Sarah Vine: How Brexit ruined my marriage to Michael Gove
Does Westminster make good people awful or does it attract awful people? As far as Sarah Vine is concerned, it's the former – corrupting those with the best of intentions, turning them 'mad and toxic.'
For twenty years, Sarah Vine was on the frontline of UK politics – married to former Secretary of State Michael Gove, friend (and later, foe) of the Camerons and a tabloid columnist. She witnessed Brexit up close – so close in fact, that it cost her her marriage.
In this episode of the Fourcast, journalist and author Sarah Vine talks to Krishnan Guru-Murthy about her new book, 'How Not to Be a Political Wife'. She talks about her 'crush' on Samantha Cameron and their devastating fallout, her view that MPs aren't paid enough, the pressures of public scrutiny and the emotional toll of being married to power.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Brexit betrayal is driving Tory voters into Farage's arms
Since returning to the political front line during the middle of last year's election campaign, Nigel Farage has enjoyed remarkable success in his stated quest for Reform for replace the Conservatives as the principal party of the right in Britain. The latest British Social Attitudes (BSA) report, published this week, helps explain how and why he is succeeding. Boris Johnson rose to success in 2019 thanks to his ability to appeal to socially conservative Britain. These were the voters that provided the core vote for Leave in 2016 and which now voted to 'get Brexit done'. However, disenchanted with how Brexit has turned out and deeply distrustful of how the country is being governed, over the last twelve months these voters have been flocking to Reform in ever-growing numbers. Leave voters are decidedly unhappy about how Brexit has turned out In 2019, no less than two-thirds (66 per cent) of socially conservative Britons, who, apart from backing Brexit, tend to be concerned about immigration and to take an 'anti-woke' stance on so-called 'culture wars' issues, voted Conservative. Equally, 71 per cent of those who had voted Leave in 2016 were in the Conservative camp then too. But as the party slumped to its worst ever defeat last year, those numbers tumbled. Just 32 per cent of socially conservative Britain voted Conservative, as did just one in three (33 per cent) of those who had voted Leave. Most of this decline was occasioned by voters switching to Reform, who matched the Tories' tally among Leave voters (winning 34 per cent) and almost did so among social conservatives (28 per cent). Since the election, Tory losses among those central to Boris Johnson's election victory have simply continued apace. When respondents to BSA were recontacted in March, Reform, with 37 per cent support, were now clearly ahead among socially conservative voters, while the Conservatives were well behind on just 26 per cent. Indeed, social conservatives were now barely any more likely than those who are neither socially conservative nor liberal to say they would vote Conservative. Meanwhile, support for the Conservatives among Leave voters was now down to just 26 per cent, while Reform, with 45 per cent, was well ahead of all the competition. In contrast, just 5 per cent of Remain supporters were backing Reform. Reform's support is not simply a general protest vote; rather it is very distinctively a cry of disappointment and disenchantment by pro-Brexit Britain. Leave voters are decidedly unhappy about how Brexit has turned out. In the wake of record levels of immigration, no less than 62 per cent feel that immigration has been higher as a result of Brexit, the very opposite of what most of them had anticipated in 2016. Meanwhile, in an era of poor economic performance, 38 per cent have concluded that the economy has been made worse off by Brexit too. For a minority, these perceptions have been accompanied by a change of mind about Brexit. But for others, they have served to undermine their trust and confidence in how Britain is being governed. When it was first delivered, Brexit boosted trust and confidence among Leave voters. For example, in 2020 approaching half (46 per cent) felt that little or no improvement was needed to how Britain was being governed, almost twice the equivalent proportion among Remain supporters (24 per cent). Now, however, only 14 per cent of Leave voters take that view, even lower than the equivalent figure, 19 per cent, among those who backed Remain. And a low level of trust and confidence is a hallmark of Remain voters. In last year's election, just over a quarter (26 per cent) of those who think Britain's system of government is in need of improvement voted Reform, compared with just 5 per cent of those who feel the system needs little or no improvement. The party's name, 'Reform UK', encapsulates well the outlook of many of the party's supporters. Meanwhile, the rise of social media appears to have created something of a breeding ground for Reform support. Even though the party is backed predominantly by older voters, with those who primarily rely on social media to follow the news being predominantly young, support for the party was five points higher last year among social media users than it was among those reliant on other media for their political news. Nigel Farage's TikTok posts are, perhaps, not just reaching out to younger voters after all. In any event, the challenge posed by Reform to the future of the Conservative party is profound. Not only has it lost most of the pro-Brexit vote it won in 2019, but its grip on what has long been the core of its support – those on the right economically rather than culturally – is now under threat too. In our March survey, Reform (on 28 per cent) were only narrowly behind the Conservatives (31 per cent) among this group, something that Ukip never threatened to do. Command of the political right in Britain is up for grabs as never before.
