Mr. Freggles, an issue, as I understand it, is that a 'reported crime' can be anything from an attack with weapons to someone sending an obnoxious tweet. So the 42% rise could be very serious, or it could be mostly twittering. A more detailed statistical breakdown is needed.
"On the rise in hate attacks, police said the main type of offence seen during the 16-30 June period was “violence against the person, which is primarily harassment, common assault and other violence (verbal abuse, spitting and ‘barging’)”. The second and third most prevalent incidents were public order offences, followed by criminal damage."
Never under-estimate the Labour MPs ability to mess up a leadership challenge. When all the shadow cabinet resigned in a coordinated manner I thought for once they might have grown a spine and got their act together...instead it appears they just acted like the lemmings (the 1980s computer game) and thrown themselves off the cliff with no plan of how to fix the bridge to enable the other lemmings to get home safely.
The continuing and very boring hatchet job on Leadsom is futile. There are about ten party members on this forum, almost all of whom are voting for May anyway, and the one of two who are not are not going to change their minds. So what is the point except virtue signaling party loyalty. If this is going to continue for the next six week I think it might be time to take a break.
Scrutiny of the candidates is unlikely to cease during the silly season. Enjoy your sabbatical.
The continuing and very boring hatchet job on Leadsom is futile. There are about ten party members on this forum, almost all of whom are voting for May anyway, and the one of two who are not are not going to change their minds. So what is the point except virtue signaling party loyalty. If this is going to continue for the next six week I think it might be time to take a break.
Agreed, but what would Pasty Scott spend his time on if this stopped?
Working out the correct answer to the Monty Hall problem?
I often feel that my fully functioning ovaries give me an edge over other, fallopian-deprived F1 gamblers. As a mother, I have an instinctive understanding of aerodynamics and mechanical grip which single people and childless couples simply lack.
Third practice kicks off at 10am, finishes at 11am, as usual, so I'll try and get something up between 11.30am-12pm, childcare duties permitting.
On-topic: I agree. The PLP, after going to the unexpected trouble of a no confidence vote, appear to have bottled it.
Never under-estimate the Labour MPs ability to mess up a leadership challenge. When all the shadow cabinet resigned in a coordinated manner I thought for once they might have grown a spine and got their act together...instead it appears they just acted like the lemmings (the 1980s computer game) and thrown themselves off the cliff with no plan of how to fix the bridge to enable the other lemmings to get home safely.
To be fair I think they did have a plan. They just completely failed to consider the possibility that Corbyn might brazen out a vote of no confidence by 90% of the Parliamentary party. And by any conventional reading of political precedent this was hardly an incomprehensible failure.
Mr. Indigo, beg to differ. As reported on the Sky papers last night, it sounded insensitive at best and bloody obnoxious at worst.
I don't believe I have said otherwise. If my membership hadn't lapsed a few years ago I would not be voting Leadsom. However this should be a open and fair fight, Mrs May's attempt to constrain the terms of debate is in keeping with her authoritarian credentials. Personally I would say the election should be conducted without any additional constraints beyond those in the party rule book, so that members get the best possible look at the candidate in all their glory or stupidity, and can thereby make the best judgement.
Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?
The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.
And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.
That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.
Which is probably why some new kind of centrist party is needed. However, FPTP doesn't really allow for three parties of government.
Especially where one of them appeals broadly to the same proportion of people in every constituency. FPTP rewards obscenely any basis of support that is geographically concentrated. Given the class-based origins of British politics, that has always been the centre's problem.
I think a Centre Party would have areas of geographical strength, such as wealthier parts of London, the M3 and M4 corridors, and university cities. I don't know if that's enough, though.
Thanks Mr Gadfly. Makes it pretty clear that Leadsom said that being a mother (a “mum”) gives her more concern for the future than someone who wasn’t one. Someone who didn’t have children wouldn’t be as worried about the very long-term.
She explicitly contrasts her position - as a person with children of her own - against her opponent's - as a person with nephews and nieces - and makes the point that a mother has more stake in the future.
Leadsom says the report is disgusting but, since the report is accurate, she's saying her own words were disgusting.
This also feeds into the narrative that Leadsom says things that aren't strictly true. She denies the Times report. And then a recording verifies it.
@mrjamesob: The truth doesn't matter. Even if it's on tape. Our new politics involves saying outrageous things, sowing a seed, then claiming victimhood.
The problem for Labour is democracy. Corbyn won because the membership, old and new, backed him and as he is a quasi-revolutionary figure, he won't walk. The leadership will have to be prized from him and unlike the Conservatives who challenged both Thatcher and IDS, the mechanisms are just not there for a PLP challenge.
