Red Ken, five kids by three women and a nasty whiff of hypocrisy...
Looking hard for the hypocrisy, but can't find any.
Ken Livingstone seems to have had a far more exotic sex life than me. I've stuck to serial monogamy - four ex husbands, one current long-term partner, no kids.
Ken's had two marriages, one long-term relationship, five children, as well as donating his sperm to a couple of female friends so they could have kids.
I'm not sure how to measure 'exoticism' in these terms, but they seem about equal to me. How 'exotic' does JSP think it is to be a sperm donor?
According to Ken, all his kids and their mums happily go on holiday together.
Sounds very adult and admirable, especially on behalf of the mums. Still waiting for the hypocrisy.
Can you imagine the stink if a female politician behaved like this? Talk about double standards.
How is that Ken's fault? Surely the problem is with the faux-prudery of shit newspapers like the Mail on Sunday?
And these men say they understand ordinary female voters. Really?
Nah, they'd have to be monogamous, missionary-position-only types to understand us. Or am I not 'ordinary' enough for Janet?
Their lifestyles require a certain level of funding - one that's well-oiled.
Does she mean 'lubricated'?
This is nonsense, of course. There are reconstituted families of all classes whose various factions get on with one another. Money helps — but doesn't it always?
I'd rather hear more about how his favourite amphibians procreate than receive further bulletins about Ken's sexual journey. Goodness knows what his eldest kids think - it must be embarrassing to have dad talking about his sperm in public. If my father had done anything similar, I would have left home.
This from the woman who wrote an entire memoir, called Baggage: my childhood
, slagging off her parents.
Personally, I find this 'big happy family' malarkey a touch hypocritical.
Ah, here we go.
It's strange how young women who give birth to children by different fathers are routinely described as 'feckless' and seen as a social problem society has to pigeonhole and offer 'support' to, but if a high-earning bloke impregnates a female pal he's just 'helping out'.
Yes there's a double standard, but Livingstone is challenging it, not promoting it. You won't end the stigmatisation of young mothers by extending the stigma to old fathers.
Having several children by mistresses, friends, or whatever, is acceptable middle-class behaviour - not a sign of working class lack of morality.
It would be lovely if middle-class people were so open-minded and tolerant. Alas.
Only men with regular salaries, decent pension schemes and expenses can afford to have mistresses and multiple families on the go and take them all on holiday.
For a so-called feminist, this is astonishingly sloppy thinking. Are none of the mistresses and wives earning? Livingstone's previous partner was the UK head of Amnesty International. I bet she contributed a few shekels towards the holiday.
Extended families are not something most voters can afford.
And yet they continue to exist! What was the Tories' solution? Tax breaks for married couples. Widen the affordability gap a little more. (Give the LibDems their due, they killed the idea.)
Do these super-breeder male politicians understand the exhausting effect poverty has on these mums' lives? How can they understand the female perspective - they're busy making speeches, canvassing, furthering their ambitions and their egos - they live for work. Don't tell me they do 50 per cent of the work at home.
What's the solution then? Celibacy? Most of them probably have a cleaner — as, I suspect, do most star columnists at the Mail. Wtf is "the female perspective"? Street-Porter's argument is so vague here it's impossible to take apart.
what's needed is a fundamental change in the male-dominated agenda.
Starting with a privacy law that makes discussion of politicians' sex lives irrelevant. Hand back that fee now, Janet.