Scotsman
7 hours ago
- Scotsman
How Edinburgh helped decide Britain's relationship with Europe 50 years ago
Britain's vote to leave the European Union in 2016 - nine years ago this month - was a close-run thing and came as a shock whose repercussions are still being felt today. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... But it was a different story in the UK's first ever national referendum in 1975, when voters decisively backed British membership of what was then known as the European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market. While the Brexit result - 52 per cent to 48 in favour of Leave - reflected a divided nation and forced the departure of Tory prime minister David Cameron, the vote 50 year ago was 67 per cent to 33 to stay in and represented a convincing victory for Labour's Harold Wilson. Prime Minister Harold Wilson goingto vote on referendum day 1975, accompanied by his wife Mary. Picture: Keystone/Getty Images. | Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He had called the referendum, held on Thursday June 5, 1975, to allow the British people the say they had not been given when Ted Heath's Tory government took the country into the EEC without any ballot on January 1, 1973. Labour had made a manifesto pledge to renegotiate the UK's terms of membership and then hold a referendum to decide whether Britain remained in. It was also a way to deal with the internal tensions inside the Labour party, where there were passionate pro-Europeans as well as fierce critics of "the Market". There was much debate about the rights and wrongs of holding a referendum. Opponents called it "un-British", "a constitutional monstrosity" and incompatible with parliamentary government. But supporters pointed out referendums had been used in Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth and recalled that Ted Heath had promised he would take Britain into the EEC with "the full-hearted consent of the British people". The ballot paper in the 1975 referendum asked people to vote Yes or No to staying in the EEC | x Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Talks with Europe, led by Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary James Callaghan, did not achieve the "fundamental renegotiation" they had wanted. But they did secure a partial refund of Britain's inflated financial contribution to the EEC. They were also helped by a change of leadership in both France and Germany, rising world food prices which closed the gap with those in Europe and support from Commonwealth countries for Britain staying in. The campaign saw politicians from different parties co-operating - with varying degrees of enthusiasm - on each side of the debate. There were two umbrella organisations - Britain in Europe running the Yes campaign and the National Referendum Campaign co-ordinating the No side. There was some debate among politicians on the issue of democracy and loss of sovereignty. But polls consistently found the topics which voters were interested in were food prices and jobs. Leading Labour anti-Marketeer Barbara Castle made a well-publicised shopping trip to Brussels to show prices were higher inside the Common Market. But in retaliation, the pro-EEC campaign sent one of their members to Norway - which had voted against joining - to prove that shopping was even more expensive outside. Barbara Castle and helpers display a variety of goods purchased in London and Brussels to support their claim that prices were higher inside the EEC. Picture: Keystone/Getty Images | Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Evening News organised its own shopping expedition, running a competition to choose two shoppers and sending them to Amsterdam as guests of the Dutch Dairy Board. "I must admit I was quite shocked to see that most of their food in tins and packets with well-known brand names were twice or three times more expensive than in Scotland," said Mrs Ella Daniel, 31, from Cortorphine. "But their fruit and vegetables were about the same price or cheaper and much nicer and fresher looking, They also have a greater selection. Alcohol is also cheaper." Mrs Kathy Urquhart, 60, from Kingsknowe, said: "The Dutch also have a generally higher standard of living with bigger wages than here. But we were told they do pay a lot of income tax and have a lot of deductions for their various social benefits." Both women said despite the prices, they still planned to vote to stay in. The Trades Union Congress formally backed a vote to leave the EEC, though some key union figures backed Yes. And an Economist poll found 95 per cent of businesses favoured staying in. