SARAH VINE

Every now and then, a story comes a writer’s way that, as they say in the business, has legs. In my case, quite literally.

A light-hearted commentary I wrote in yesterday’s mail about, among other things, how nice Theresa may and nicola Sturgeon’s legs looked in a photo of them sitting side by side in Glasgow, got blown out of all proportion when the usual suspects (Twitter, the BBC, The Guardian and subsidiaries) decided to take offence.

even before I had gone to bed, the fingerwagging had started.

‘The 1950s called and asked for their headline back,’ tweeted ed miliband, shortly before I switched out the light.

heavens, I thought, hasn’t he anything better to do with his evenings?

I awoke shortly after 6am to the urgent buzz of a text message. A man from BBC London: could I possibly talk to them at 7.05am about my article? I replied saying sorry, I was on the school run and then I’d be at work. Shortly afterwards This morning got in touch, then the Today programme, Sky and BBC Scotland .

A quick sweep of the internet confirmed my status as officially in the doghouse among the Twitterati. even former education secretary nicky morgan was cross with me, tweeting: ‘Seriously? Our two most senior politicians are judged for their legs and not what they said?’

Others were rather more forthright. An embarrassment to my own sex. A mouthpiece for prejudice. Trivialising politics. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

BUT then I looked again at the picture and thought: ‘Oh, come off it — what’s wrong with everyone? Why are they being so po-faced? Can’t they see what I see: the two most powerful women in Britain today having a tacit face-off via their wardrobe choices? Isn’t it just a little bit amusing?’

As to the headline, it was just a daft pun, genuinely intended as a bit of fun. Fun, remember that? While the piece itself was a slice of tongue-in-cheek pop psychology to run alongside items of more serious political analysis. And Lord knows, in these difficult times, we can all do with a laugh. I know I can.

And what better way to cheer oneself up than by having a gentle poke at a pair of politicians who obviously loathe each other but are desperately trying to pretend that everything is just fine? not since Dave and nick in the Garden of Coalition eden has such a plum opportunity presented itself.

Back then, endless pages of newsprint were expended deconstructing every nod, every gesture, every bit of fluff pertaining to the nick and Dave show.

Why should this be any different simply because the protagonists are women? Sturgeon and may’s gender is neither here nor there. After all, male politicians are routinely teased about their appearance, often in much more crude terms than any of the gentle jibes I deployed.

my own husband, for example, was once described as ‘looking like a foetus in a jar’. David Cameron was savagely mocked about looking a bit portly on the beach. And both he and George Osborne got it in the neck all the time about their thinning hair.

If one truly believes in equality, it has to cut both ways. no special pleading, no crying sexism just because you don’t like what’s been said. To be fair, I’m sure Sturgeon and may know this.

It’s all the snowflakes still stuck in a rut of Seventies- style feminism — the ones wallowing in their outrage yesterday — who need to catch up.

I could understand the criticism more if Sturgeon and may were like Angela merkel and hillary Clinton: determinedly and deliberately frumpy in order to close down any sort of conversation about the way they look.

But they are not: both Sturgeon and may have worked hard on their appearance, with noticeable results. Indeed, for both women it has become an integral part of their public persona.

Sturgeon has transformed her look over the past few years, sharpening up her wardrobe, hair and make-up. And it’s paid off: not only does she look great, she’s also brimming with confidence.

As for mrs may, she makes no secret of her love of clothes. She has always stood out for her sense of style. Since losing quite a lot of weight — in part for health reasons — she has really started to enjoy herself sartorially.

her taste is bordering on the fashionista, with her wardrobe of staples constantly being brought up-to-date with a flick here and there of the latest trends.

This month she even appears in American vogue; and in her interview for Desert Island Discs,

she chose as her luxury a subscription to the style bible.

She clearly thinks what she looks like is relevant to her role as PM: who am I to disagree?

Besides, this is a popular newspaper. Part of what we do is mix high and low, the sublime and the ridiculous, juxtaposing serious events and important campaigns — injustices such as that of Sergeant Blackman’s conviction — with less serious stories.

It’s not about trivialising issues. It’s about widening the reach, opening up debate, creating a talking point. It’s also about being honest. These two women’s relationship is a vital one for this country. It therefore follows that it deserves to be scrutinised from as many angles as possible: intellectually, politically, ideologically and, in this instance, visually.

As for the legs, how could I not mention them? The legs are the first things that strike you when you look at that photograph. It’s not a loaded comment, or a sneer: it’s a simple fact.

That, and the fact that both women had clearly dressed to impress in outfits that were, if not exactly sexy, then definitely more distracting than, say, a sombre trouser suit.

Either of them could have chosen to step out in something unremarkable. But they didn’t. And that is significant. I’ve lived politics up close. I know how this game works. Those choices would not have been accidental. The kitten heels, the just-above-the-knee skirts and carefully selected jewellery. All that would have been planned meticulously.

Whatever image that photograph projected, it was 100 per cent intentional, no accident. Pointing out that they were making the most of their best physical assets — in both cases, their legs — is not sexism, it’s observation.

If it’s real sexism you want — proper, vicious prejudice of the most misogynistic kind — allow me, if I may, to offer you a little extract from an article published shortly after my husband went to America to interview Donald Trump.

I should warn you, it’s quite strong stuff, but I promise you it’s not gratuitous.

‘As a student, David Cameron is rumoured to have put his penis into a dead pig. To outdo him as an adult, in an act even more bizarre and obscene, Michael Gove put his penis into a Daily Mail journalist.’

That Daily Mail journalist is, of course, me, a.k.a a creature beyond the pale.

I could offer you other examples, but perhaps I don’t need to, and in any case I’m not trying to say that two wrongs make a right — simply that when it comes to sexism, bigotry or any of the other sins I have been accused of, I’ve got a long way to go to beat comparing another woman to a dead pig.

I know what you are thinking: who and what might publish such an abomination? Some deranged troll, perhaps, on Twitter? A vengeful blogger?

None of the above. It was a columnist on The Observer — sister paper of The Guardian and a supposed bastion of equality, fairness and political correctness.

Seems to me that when it comes to sexism, there is one rule for the self-proclaimed inhabitants of the moral high ground — the people who know best — and another for the rest of us.