What made elements of the PLP act in 1981 was Militant moving to de-select sitting MPs in favour of more pro-Foot individuals and the Party adopting positions on Europe and defence that some MPs simply could not accept.
Trident might then become one of those bellweather issues which helps draw the lines.
But in the 1980s supporting our EEC membership was a centre ground issue, and opposing CND united the centre and the right. They were positions shared by the Liberals which made subsequent moves towards a centre alliance easier. I am not convinced that strong opposition to abandoning trident is a big deal for many aside from the right of politics, particularly as the LibDems are more opposed to it than is Labour.
Although 90% of the discussion, both in the media and on PB, has focused on personalities, the so-called moderate MPs have just as much of a problem through lack of any clear policy platform to bind them together or provide any sort of bedrock/appeal if they ever moved on from the Labour brand. All they really have is antipathy to some of Corbyn's nuttier antics, mostly from the distant past. And an opposition to 'anti-austerity' economics at a time when even the Tories are giving up on austerity, at least for the time being.
@mrjamesob: The truth doesn't matter. Even if it's on tape. Our new politics involves saying outrageous things, sowing a seed, then claiming victimhood.
The USA has Trump. We have Leadsom
It comes to something when you quote approvingly self proclaimed champagne socialists
Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.
- Not sticking to spending limits - Cooperating with other parties - ignoring offensive behavior by supporters on social media - Not staying within limits of acceptable political debate - not doing what's right for the party & country
Are you suggesting Angela needs to do this to win?
Cooperating with people is often a good idea, including supporters of other political parties. Who came up with this idiocy, and why would anyone sign up to it?
There are many reasons to co-operate with other parties or members of other parties, but to win an internal party contest isn't one of them.
As a democratic party I would assume if the members didn't approve of the cooperation would be demonstrated in their votes, if they did approve then it isn't an issue for them.
We appear to be having a coded discussion at the moment on this forum which in plaintext would seem to read "PB Tories don't trust Tory Party members to make the right choice"
If a candidate wants to run on a platform of greater or lesser co-operation with other parties then that's fine and for the members to approve or reject, but excessive co-operation with non-members, and any co-operation with members of other parties, undermines the basis of internal democracy and opens up the contest to infiltration.
Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?
The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.
And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.
That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.
Which is probably why some new kind of centrist party is needed. However, FPTP doesn't really allow for three parties of government.
Especially where one of them appeals broadly to the same proportion of people in every constituency. FPTP rewards obscenely any basis of support that is geographically concentrated. Given the class-based origins of British politics, that has always been the centre's problem.
I think a Centre Party would have areas of geographical strength, such as wealthier parts of London, the M3 and M4 corridors, and university cities. I don't know if that's enough, though.
3 or more parties is quite viable under FPTP if the geographical distribution of the party supporters varies considerably, leaving most seats as either safe seats or 2 way marginals.
Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.
- Not sticking to spending limits - Cooperating with other parties - ignoring offensive behavior by supporters on social media - Not staying within limits of acceptable political debate - not doing what's right for the party & country
Are you suggesting Angela needs to do this to win?
Cooperating with people is often a good idea, including supporters of other political parties. Who came up with this idiocy, and why would anyone sign up to it?
There are many reasons to co-operate with other parties or members of other parties, but to win an internal party contest isn't one of them.
As a democratic party I would assume if the members didn't approve of the cooperation would be demonstrated in their votes, if they did approve then it isn't an issue for them.
We appear to be having a coded discussion at the moment on this forum which in plaintext would seem to read "PB Tories don't trust Tory Party members to make the right choice"
If a candidate wants to run on a platform of greater or lesser co-operation with other parties then that's fine and for the members to approve or reject, but excessive co-operation with non-members, and any co-operation with members of other parties, undermines the basis of internal democracy and opens up the contest to infiltration.
Mr. Indigo, must admit, being in agreement with James O'Brien does make me wonder if I'm wrong. [I'm not, he's a stopped clock who happens to be telling the right time].
Mr. W, said it before, May not picking Gove may come back to haunt her.
Unless the full transcript / audio is released here are a lot of unanswered questions.
If Leadsom just mentioned May out of the blue she is in trouble, if the preceding questions before the released portion of the transcript were the journalist mentioning that May doesn't have children then that is an entirely different spin on things
I have posted the relevant audio extract below, but here it is again...
There is no need to sign up to Dropbox. Just click No thanks, continue to view, then press the Play button...
I want to hear the questions before that. I don't doubt the accuracy of the transcript or recording (only a crazy person would) but it needs to be in the context of the previous questions.
Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?
The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.
And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.
That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.
Which is probably why some new kind of centrist party is needed. However, FPTP doesn't really allow for three parties of government.