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The week before the vote, the Evening News reported how Peter Balfour, chairman of Scottish & Newcastle breweries, warned that leaving the Common Market would result in the loss of jobs for some of the company's employees in Edinburgh. Waverley Vintners, based in Holyrood Road and responsible for the group's wine and beer exports, would be worst hit, he said. William Reilly, chairman of the shop stewards' committee at S&N, branded the warning "a form of political blackmail". And Robin Cook, then Labour MP for Edinburgh Central, criticised employers for trying to influence the votes of workers. He cited one constituent who received a letter from her employer urging her to vote in favour of the EEC. "She was even invited to draw this advice to the attention of her family - the whole family would be voting according to the wishes of the boss. I am sure many workers will respond with some degree of sceptical indignation." Liberal David Steel in June 1975. He described Scottish anti-Marketeers as the "most narrow, inward-looking, xenophobic forces which Scotland could muster". | TSPL Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad David Steel, then Liberal chief whip, described Scotland's anti-Marketeers as the "most narrow, inward-looking, xenophobic forces which Scotland could muster". And he rejected claims that EEC membership would obstruct plans for devolution in Scotland and Wales. Malcolm Rifkind, Conservative MP for Edinburgh Pentlands, argued that if there was a Yes vote to stay in the EEC, Edinburgh should become the centre of administration for the European Regional Fund. In an open letter to constituents he said: "In our two years of membership there have already been major benefits in Edinburgh and the Lothian Region. More than £1,500,000 of grants and loans have been made available and the regional fund will ensure continuing benefits." But Leith Labour MP Ronald King Murray, who was the Lord Advocate, told a press conference he would be voting No because he was concerned about the loss of parliamentary power and because the principal aims of the founding treaty were economic rather than social or human. Newly-elected Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher with 'Keep Britain in Europe' campaigners the day before voting in the EEC P. Floyd/Daily Express/| Getty Images Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Yes campaign in favour of staying in the EEC had a lead in the opinion polls throughout the campaign. The leaders of the three main parties all wanted a Yes vote - including Maragret Thatcher, who had taken over as Tory leader just a few months earlier. But Scotland was the part of the UK where seemed to be most chance of a No vote. The SNP argued for leaving, though its slogan opposed membership "on anyone else's terms" and at least some leading figures would have supported separate Scottish membership. There had been a big debate about whether there should be one national count in London of all the votes from across the UK. Some feared problems if it was clear that Scotland or Wales had reached a different conclusion from the rest of the country. Winnie Ewing and the SNP campaigned against Britain staying in the Common Market. | TSPL But in the end, the counts were held at county level in England and regional level in Scotland and all parts of the UK voted Yes, except for Shetland and the Western Isles. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad All the counts were held the next morning. The Lothian count took place at the Meadowbank sports centre and revealed a 59.5 per cent vote for staying in - 208,133 votes for Yes to 141,456 for No. That was slightly above the Scottish average Yes vote of 58.4 per cent, but well behind the Borders, the most enthusiastic Scottish region for Yes with 72.3 per cent. The Evening News carried the result of the referendum just hours after the counting of votes finished on 6 June 1975. | TSPL An academic study of the referendum published six months afterwards concluded that the Yes vote to stay in was "unequivocal but also unenthusiastic". "Support for membership was wide, but it did not run deep. The referendum was not a vote cast for new departures initiatives, it was a vote for the status quo." When parliament met after the referendum, an MP asked Harold Wilson for an assurance he would not repeat this 'constitutional experiment'. Wilson replied: 'I can certainly give the Right Honourable Member the assurance he seeks.' But 40 years later, another prime minister took a different view and got a very different result.
