greene’s novel: The End of the Affair:
http://www.leninimports.com/graham_greene.html

[32] my opinion on some of ‘Blair’s babes’ formed long before SB came along.

I agree most of us are obsessed with sex, so I’d be surprised if you weren’t?

Sometimes I wish there was an ‘off button’ we could press, to diminish our interest (in sex) – just think how much simpler life would be if we had this choice?

Anyway, at least give SB a chance, surely people are not so shallow as to judge her entire political career after a couple of interviews?

Bob

I just don’t buy this “pre-empt the prospect of an exposé” excuse.

Papers report on extra marital affairs from time to time to show up an MP’s hypocricy. But they don’t expose that yvette cooper or theresa may were once young and single. And why should they? We know they were. Everyone was once. It isn’t news.

The don’t even bother reporting the current sex lives of people like Lembit Opik who goes out of his way to make news of his sex life. They ignore the various young groupies he has throw themselves at himself because it isn’t in itself news. It is only when he parades one of them in front of the camera’s for a publicity stunt that it makes the celeb pages as a bit of a joke story.

So why would they have done it with Sally Bercow? Why does anyone think she would be the one in a thousand that the papers decided to make news of and expose for being a normal human being?

I mean do you really think that she, as one of the most clean living people in England now, (doesn’t drink, hapilly married) is the only person in politics to have a normal sexual past?

no chance. As I’ve said before, plenty have a sexual present and the papers don’t give a monkeys.

–

A&E

I can judge her only on her actions – and her actions so far have been to try to boost her career by whoring her sexual past. I find that, and so find her, tacky and superficial.

She could change my mind by going on to achieving something. Likewise Lembit Opik could in theory (feel a bit bad for using him as the ultimate example now, I’m sure he;s not a bad chap, just a bit of a joke in politics terms). Gordon Brown could do something amzing and make me think he was a good PM. But as things stand the only thing there is to judge her political career on is a sad interview.

@34: “Anyway, at least give SB a chance, surely people are not so shallow as to judge her entire political career after a couple of interviews?”

Follow the news: the Conservatives really don’t like John Bercow, the Speaker of the Commons and SB’s husband.

Nigel Farage of UKIP is to stand against him in the general election even though the standing tradition is to let the Speaker return unopposed at elections. So determined is Farage that he has resigned his position as leader of UKIP to better contest the Speaker’s constituency. But then Farage used to be a Conservative MP.

A challenging issue I’ve discussed in other places is why were the press so discrete about Boothby’s many affairs with married women, as mentioned @26. And the press wasn’t discrete just about Boothby but also about Lloyd George or Graham Greene and the general bedding around by members of the Bloomsbury Group, some of whom engaged in affairs which were deemed criminal in those times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomsbury_Group

One simple and credible explanation is that the circulation of most national newspapers was already declining on trend even before the onset of the current recession slashed sales and advertising revenues. Desperate times call for desperate measures but prevailing obsessional interest with prurience and dalliances, whether straight or gay, aren’t just recent. Some previous taboos about prying into and publicising private matters no longer apply.

Btw I continue to suspect SB was pre-empting the prospect of an exposé by the tabloid press intended to damage her husband in the run-up to the election next year.

“But then Farage used to be a Conservative MP.”

Really? That’s interesting news Bob. Bet Nigel didn’t know that about himself…..

[37] not an MP, but once upon a time NF was certainly a busy, pro-Thatch activist for the conservatives.

In some respects Nige was almost a ‘tory boy’ prototype, although he abandoned his aspiration to represent his first love in parliament after Major sold out the eurosceptics by signing Maastricht.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLSNzEorbI&feature=related

Hot news update:

“Commons Speaker John Bercow has insisted he was not the author of a guide to chatting up women.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8398077.stm

Farage was very much the Tory – but part of his UKIP effort is about accomodating his ego. He needs to be centre stage.

Bob.

The press were far more deferential in the past, and as such felt that politics and personal lives were very much two different things.

There is also the aspect of them being upper class professions at the time. Sexual liberation in the 60s was a largely lower middle and working class phenomenon. Sexual promiscuity and extra-marital affairs were much more acceptable in upper class circles at the time – and the culture at that level remains one of it being bad form to use that against eachother.

As for Sally Bercow – I just don’t see how it could have been used against John Bercow. I don’t see how it would lose him votes or his standing in Parliament. And I don’t see how it would have hurt him as a person since he knew already.

So why would it have been reported at all? It isn’t reported when it is any other MPs, councillors or PPC.

Margin: “Sexual liberation in the 60s was a largely lower middle and working class phenomenon. Sexual promiscuity and extra-marital affairs were much more acceptable in upper class circles at the time.”

That’s an interesting assessment and possibly true – at least in part.

We need only reflect on the extra-marital affairs of Nelson and the Duke of Wellington or the accusations levelled at Palmerston to appreciate that our social betters felt unconstrained by the impediments of conventional morality. By reports, house parties at the Duke of Rutland’s Belvoir Castle in the early 19th century were often grand romps. Gladstone had his concerns for fallen women and indulged in flagellation. Quite evidently, Edward VII wasn’t constrained by conventional morality either and nor was Edward VIII.

OTOH I’m not overly convinced that the working classes ever felt unduly constrained. The social mores portrayed in Alan Silitoe’s novel: Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1958) have a credible resonance.

Conventional morality constraining sex was mostly a middle class thing and even then there was much hypocrisy around and about to judge by Sir Richard Burton (1821-90), Walter: My Secret Life (1888), and Frank Harris: My Life and Loves (1922). By several accounts, there was much casual prostitution in London in the later part of the 19th century. Marx fathered an illegitimate daughter.

What is perhaps not widely recognised is that the supposed sexual liberation movement of the 1960s really began with fiction and drama of the 1950s. Contrary to popular mythology, almost all the liberating, iconoclastic literature of those times was originally published in the 1950s, not the 1960s: John Wain: Hurry on Down (1953), Kingsley Amis: Lucky Jim (1954), Pauline Réage: L’histoire d’O (1954), Françoise Sagan: Bonjour Tristesse (1954), Colin Wilson: The Outsider (1956), John Braine: Room at the Top (1957), Malcolm Bradbury: Eating People is Wrong (1959), and the drama of Samuel Beckett: Waiting for Godot (1953) and John Osborne: Look Back in Anger (1956).

At most, we can pick out the failed prosecution in 1960 of Penguin Books for publishing DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover as the signpost for the rest of the decade.

Bob B

You are probably right that in many regards the working classes were no more constrained in some ways – though the economic imperative for the poor meant that to risk losing one’s husband or of fathering an illegitimate child was a much greater deterrent than for the rich.

And you are right that sexual liberation started before the 1960s, though that was when it become more open – and more idealistic in terms of the free love movement, rather than more conventional extra-marital indulgence.

I would suggest though that sexual liberation as a movement was tied more to the 1940s than 1950s. The literature of the era was that of the 50s, but as with dissenting literature and movies against the Vietnam war, art tends to follow experience.

Churchill famously had his own study of morality in Britain blocked from publication when he discovered the extent of promiscuity and deviance unleashed during the war years.

I also glossed over the un-liberated nature of upper class sexuality as well. Marriage by the 1900s had become a matter of love for most of the middle classes, and had always been (to a greater extent at least) among the poor.

But for the upper classes it was often about politics an family commitment. And as such extra-marital affairs were forgiven as an understandable concession.

On the evidence from the previous couple of centuries, the lower classes would not be well-advised to learn social standards and morals from their betters.