Especially where one of them appeals broadly to the same proportion of people in every constituency. FPTP rewards obscenely any basis of support that is geographically concentrated. Given the class-based origins of British politics, that has always been the centre's problem.
I think a Centre Party would have areas of geographical strength, such as wealthier parts of London, the M3 and M4 corridors, and university cities. I don't know if that's enough, though.
You're basically describing the 50-odd seats the LibDems won last time, plus maybe another 20-30 targets. Part of the constituency involved is students, hence why LibDems are trying to rebuild their support with the educated young on the back of the EUref. But of course Corbyn's politics competes for the same constituency. The other part of that constituency is what one might describe as Guardian-reading waitrose shoppers, where Corbyn also has an appeal.
Part of the issue is that Corbyn may have been largely ineffectual but, unlike the 1980s, he has not yet actually saddled labour with anything in policy terms that many so-called ordinary people would see as off the scale. In a sense, the Rebels have acted too early...rebels without a cause (or a leader). And the stances Labour has that have turned away a lot of their core wwc support are those of the 'moderates' as much if not more than the corbynistas.
Just logged on and I'm open-mouthed at Leadsom's comments. What was that bit about "my children will have children"? How does she knew that they won't be gay, infertile or not have children by choice?
Because in any of those cases, they'll be no children of hers.
Just logged on and I'm open-mouthed at Leadsom's comments. What was that bit about "my children will have children"? How does she knew that they won't be gay, infertile or not have children by choice?
Because in any of those cases, they'll be no children of hers.
She sounds like one of those mothers you avoid at the school gates.
Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.
- Not sticking to spending limits - Cooperating with other parties - ignoring offensive behavior by supporters on social media - Not staying within limits of acceptable political debate - not doing what's right for the party & country
Are you suggesting Angela needs to do this to win?
Cooperating with people is often a good idea, including supporters of other political parties. Who came up with this idiocy, and why would anyone sign up to it?
There are many reasons to co-operate with other parties or members of other parties, but to win an internal party contest isn't one of them.
As a democratic party I would assume if the members didn't approve of the cooperation would be demonstrated in their votes, if they did approve then it isn't an issue for them.
We appear to be having a coded discussion at the moment on this forum which in plaintext would seem to read "PB Tories don't trust Tory Party members to make the right choice"
If a candidate wants to run on a platform of greater or lesser co-operation with other parties then that's fine and for the members to approve or reject, but excessive co-operation with non-members, and any co-operation with members of other parties, undermines the basis of internal democracy and opens up the contest to infiltration.
As with Labour.
Well indeed - but we weren't daft enough to change our rules as if to encourage it.
Mr. Indigo, must admit, being in agreement with James O'Brien does make me wonder if I'm wrong. [I'm not, he's a stopped clock who happens to be telling the right time].
Mr. W, said it before, May not picking Gove may come back to haunt her.
Events illustrate Boris's dilemma in needing Leadsom's support but knowing she isn't up to a top job. And then his personal opportunism in going on to back her for an even bigger job.
Unless the full transcript / audio is released here are a lot of unanswered questions.
If Leadsom just mentioned May out of the blue she is in trouble, if the preceding questions before the released portion of the transcript were the journalist mentioning that May doesn't have children then that is an entirely different spin on things
I have posted the relevant audio extract below, but here it is again...
There is no need to sign up to Dropbox. Just click No thanks, continue to view, then press the Play button...
I want to hear the questions before that. I don't doubt the accuracy of the transcript or recording (only a crazy person would) but it needs to be in the context of the previous questions.
Being able to respond to difficult questions in a way that doesn't offend is part of the skill of being PM.
Leadsoms defense is either that she is nasty and meant every word she said or that she is too incompetent and thoughtless to be able to answer a question without thinking through the implications of what she said.
The most perplexing aspect of #babygate is Leadsom's total incompetence :
1. Potential hostile interview - risky option. 2. Not taking a media adviser with her. 3. Being drawn into May's childless situation 4. Denying the quotes when tapes were being taken. 5. Taking to social media. 6. Doubling down on the whole fiasco.
Naive and crushingly stupid in equal measure. Just what we need from a PM in a few weeks time.
@mrjamesob: The truth doesn't matter. Even if it's on tape. Our new politics involves saying outrageous things, sowing a seed, then claiming victimhood.
The USA has Trump. We have Leadsom
+ win a referendum on the basis of pledging £350 million a week for the NHS and an end to mass migration - and then when won, forget that you ever said you were going to do either. Indeed it's the age of post-truth politics.
It is much better for the leader of a major political party to have had children. One only needs to look at Germany (today and 75 years ago) or the UK of 45 years ago, to see the negative consequences of being led by those who haven't. Writing as someone who doesn't have any, having children makes one think twice about the future.
