Sally Bercow: Cameron is "a merchant of spin"

The Speaker's wife gives a candid interview. Will it have repercussions?

Guest post by Samira Shackle

The Evening Standard has published a no-holds barred interview with Sally Bercow, wife of John, the Commons speaker.

Revealing that she plans to run for parliament as a Labour candidate, she gives all the skeletons in her closet a good airing: "I had no stop button", she says, describing herself as a "ladette" who drank two bottles of wine a day. She adds: "I would end up sometimes at a bar and someone would send a drink over, and I'd think, 'Why not?' and we'd go home together."

Can you hear the screeches of excitement from Daily Mail towers? (impressively, they've managed to fit all the key words into the headline - "Sally Bercow: I was a binge-drinking ladette who downed two bottles of wine a day and had one-night stands")

But, perhaps more interestingly given her husband's party alliance, she also - in no uncertain terms - sets out her opinion of David Cameron and his so-called "progressive" policies:

He's just a merchant of spin. I think he's really an archetypal Tory. He favours the interests of the few over the mainstream majority. Deep down, I do think the Tory party is for the privileged few and what it stands for isn't in the interests of most ordinary people. They're not really interested in opportunity for all. He has his children at state school now but let's see what happens at secondary level. There's not a real commitment to the state sector among the Tories. The vast majority of the shadow cabinet send their children privately.

She doesn't stop there, reserving further criticism for grammar schools: "I don't even want to send the children to the grammars in John's constituency. I'm strongly against selection, because it entrenches privilege."

John Bercow has long occupied an uncertain grey area between party lines, with many predicting that he would defect to Labour back in 2007. As Benedict Brogan points out, this attack on grammar schools will not go down well in his Buckingham constituency, where they are a source of pride.

Could it cost him his seat?

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How will Theresa May meet her commitment to low-earners?

The Prime Minister will soon need to translate generalities into specifics. 

The curtailed Conservative leadership contest (which would not have finished yet) meant that Theresa May had little chance to define her agenda. But of the statements she has made since becoming prime minister, the most notable remains her commitment to lead a government "driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours." 

When parliament returns on 5 September, and the autumn political season begins, May will need to translate this generality into specifics. The defining opportunity to do so will be the Autumn Statement. Originally intended by George Osborne to be a banal update of economic forecasts, this set-piece more often resembled a second Budget. Following the momentous Brexit vote, it certainly will under Philip Hammond. 

The first priority will be to demonstrate how the government will counter the threat of recession. Osborne's target of a budget surplus by 2020 has wisely been abandoned, granting the new Chancellor the freedom to invest more in infrastructure (though insiders make it clear not to expect a Keynesian splurge).

As well as stimulating growth, Hammond will need to reflect May's commitment to those "just managing" rather than the "privileged few". In her speech upon becoming prime minister, she vowed that "when it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you". A natural means of doing so would be to reduce VAT, which was increased to a record high of 20 per cent in 2010 and hits low-earners hardest. Others will look for the freeze on benefit increases to be lifted (with inflation forecast to rise to 3 per cent next year). May's team are keenly aware of the regressive effect of loose monetary policy (low interest rates and quantitative easing), which benefits wealthy asset-owners, and vow that those who lose out will be "compensated" elsewhere. 

A notable intervention has come from Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the Treasury select committee. He has called for the government to revive the publication of distributional analyses following Budgets and Autumn Statements, which was ended by George Osborne last year (having been introduced by the coalition in 2010). 

In a letter to Hammond, Tyrie wrote: "I would be grateful for an assurance that you will reinstate the distributional analysis of the effects of the budget and autumn statement measures on household incomes, recently and mistakenly discontinued by your predecessor." He added: "The new prime minister is committing her government to making Britain a country that works 'not for a privileged few, but for every one of us'. A high level of transparency about the effects of tax and welfare policy on households across the income distribution would seem to be a logical, perhaps essential starting point." 

Whether the government meets this demand will be an early test of how explicit it intends to be in reducing disparities. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.