MY first instinct was to step away from so-called “trousergate” as only women journalists are allowed to comment on how women politicians look.

But the row has gone beyond bitchiness about Theresa May’s leather leg ware and become a bizarre insight into the state of the UK Government as it tries to resolve divisions over Brexit.

The affair began when the former education secretary, Nicky Morgan, remarked upon the cost of the Prime Minister’s expensive leather trousers (£995), as featured in an “at-home” profile of Mrs May which was supposed to show how unstuffy and unschool-headmistressy she was.

Read more: Chancellor signals support for transitional Brexit period to enable "smooth" withdrawal

Mrs Morgan said that she only bought clothing, the cost of which she could “defend to constituents in Loughborough market”. Ouch.

Mrs May’s joint chief of staff, Fiona Hill, took exception to this and sent a text to former Tory minister, Alistair Burt, telling him not to bring “that woman” to a get-together with the Prime Minister that was designed to get the two sides of the Tory Brexit debate talking.

Ms Morgan is a soft Brexiter and very much out of favour. She responded angrily to this missive by saying that “no man brings me to any meeting. Your team invites me”.

This all emerged in leaked correspondence in the very week when Mrs May had ordered everyone in the Government and civil service to avoid leaking documents or face the consequences.

It’s not known who leaked the Morgan texts, but one suspects it wasn’t Ms Hill.

By now the story was running wild in the tabloid newspapers, with picture spreads featuring every outfit the Prime Minister has ever worn, each with a hefty price tag attached.

Read more: Chancellor signals support for transitional Brexit period to enable "smooth" withdrawal

Then a paper published a picture of Mrs Morgan carrying a handbag that it said cost nearly £1,000. Hypocrisy! How does she explain that in Loughborough market?

The Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, stepped into the row on BBC radio saying she wouldn’t wear costly clobber because she is “a workhorse not a show pony”.

There are two reasons why “trousergate” is not just another manifestation of everyday sexism. The first is that the Tory party is almost as divided over the manner in which Britain leaves the EU as Labour is over Jeremy Corbyn. However, Tories don’t tend to wash their dirty washing – if you’ll excuse the image – in public.

They keep it in the family, where the tensions appear in apparently unrelated events – much as they do in any family. “Trousergate” is a proxy war.

The other reason is more obvious. I mean, who needs to spend £1,000 on a pair of trousers or a bag?

I’ve never spent more than £40 on a pair of trousers, which are supposed to be items of practical daywear.

Perhaps I’m naive but I can’t imagine any readers of The Herald spending £1,000 on a bag. I doubt if even the Duchess of Cambridge would be photographed carrying one.

Of course, people should wear and buy what they want. But in an age of food banks and benefit cuts such conspicuous consumption just seems tasteless.

Read more: Chancellor signals support for transitional Brexit period to enable "smooth" withdrawal

It shows a lack of sensitivity to those very Jams – the families who are “just about managing” – in whose interests Mrs May claims her Government is acting.

Now, many people on social media have fulminated about this story, insisting that no one comments about the cost of David Cameron’s suits, though I suspect that, if he took to wearing leather trousers, they certainly would.

The cartoonists would have a field day because leather trousers are something you expect to see on ageing rock stars, not prime ministers.

The truth is that men wear clothes that conceal their personality and their wealth – the ubiquitous and anonymous suit – whereas women in politics tend not to. And why should they?

There was a period in the late 1990s when many women Labour MPs took to wearing boyish hairstyles and dark suits but most decided that it was demeaning to have to try to look like men to be accepted as equals. Women MPs dress like women and that is absolutely how it should be.

Imagine if male politicians tried to show solidarity by going the other way. They could all turn up in twee Grayson Perry frocks with eye make-up.

But that would look contrived. And no one would take them seriously. In the end this is about class not clothing. Why can’t politicians just shop at TK Maxx like the rest of us?