Mr. B2, Boris has many qualities. Not sure strategic thinking is amongst them. Perhaps Eton ought to include it as a new subject, given Cameron's ropey in that regard as well.
@NickBolesMP: 2 days ago I was pilloried for suggesting Conservative MPs should vote tactically to stop @leadsom4leader. Wasn't such a bad idea was it?
Mr. Indigo, beg to differ. As reported on the Sky papers last night, it sounded insensitive at best and bloody obnoxious at worst.
I don't believe I have said otherwise. If my membership hadn't lapsed a few years ago I would not be voting Leadsom. However this should be a open and fair fight, Mrs May's attempt to constrain the terms of debate is in keeping with her authoritarian credentials. Personally I would say the election should be conducted without any additional constraints beyond those in the party rule book, so that members get the best possible look at the candidate in all their glory or stupidity, and can thereby make the best judgement.
I quite agree. PB is in danger of becoming an echo chamber over the Tory contest, and that doesn't make for interesting reading or a helpful barometer of opinion.
The endless sledging adds nothing, and puts off those with an alternative viewpoint from expressing it.
My vote is undecided, and it's not endearing me to TeamMay at all.
Didn't Liz Kendall get attacked for being childless during the Jezza triumph? Mind you, she got attacked for being female too by some elements of the progressive party.
I find both candidates uninspiring but I'm not that bothered.
May as PM will be Sadiq Khan in a frock; don't rock the boat and be all things to all men.
Leadsom may have more brain cells but she's not a politician. You don't insult your opponent directly, you get someone else to do it.
Lawyers may be the scum of the earth (sorry, Mr Meeks), but journalists and politicians rank hardly above them.
Nothing like a good generalisation is there. But May winning would be a triumph of style over substance. She'll use the impending Brexit to blame it for any cock-ups. Jezza has much more substance, but he's barmy.
Just logged on and I'm open-mouthed at Leadsom's comments. What was that bit about "my children will have children"? How does she knew that they won't be gay, infertile or not have children by choice?
Because in any of those cases, they'll be no children of hers.
She sounds like one of those mothers you avoid at the school gates.
I'd really like to know what her attitude to fathers is. AIUI her husband is a house-husband - as such, does she think the same applies to him more than her? After all, he'd spend more time with the kids.
Mr. Freggles, an issue, as I understand it, is that a 'reported crime' can be anything from an attack with weapons to someone sending an obnoxious tweet. So the 42% rise could be very serious, or it could be mostly twittering. A more detailed statistical breakdown is needed.
I find this notion of the police monitoring Twitter absolutely bizarre. Is bad manners really a crime?
It is much better for the leader of a major political party to have had children. One only needs to look at Germany (today and 75 years ago) or the UK of 45 years ago, to see the negative consequences of being led by those who haven't. Writing as someone who doesn't have any, having children makes one think twice about the future.
Just off the top of my head: Stalin, Sadam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi all had children.
Unless the full transcript / audio is released here are a lot of unanswered questions.
If Leadsom just mentioned May out of the blue she is in trouble, if the preceding questions before the released portion of the transcript were the journalist mentioning that May doesn't have children then that is an entirely different spin on things
I have posted the relevant audio extract below, but here it is again...
There is no need to sign up to Dropbox. Just click No thanks, continue to view, then press the Play button...
I want to hear the questions before that. I don't doubt the accuracy of the transcript or recording (only a crazy person would) but it needs to be in the context of the previous questions.
Agree with that. But I don't have a vote in the contest.
Didn't Liz Kendall get attacked for being childless during the Jezza triumph? Mind you, she got attacked for being female too by some elements of the progressive party.
I find both candidates uninspiring but I'm not that bothered.
May as PM will be Sadiq Khan in a frock; don't rock the boat and be all things to all men.
Leadsom may have more brain cells but she's not a politician. You don't insult your opponent directly, you get someone else to do it.
Lawyers may be the scum of the earth (sorry, Mr Meeks), but journalists and politicians rank hardly above them.
Nothing like a good generalisation is there. But May winning would be a triumph of style over substance. She'll use the impending Brexit to blame it for any cock-ups. Jezza has much more substance, but he's barmy.
Wasn't quite the same in Kendall's case. It was one of Yvette Cooper's backers who gave it as the reason for supporting her, rather than coming from the mouth of Yvette herself.
Question: If Leadsom withdraws now, what happens? May is PM, or Gove replaces Leadsom in the members' ballot?
It'd be the Board's decision but I think they'd have to decide between a confirmation 'one candidate' exercise, no member involvement, and Leadsom being on the paper. I don't think Gove being on is possible.
@RSylvesterTimes: At Broadcasting House for @BBCr4today to discuss Andrea Leadsom comments on motherhood in my interview with her. Hear the audio at 7.30 am
Leadsom dug herself a small hole in the interview "motherhood" - then dug herself a huge hole on Twittet "the press lied".