Times
11 hours ago
- Times
Green firebrand challenges Corbynites: Join me in the radical left
On June 29, 2016, Jeremy Corbyn appeared at a central London rally and made an attempt to move on from the Brexit referendum held the previous week. The Labour leader was instead heckled by a 33-year-old hypnotherapist actor who, unbeknown to the left-wing activists present, had just launched his political career as a candidate for the Liberal Democrats. 'What about Europe, Jeremy!' Zack Polanski jeered. 'Where were you when we needed you?' Corbyn, brow furrowed, appeared speechless, leaving his supporters to hiss and drown out the noise. Today, Polanski is neither an unknown on the left nor a Lib Dem. The tiggerish London Assembly member is running to become leader of the Green Party, of which he is already deputy and whose politics over the past decade have tracked him in moving steadily leftwards. He is still generating headlines and posing complicated questions of Corbyn and the Corbynites. The surprising dynamic is that Polanski — a gay vegan Jew who long ago traded his native Salford for north London — is now doing so in the spirit of comradeship. Addressing the question of his transformation, he invokes Corbyn's hero, Tony Benn: he is interested in where people are going, he says, not where they are from. As such, Polanski has spent recent weeks positioning himself as the radical socialist and pro-Palestine — for which read Corbynite — candidate for the leadership not only of the Greens but of the British left in its entirety. The size and political complexion of the Greens' grassroots membership today is poorly understood (last year it was estimated to number about 57,000, albeit it is thought to have grown since) but his 'eco-populist' vision has generated more noise than his two rivals, MPs Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, who are running on a joint ticket. In the event that he wins the contest, the results of which will be announced at the start of September after a summer of campaigning, he wants the independent MP for Islington North in the tent. Speaking from the Glastonbury festival, where he is busy canvassing, and where Corbyn appeared on the Pyramid Stage at his peak in 2017, Polanski said: 'Anyone who aligns with our values in the Green Party is very welcome to join the party, and so I'd love to see progressive left-wing MPs in the party.' Does that include Corbyn? What of his parliamentary protégés, including those in the Socialist Campaign Group, the left-wing faction of Labour MPs? He confirms: 'Anyone who aligns — and I believe that Zarah [Sultana, the firebrand MP for Coventry South] and Jeremy do align with where the Green Party are — that's a decision for them.' He rattles off a list of socialist positions he would seek to enact: 'protecting the NHS'; 'building social homes'; a 'wealth tax'; and stopping the 'genocide in Gaza'. The reason such pronouncements are causing much debate, and a degree of discomfort, on the left is that it has spent the almost two years since October 7 discussing the future of progressive politics — but failing to identify a clear solution or leader before the next election. Polanski, as one Corbynite puts it, is threatening to 'eat [our] lunch'. Since last year, Reform UK has taken centre stage as the main opposition to Sir Keir Starmer and the established order in Westminster. Yet the Greens won four seats, their most so far and one fewer than Reform, secured two million votes, and came second in 40 seats. Elsewhere, disgruntled socialists and Muslim voters delivered five independent MPs, Corbyn among them. The difference is that Nigel Farage has long personified the anti-immigrant, anti-woke sentiment; is a dominant figure within Reform who has vanquished all internal allies; and has singular communications skills. The radical left has no such person. It has a more complicated relationship with hierarchy in the first instance. It is also less of the view that parliament is the only place where proper politics can be done, especially on the issue of Gaza. Parliamentary chicanery has had far less impact, and visibility, than weekly marches up and down the country, attacks on allegedly pro-Israel businesses and the recent infiltration of RAF Brize Norton. Polanski is adamant that opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza is not limited to the party's traditional urban base — in cities like Brighton and Bristol — nor the British Muslim community. He says of the Red Wall areas where Greens have performed surprisingly well — among them South Tyneside council, where they are the second largest party now: 'In fact, I think in those seats, people are equally concerned with the genocide in Gaza, and people are really affected by inequality.' The Greens — who were the first party in England and Wales to call the Jewish state an 'apartheid' and the first to say it was committing 'genocide' — has at times faced criticism for its track record on expelling antisemitic councillors, but also its focus on the Middle East. Its current leader hand-delivered a petition to her local council asking the mayor to write to the foreign secretary to demand a ceasefire, and prior to the last election circulated leaflets featuring the Palestine flag and images of rubble. Polanski is unapologetic about that. 