
Michael Gove, his ambitious ex-wife and how the wealthy Camerons treated them like ‘staff'
When it comes to political memoirs, what price truth? By her own admission, Sarah Vine, the erstwhile wife of the erstwhile Tory big hitter Michael Gove, had absolutely nothing to lose when she penned her explosive new page turner, How Not to Be a Political Wife. But throughout it, lucre looms large.
Money is famously the sinews of war. It also turns out to be the force that can drive a wedge into allegiances, friendships and politics on the home front too.
For while ideas-man Gove doubled down on policy reform in David Cameron 's government, his wife and mother of his two children found herself garrotted by the family's purse strings as the couple sought to keep up with the luxury lifestyle of Just Call Me Dave and his glamorous, successful, moneyed wife, Samantha.
Despite the fact that Gove never occupied any of Whitehall's four 'great offices of state' (No 10, No 11, the Foreign Office and the Home Office), he and Vine were warmly welcomed into the PM's inner circle.
They had intimate suppers, they holidayed together, they partied with A-listers and led a life of 'unimaginable privilege and excitement'. Vine became godmother to the Camerons' daughter Florence, and they revelled in lavish weekend invitations to Chequers and Dorneywood, the grace-and-favour country home enjoyed by favoured ministers.
'The fancier our weekends got, the grander our weeks – with me cooking for the cognoscenti crowded into our warm kitchen, or dinners out in the favoured bistros of Notting Hill, Michael often footing the bill because he loved the idea of either repaying the hospitality of our political friends or impressing our media friends,' Vine writes, in extracts serialised by the Daily Mail.
'Keeping up with 'the Cameroons' became so much part of our lives that I have to admit I stopped even wondering at the discrepancy between our incomes. What made me think we could afford the same lifestyle?'
The phrase 'it would take a heart of stone not to laugh' might well spring to mind. After all, these are the people who governed us and set our taxes. But it's hard not to empathise with Vine as the financial inequality causes fault lines to appear in their friendship.
Neither Vine nor Gove was born into wealth. She writes that she found it genuinely amusing when her husband was rising up the ranks at Westminster and donors and party grandees would come to visit them in their decidedly up-and-coming first home together.
'I always enjoyed seeing the slight look of horror on their faces as they'd alight from their Bentleys and Jaguars onto the pavement, in between the bookmakers and the No 7 bus stop.'
A delicious detail that only a spouse would notice. (In a much more sombre section of the book, she recalls how she and Gove used his MP expenses to furnish a house in west London before 'flipping' his Commons allowance to a property in his Surrey constituency, and how the exposure of this in The Telegraph in 2008 prompted him to consider 'throwing himself off the ferry from Colonsay to Oban [in Scotland]')
Vine, of course, is not the first political spouse to spill the proverbial English breakfast. Sasha Swire 's 2020 Diary of an MP's Wife was a gossipy glimpse of the jolly goings-on inside the gang as her Old Etonian husband, former Army officer Hugo, signally failed to climb the greasy pole of politics.
But by contrast, Vine's excoriatingly raw account has a personal anguish and deep, complex animus running through it like an exquisite thread of self-administered poison.
Even as she strives to keep up with the Camerons' superior spending power – superior everything, according to Vine, whose poignant schoolgirl pash on wife Sam is toe-curling in its unflinching honesty ('to be Samantha's friend was very special') – the older (fatter, less achingly cool and decidedly un-posh) woman becomes acutely aware that alongside the mismatch in income was a toxic status disequilibrium.
When she accepts a job with the Mail, her 'close' friends seem a bit sniffy, especially when it emerges that she won't, in fact, be cheerleading her husband's boss at every opportunity.
'If I helped out with stuff – organising our Ibiza holidays or taking up the slack on the school run, or performing other administrative duties – it was because I cared about them and we were mates. But now the worm of doubt began to creep in: was I a friend or just a fixer? Even worse, was I… staff?'
Down the years, Vine, who was born in Wales and raised in Italy, has been called many things; in Private Eye she was lazily labelled Sarah Vain for talking too much about herself. After claims that she was manipulating her husband behind the scenes when he stood for the leadership of the Tories, her perceived wickedness was elevated to that of Lady Macbeth.
On reading this memoir, she turns out to be much more Madame Govary: a woman of vaulting ambition but (relatively) humble funds, conspicuously living beyond her means, effortfully reshaping herself to fit into a world in which she will never truly belong. (She also tells a revealing story about Michael going on a holiday to Meribel in a Prada ski jacket, despite never having skied before.)
Vine tells another story that reminds me of Conservative blackguard Alan Clark's withering dismissal of Michael Heseltine for being the sort of 'arriviste' who looks like he bought his own furniture.