The former might have blown over with a contrite clarification - the latter won't. It's either her or the Times.
The Times have a transcript, but have only released one portion of it. That suggests they think they've got something to hide.
Question: If Leadsom withdraws now, what happens? May is PM, or Gove replaces Leadsom in the members' ballot?
It'd be the Board's decision but I think they'd have to decide between a confirmation 'one candidate' exercise, no member involvement, and Leadsom being on the paper. I don't think Gove being on is possible.
It is much better for the leader of a major political party to have had children. One only needs to look at Germany (today and 75 years ago) or the UK of 45 years ago, to see the negative consequences of being led by those who haven't. Writing as someone who doesn't have any, having children makes one think twice about the future.
Just off the top of my head: Stalin, Sadam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi all had children.
Unless the full transcript / audio is released here are a lot of unanswered questions.
If Leadsom just mentioned May out of the blue she is in trouble, if the preceding questions before the released portion of the transcript were the journalist mentioning that May doesn't have children then that is an entirely different spin on things
I have posted the relevant audio extract below, but here it is again...
There is no need to sign up to Dropbox. Just click No thanks, continue to view, then press the Play button...
I want to hear the questions before that. I don't doubt the accuracy of the transcript or recording (only a crazy person would) but it needs to be in the context of the previous questions.
Being able to respond to difficult questions in a way that doesn't offend is part of the skill of being PM.
Leadsoms defense is either that she is nasty and meant every word she said or that she is too incompetent and thoughtless to be able to answer a question without thinking through the implications of what she said.
Oh yeah, she's screwed either way but I want to know if she is naive or malicious.
Incidentally the interviewer's "mmmmms" were the 'mmmms' of someone who couldn't believe what their luck in what their subject was saying
Mr. Dave, I don't think there's a black and white answer. One stupid tweet is not a big deal. A prolonged campaign of death threats is. And there's a lot of grey in between.
[As an aside, I don't like the sexist angle taken, whereby death threats for Farage barely trouble the MSM but those against a backbench MP are serious news, or when a videogame developer receives death threats (and some aimed at his family) for altering the reload time of weapons in a patch for an FPS but nobody cares].
Oh yeah, she's screwed either way but I want to know if she is naive or malicious.
Even the verdicts of her friends tend toward the confusing. “She has steel,” blethered Iain Duncan Smith, “but there is a velvet glove of compassion.” Oh Iain! God knows I’ve learned to manage my expectations as far as IDS is concerned. But I would like a secretary of state who understood a basic despot metaphor before he accidentally deployed it.
This is the Guardian!
Which leaves us with Theresa May. Has it really come to this? Yes. Yes, I’m afraid it has. There are few neater indicators of quite how far we’ve travelled over the past 14 days than to find so many people, particularly non-Tory voters, now actively yearning for it to be Theresa May. “Christ,” muttered one friend with wry despair, “I now want this more than I did Obama.”
Mr. Indigo, beg to differ. As reported on the Sky papers last night, it sounded insensitive at best and bloody obnoxious at worst.
I don't believe I have said otherwise. If my membership hadn't lapsed a few years ago I would not be voting Leadsom. However this should be a open and fair fight, Mrs May's attempt to constrain the terms of debate is in keeping with her authoritarian credentials. Personally I would say the election should be conducted without any additional constraints beyond those in the party rule book, so that members get the best possible look at the candidate in all their glory or stupidity, and can thereby make the best judgement.
I quite agree. PB is in danger of becoming an echo chamber over the Tory contest, and that doesn't make for interesting reading or a helpful barometer of opinion.
The endless sledging adds nothing, and puts off those with an alternative viewpoint from expressing it.
My vote is undecided, and it's not endearing me to TeamMay at all.
It's starting to resemble an echo chamber as most people who are not Kippers or TINO's can see that Leadsom's simply not a very good politician, leaving aside all the other negatives. Just look at her reaction where she said the interview disgusted her, *before* it comes out that she said the words. Amateur hour.
This is nothing to do with TeamMay at all. Leadsom's loaded her mouth, primed herself, and shot her campaign in the foot.
Mr. Freggles, an issue, as I understand it, is that a 'reported crime' can be anything from an attack with weapons to someone sending an obnoxious tweet. So the 42% rise could be very serious, or it could be mostly twittering. A more detailed statistical breakdown is needed.
I find this notion of the police monitoring Twitter absolutely bizarre. Is bad manners really a crime?
Do you think peoplenshould be allowed to shout racist abuse at people in the street?
If "No" then why do you think they should be allowed to do it on Twitter?