'I think fundamentally, there's a genocide in Gaza. And actually, the Palestinian people are the story here,' he says. 'And I think often we can all get distracted by talking about groups and actions. And actually, I'd much rather focus on stopping the war, working for a ceasefire, and ending the occupation of Israel.' Adding to the complexity is the fact that many of the left's leading lights — such as Sultana — are still part of Labour, even if she is currently suspended. And others still suffer from what their nemesis, Lord Mandelson, has called 'long Corbyn': the trauma of his suspension from Labour, his repudiation at the ballot box in 2019 and the allegations of antisemitism. Still, leading figures on the left are increasingly of the view that something needs to be done to capitalise on the political moment. Gaza remains a galvanising force — and anti-Labour sentiment is not going away, either on the activist left or in the Muslim community. Support for Labour among committed progressives has fallen from 67 per cent in 2019 to 49 per cent at last year's election, and down to 39 per cent last month. Over the past week, three Greens have won council by-elections triggered by defections or resignations from Labour — including most recently its first in Greenwich. Current polling suggests that — even without a Corbynite tilt — the party would win ultra-safe Labour seats such as Huddersfield. Meanwhile, Luke Tryl, of the pollster More in Common, points to the fact that, in local elections in May, in seats where more than 30 per cent of voters were Muslim, half voted for independent candidates. Within a political tradition known for its splittism, there is unanimity within the left only about the fact such feeling demands one of three things: a new party, a parliamentary grouping or a national movement. To that, Polanski's rejoinder is simple: all three already exist in the form of the Greens. In the event he wins, he says, he intends to depart from the party's traditional identity — as a 'single-issue party' of polar bears and saving the countryside — and pivot towards full-fat leftism. He explains: 'So it's up to anyone what they want to do in terms of starting new things. But actually, I'd encourage anyone right now, whether they're a member of another party, or indeed, an MP from another party, if they align with our values, to join with the Greens.' While his party has a quixotic structure that requires leadership elections every two years and involves the grassroots in policymaking, Polanski has been unusually prepared to speak the usual language of conventional politics. He says the party needs to be less timid and to 'learn' from Farage, whose communications skills, and clarity of vision, have made him favourite to be the next prime minister. And despite the queasiness on the left about the role of parliament, Polanski has resolved, as Farage did, that all roads to power run through Westminster. He says: 'I actually have a constituency in mind, and I want to be one of the first group of new London MPs, or first group of London Green MPs.' • Baroness Jones: You're never too old to be arrested as a Green The question then — beyond the outcome of the race — is whether or not the rest of the left has a rival plan. After a More in Common poll suggested a party led by Corbyn could win 10 per cent of the vote, Andrew Murray, his former aide, last week revealed in an eyebrow-raising account in the socialist daily Morning Star two options had long been under consideration. One was Collective, a new national party founded by Karie Murphy, Corbyn's former chief of staff, whose central idea is to install him as interim leader. The other, which is nameless, seeks to create a looser parliamentary grouping of pro-Gaza MPs, possibly with Corbyn or Sultana as figureheads. Murray added that those two tendencies had now combined, indicating a new organisation could be launched imminently. For the Greens, or any new party, there is a final question. Even if the left found a way to unite, what is the best it could achieve at a general election in 2029? The idea of a progressive alternative to Starmer has acquired momentum precisely because of his rightward shift and his determination instead to court Reform votes. Yet if he continues to fall in the polls, would liberal and left voters not support him in order to avoid opening the door to Farage? More in Common says that most Green (57 per cent) and Lib Dem (51 per cent) voters would vote tactically to keep out Reform. For now, it appears that, whatever its configuration, in Westminster at least, the left is likely to remain on the periphery.