Once, at a media-heavy party held at the Camerons' Chipping Norton house, Vine was 'buzzing around' keeping an eye on the food and ensuring glasses were topped up. She describes how she strolled up to Jeremy Clarkson to say hello, but he simply glanced at the bottle of white wine in her hand and without even looking at her, waved his hand and said, 'Actually, can you get me a glass of red?'
She found it hilarious at the time but looking back, it confirmed a creeping suspicion that she wasn't regarded as a fully paid-up member of the Cotswolds set, more of a server. It left its own indelible mark.
'Her heart was just like that: contact with the rich had left it smeared with something that would never fade away.'
That was Flaubert rather than Vine but the observation stands.
Our Madame Govary may not have had the underwhelming affairs described by the French literary giant; quite the opposite. She bluntly admits that politics cost her 'my friends, my sanity and my marriage'. But money was the root of at least some evil.
When Cameron decided in 2014 to move Gove from education, where he was proving to be a lightning rod for anger, Gove initially agreed to become chief whip. He then rapidly changed his mind – whether it was because it amounted to a humiliating demotion or the fact that it came with an annual pay cut of £36,000 we don't know.
Vine, however, makes no attempt to conceal her feelings. She remains furious at this 'catastrophic' dent in her husband's earnings and refers to it more than once in the course of the book.
That wealthy, entitled Cameron – who purported to be a friend – seemed so offhand about the financial impact adds insult to injury. She recounts that when her husband told the PM he had changed his mind, Cameron 'flipped'.
'He shouted at Michael down the phone, then followed that up with a text: 'You must realise that I divide the world into team players and w-----s. You've always been a team player. Please don't become a w-----.''
The rot had set in by then. They were still invited to Chequers, but the atmosphere was less relaxed. A joint holiday was cancelled when the Camerons were invited to stay with celebrity hairdresser John Frieda, or as Vine puts it, 'hosted for free.'
The final nail was hammered into the coffin during the 2016 Brexit campaign, when Gove defected to the Vote Leave camp. Cameron confronted Vine in a lift and ordered her to 'get her husband under control'. Then an absolutely livid Samantha 'let rip' at a mutual friend's 50th birthday, accusing Vine of using her column 'in a mission to bring down Dave'.
'That exchange, I'd realise later, hadn't just been a row,' asserts Vine, in the extracts published in the Mail. 'It was the final shattering of a deep friendship that had been slowly buckling under the pressure of politics.'
Politics. But not just politics. When Madame Govary concludes that neither she nor her husband was ever quite good enough 'for the public school nabobs' who made up the true inner circle of David Cameron, she throws into sharp relief the difference between the ruling elite and the rest of us – for whom a £36,000 pay cut is more than a mere detail.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Live Economy shrinks in blow for Reeves
Britain's economy shrank at the start of the second quarter, official figures show, in a blow for the Chancellor after her spending review. UK gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 0.3pc during the month, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This was worse than analysts' fears that the economy would shrink by 0.1pc and follows a 0.7pc expansion during the first three months of the year. The data covers the month when Donald Trump launched his so-called 'liberation day' tariff onslaught which threatened to upend global trade. ONS director of economic statistics Liz McKeown said: 'After increasing for each of the four preceding months, April saw the largest monthly fall on record in goods exports to the United States with decreases seen across most types of goods, following the recent introduction of tariffs.' The figures come a day after economists warned that Britain faces tax rises in the autumn after Rachel Reeves unveiled her spending review. The Chancellor has made growing the economy one of her key missions as she battles to shore up the public finances. An expanding economy would mean that she is better able to pay off the nation's debt and would improve living standards. Ms Reeves said: 'Our number one mission is delivering growth to put more money in people's pockets through our Plan for Change, and while these numbers are clearly disappointing, I'm determined to deliver on that mission.'


Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's energy dominance agenda could be ravaged by Section 899
LONDON, June 12 - A proposed U.S. tax targeting foreign investors could hurt European energy giants that operate in America's booming oil and gas sector, undermining what President Donald Trump describes as his energy dominance agenda. Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill under review by the Senate includes an additional tax of up to 20% on foreign investors' income, such as dividends and royalties. The tax, known as Section 899, was devised as a pushback against countries that impose what the bill describes as "unfair foreign taxes" on U.S. companies, such as digital services taxes. Section 899 is believed to be targeting companies headquartered in the European Union and Britain, which both have tax systems considered discriminatory by the Trump administration. The provision is a significant threat to London-listed Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab and BP (BP.L), opens new tab as well as France's TotalEnergies ( opens new tab and Spain's Repsol ( opens new tab, which all have sprawling operations in the United States. Trump, who often used the slogan "drill, baby, drill" in his election campaign, has portrayed himself as pro-fossil fuel, vowing on his first day in office to maximise oil and gas production. But if approved, Section 899 could have the opposite effect. BP last year invested more than $6 billion, about 40% of its capital expenditure, in the United States, where its interests include onshore and offshore oil and gas operations, two refineries, thousands of retail fuel stations and a power trading business. The country is also home to more than a third of BP's global workforce of about 90,000 and accounted for roughly 30% of its 2024 revenue of $189 billion and more than a quarter of its $21 billion net profit. Shell, the biggest European oil major, is also a huge investor in the United States, which accounted for 23% of its 2024 revenue of $284 billion. It invests about 30% of its capital expenditure in the country, where it has oil and gas production facilities, a petrochemicals plant, a vast retail network, liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchasing agreements and major trading operations. The United States became increasingly important to Big Oil companies in recent decades thanks to its stable fiscal and regulatory environment while other regions presented a variety of challenges. Take Russia, for example. Its vast oil and gas resources started attracting investments from many companies in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the country is now uninvestible owing to western sanctions that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Similarly, western companies have limited opportunities to invest in the Middle East, where national oil companies dominate. Europe, meanwhile, has limited natural resources and strict environmental regulation. The multinational nature of oil and gas companies means they have plenty of experience dealing with tax uncertainty, but shifting tax policies tend to delay investments. Company boards require long-term confidence to proceed with large, multi-decade capital projects such as oil and gas fields or LNG plants. The industry's confidence in the United States was already shaken under Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who in 2020 revoked a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The Biden administration also paused approvals for new LNG projects in 2024 because of climate concerns. Trump lifted the pause when he entered the White House. According to Section 899, multinational companies could face a new tax on dividends sent overseas and inter-company loans, potentially reducing profit. The Gulf of Mexico accounted for about 10% of Shell's 2024 free cash flow of $40 billion, it said in a presentation. That means that Section 899 could shave $800 million from its free cash flow per year from Gulf of Mexico operations alone. BP made about $1.5 billion in free cash flow in the United States last year, Reuters calculations show. A 20% dividend tax could translate into a $300 million loss in free cash flow. Faced with the worsening fiscal terms, companies could opt to direct funds away from the United States. Though options for deploying capital elsewhere on a similar scale are limited, companies could choose to spread their investments more widely. Such a scenario could be a boon for countries such as Canada, Brazil, Mozambique and Namibia, which have large untapped natural resources. Another option would be for companies to transfer their headquarters and listings to the United States - a costly and politically complicated option. Shell previously contemplated such a move to boost its share value, though it appears to have abandoned the idea. Ultimately, it is very likely that the Senate would push to modify Section 899 or limit its scope, given the potential far-reaching impact on many sectors. But barring a radical change, Section 899 poses a huge risk for European oil and gas giants that are heavily dependent on the United States. Achieving the Trump administration's energy dominance agenda will almost certainly require more foreign investment, not less, so if the CEOs of European energy companies complain loudly enough, the president may well listen to them. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab


The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Britain morphing into ‘National Health State', says think tank
Britain is turning into a 'National Health State', a think tank has said after the Chancellor gave the NHS a major funding boost in her spending review. The health service was the big winner of Wednesday's spending review, receiving an extra £29 billion per year for day-to-day spending and more cash for capital investment. Overnight, the Resolution Foundation said Rachel Reeves's announcements had followed a recent trend that saw increases for the NHS come at the expense of other public services. Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said: 'Health accounted for 90% of the extra public service spending, continuing a trend that is seeing the British state morph into a National Health State, with half of public service spending set to be on health by the end of the decade.' Defence was another of Wednesday's winners, Ms Curtice said, receiving a significant increase in capital spending while other departments saw an overall £3.6 billion real-terms cut in investment. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) made similar arguments about 'substantial' investment in the NHS and defence coming at the expense of other departments, although the think tank's director Paul Johnson warned the money may not be enough. He said: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up. 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' Ms Curtice added that low and middle-income families had also done well out of the spending review 'after two rounds of painful tax rises and welfare cuts', with the poorest fifth of families benefiting from an average of £1,700 in extra spending on schools, hospitals and the police. She warned that, without economic growth, another round of tax rises was likely to come in the autumn as the Chancellor seeks to balance the books. She said: 'The extra money in this spending review has already been accounted for in the last forecast. 'But a weaker economic outlook and the unfunded changes to winter fuel payments mean the Chancellor will likely need to look again at tax rises in the autumn.' Speaking after delivering her spending review, Ms Reeves insisted she would not have to raise taxes to cover her spending review. She told GB News: 'Every penny of this is funded through the tax increases and the changes to the fiscal rules that we set out last autumn.'