The most perplexing aspect of #babygate is Leadsom's total incompetence :
1. Potential hostile interview - risky option. 2. Not taking a media adviser with her. 3. Being drawn into May's childless situation 4. Denying the quotes when tapes were being taken. 5. Taking to social media. 6. Doubling down on the whole fiasco.
Naive and crushingly stupid in equal measure. Just what we need from a PM in a few weeks time.
Amongst her weaponry are such diverse elements as naivete, nastiness, duplicity and an almost fanatical devotion to stupidity.
Elsewhere on the internet, some Democrat party activists are speculating that Trump might pick his own daughter as his vice-presidential candidate, a pretty absurd notion.
If anyone is foolish enough to bet on him picking her, that could be a profit opportunity.
Unless the full transcript / audio is released here are a lot of unanswered questions.
If Leadsom just mentioned May out of the blue she is in trouble, if the preceding questions before the released portion of the transcript were the journalist mentioning that May doesn't have children then that is an entirely different spin on things
I have posted the relevant audio extract below, but here it is again...
There is no need to sign up to Dropbox. Just click No thanks, continue to view, then press the Play button...
I want to hear the questions before that. I don't doubt the accuracy of the transcript or recording (only a crazy person would) but it needs to be in the context of the previous questions.
Being able to respond to difficult questions in a way that doesn't offend is part of the skill of being PM.
Leadsoms defense is either that she is nasty and meant every word she said or that she is too incompetent and thoughtless to be able to answer a question without thinking through the implications of what she said.
Oh yeah, she's screwed either way but I want to know if she is naive or malicious.
Incidentally the interviewer's "mmmmms" were the 'mmmms' of someone who couldn't believe what their luck in what their subject was saying
I doubt its actual nastiness, just an extreme lack of empathy and too high a view of her own cleverness.
Yes I agree with you, the interviewer won't have believed how good a story they were getting.
This must be the first election of a woman fighting another woman and it reminds me of some of the women I last worked with,one or 2 Daily Heil readers amongst,and I still cannot believe how vicious they were toward each other.One lass who was pregnant had a terrible time.I hope the some of the best qualities of femininity start to show and both camps put their nails back in their fingers.
It is much better for the leader of a major political party to have had children. One only needs to look at Germany (today and 75 years ago) or the UK of 45 years ago, to see the negative consequences of being led by those who haven't. Writing as someone who doesn't have any, having children makes one think twice about the future.
Just off the top of my head: Stalin, Sadam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi all had children.
I mean Andrea says she's a mother, but can we really be so sure?
I see that Ms Leadsom is continuing to display her unerring ability to speak before she thinks. Those EU negotiation meetings are going to be fun.
If being a mother gives her this extra perspective which makes her more suitable to be PM, then surely we are all entitled to know what kind of a mother she has been, what her children think of her, how they have turned out and all sorts of other stuff about her family. Does she really want this kind of scrutiny?
I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff not least because, whether you are a mother or not, women don't think with their ovaries. But if you're going to make an issue of it, if you're going to imply that somehow you care more about the future because you have a biological stake in it through your children then you cannot be surprised if some people may look more closely at your own personal offerings to the future.
Mr. Indigo, beg to differ. As reported on the Sky papers last night, it sounded insensitive at best and bloody obnoxious at worst.
I don't believe I have said otherwise. If my membership hadn't lapsed a few years ago I would not be voting Leadsom. However this should be a open and fair fight, Mrs May's attempt to constrain the terms of debate is in keeping with her authoritarian credentials. Personally I would say the election should be conducted without any additional constraints beyond those in the party rule book, so that members get the best possible look at the candidate in all their glory or stupidity, and can thereby make the best judgement.
I quite agree. PB is in danger of becoming an echo chamber over the Tory contest, and that doesn't make for interesting reading or a helpful barometer of opinion.
The endless sledging adds nothing, and puts off those with an alternative viewpoint from expressing it.
My vote is undecided, and it's not endearing me to TeamMay at all.
It's starting to resemble an echo chamber as most people who are not Kippers or TINO's can see that Leadsom's simply not a very good politician, leaving aside all the other negatives. Just look at her reaction where she said the interview disgusted her, *before* it comes out that she said the words. Amateur hour.
This is nothing to do with TeamMay at all. Leadsom's loaded her mouth, primed herself, and shot her campaign in the foot.
It's utterly self-inflicted.
I've never voted Kipper. I'm pointing out that Theresa fans jumping up and down are in danger of missing a trick. Just as Remainers did over Leave.
Mr. Dave, I don't think there's a black and white answer. One stupid tweet is not a big deal. A prolonged campaign of death threats is. And there's a lot of grey in between.
[As an aside, I don't like the sexist angle taken, whereby death threats for Farage barely trouble the MSM but those against a backbench MP are serious news, or when a videogame developer receives death threats (and some aimed at his family) for altering the reload time of weapons in a patch for an FPS but nobody cares].
Almost as if trivialising extreme personal violence by making a computer game of it had undesirable side effects.
In the cold light of day, seems from the quotes that leadsoms comments can justify the headline, but her defence us she also did say she didn't want it to be seen as an attack on Theresa for being childless etc.
Naive and clumsy at best I'd say, it'd be like me saying spirit don't want it to be used against them, but the difference between me and another person us I'm not a twat.
Despite the angry protestations, the presence of the caveat does not mean the implication of the other words remains
I see the response to the referendum petition boils down to the fact there was no threshold in place and it's too late now? Shocking. As we now know it was set up by a leaver pre referendum, and I'd be interested in a debate on it, as I don't recall if parliament discussed if there should be a threshold or not beforehand, as is the case in some nations. It's too late to apply retrospectively, but it is amusing as there was that gold club recently I believe which voted to allow women members but didn't reach a high genough threshold for it to be official.
I mean Andrea says she's a mother, but can we really be so sure?
I see that Ms Leadsom is continuing to display her unerring ability to speak before she thinks. Those EU negotiation meetings are going to be fun.
If being a mother gives her this extra perspective which makes her more suitable to be PM, then surely we are all entitled to know what kind of a mother she has been, what her children think of her, how they have turned out and all sorts of other stuff about her family. Does she really want this kind of scrutiny?
I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff not least because, whether you are a mother or not, women don't think with their ovaries. But if you're going to make an issue of it, if you're going to imply that somehow you care more about the future because you have a biological stake in it through your children then you cannot be surprised if some people may look more closely at your own personal offerings to the future.
Ms Leadsom didn't make an issue of it. Ms Sylvester asked the question.
I understand that two years ago I became a better, more moral person, and a better candidate for the Conservative leadership, because I had a child.
Or is it only mothers that Leadsom thinks this applies to? I think she should be asked if she thinks it applies to fathers as well.
Interestingly, her defence is: "But the mother of three tweeted that the way the interview was reported was "the exact opposite of what I said"." (from BBC)
I wonder if she meant to say / recalls the first clause (the part before the 'but'), and didn't particularly mean to say the last part that contradicts it? A running-your-mouth-off problem. If so, it's a defence, but it's also a reason *not* to make her PM.
It's also why I'd be a terrible MP. My mouth is always two sentences ahead of my brain. (*)
(*) I know you all find that hard to believe ...
Have we seen the video/recording of the interview yet ?
Do we need to , who gives a F****, Tory nasties abusing each other is just BAU.
On topic, Channel 4 News last night reported that there was to be a final pow-wow between the rebels and Watson and union bosses tomorrow - to thrash out a settlement between the warring factions. But -
a) Corbyn will not be there, and
b) they said Angela Eagles was announcing her bid next week (presumably dependent on the outcome of these talks, but not stated)
If Eagle stands and, as I would expect, then fails (who in their right mind would vote for her?) Corbyn is cemented in place until 2020 if he wishes. And Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition will be a front for a bunch of Trots.
If people think the Tories have problems, they have really taken their eye off the political ball.
Angela Eagle has been announcing her bid for the leadership of the Labour party almost as often as Charlie Falconer has been announcing his resignation.
Mr. Indigo, beg to differ. As reported on the Sky papers last night, it sounded insensitive at best and bloody obnoxious at worst.
I don't believe I have said otherwise. If my membership hadn't lapsed a few years ago I would not be voting Leadsom. However this should be a open and fair fight, Mrs May's attempt to constrain the terms of debate is in keeping with her authoritarian credentials. Personally I would say the election should be conducted without any additional constraints beyond those in the party rule book, so that members get the best possible look at the candidate in all their glory or stupidity, and can thereby make the best judgement.
I quite agree. PB is in danger of becoming an echo chamber over the Tory contest, and that doesn't make for interesting reading or a helpful barometer of opinion.
The endless sledging adds nothing, and puts off those with an alternative viewpoint from expressing it.
My vote is undecided, and it's not endearing me to TeamMay at all.
It's starting to resemble an echo chamber as most people who are not Kippers or TINO's can see that Leadsom's simply not a very good politician, leaving aside all the other negatives. Just look at her reaction where she said the interview disgusted her, *before* it comes out that she said the words. Amateur hour.
This is nothing to do with TeamMay at all. Leadsom's loaded her mouth, primed herself, and shot her campaign in the foot.
It's utterly self-inflicted.
I've never voted Kipper. I'm pointing out that Theresa fans jumping up and down are in danger of missing a trick. Just as Remainers did over Leave.
Mr. X, no. It varies a lot game-by-game. FPS fans, by all accounts, receive (and distribute) a lot of bigoted hate in multiplayer.
But then, I've played The Witcher 3, which is full of violence and grimness, and I've never once decapitated someone. I've also played a couple of F1 videogames, but have never actually driven an F1 car myself.
Leadsom's only possible defence now: " I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
PB is usually sensible but it seems to have gone overboard a little about Ms Leadsom.
Yes, she comes over as amateurish (as does Jezza), but a few on here are making that a criminal offence. We're not all political anoraks. Most voters would decide on overall image, and I suspect the Conservative members would follow suit. I don't know any Conservative members but I doubt if most are at the cutting edge of International politics.
Jezza is unelectable, and that's because a GE campaign would shine a light on his lunatic ideas, yet he swept to victory with the Labour members. Leadsom is still an unwritten political page, May's page would be totally malleable.
Who knows how the cookie will crumble?
May will probably win bnd I find her ominously grey. I didn't agree with Maggie Thatcher but grey she was not.
I mean Andrea says she's a mother, but can we really be so sure?
I see that Ms Leadsom is continuing to display her unerring ability to speak before she thinks. Those EU negotiation meetings are going to be fun.
If being a mother gives her this extra perspective which makes her more suitable to be PM, then surely we are all entitled to know what kind of a mother she has been, what her children think of her, how they have turned out and all sorts of other stuff about her family. Does she really want this kind of scrutiny?
I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff not least because, whether you are a mother or not, women don't think with their ovaries. But if you're going to make an issue of it, if you're going to imply that somehow you care more about the future because you have a biological stake in it through your children then you cannot be surprised if some people may look more closely at your own personal offerings to the future.
Ms Leadsom didn't make an issue of it. Ms Sylvester asked the question.
It's the answers that are causing the problem. Most politicians can spot when they are invited to walk into an elephant trap. Leadsom barged straight in to it with gusto.
Mr. P, not sure Gove should say anything. He may be a negative for whomever's side he adopts.
Yes. Gove backed Boris - and then within a few days discovered Boris wasn't up to the job. He then backed himself - and within a few days discovered that the PCP had decided he wasn't up to the job. He then backed Leadsom. And within a few days .....
I mean Andrea says she's a mother, but can we really be so sure?
I see that Ms Leadsom is continuing to display her unerring ability to speak before she thinks. Those EU negotiation meetings are going to be fun.
If being a mother gives her this extra perspective which makes her more suitable to be PM, then surely we are all entitled to know what kind of a mother she has been, what her children think of her, how they have turned out and all sorts of other stuff about her family. Does she really want this kind of scrutiny?
I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff not least because, whether you are a mother or not, women don't think with their ovaries. But if you're going to make an issue of it, if you're going to imply that somehow you care more about the future because you have a biological stake in it through your children then you cannot be surprised if some people may look more closely at your own personal offerings to the future.
Ms Leadsom didn't make an issue of it. Ms Sylvester asked the question.
And leadsom supplied many a quote making a big deal of it. Anyone can ask a question, it us the response which matters and her response made it seem as though the difference was a big deal for her.
I maintain this won't come to all that much, but unless the provided quotes are simply made up, leadsoms outrage is a little misplaced all the same. Qualifying your words while making several comments that without mental gymnastics look like what the tines says, doesn't really work. At best she was clumsy Inher words because the times interpretation makes sense asked if the quoted words, there's no getting around that,
She needs to just do a politicians 'regret if my words were misinterpreted let's move on'
I mean Andrea says she's a mother, but can we really be so sure?
I see that Ms Leadsom is continuing to display her unerring ability to speak before she thinks. Those EU negotiation meetings are going to be fun.
If being a mother gives her this extra perspective which makes her more suitable to be PM, then surely we are all entitled to know what kind of a mother she has been, what her children think of her, how they have turned out and all sorts of other stuff about her family. Does she really want this kind of scrutiny?
I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff not least because, whether you are a mother or not, women don't think with their ovaries. But if you're going to make an issue of it, if you're going to imply that somehow you care more about the future because you have a biological stake in it through your children then you cannot be surprised if some people may look more closely at your own personal offerings to the future.
Ms Leadsom didn't make an issue of it. Ms Sylvester asked the question.
Journalists ask questions. What did she think an interview with a journalist would involve? Sharing gardening tips? She should have batted away the question. But she didn't. She went on and on and on about it. I've heard what she said. By answering the question in the way she did she made an issue of it.
If a politician is unable to answer such a simple question without making a complete horlicks of it, is she really suitable to be PM? Frankly, virtually everything she has said about herself has turned out either to be untrue or exaggerated or has landed her in trouble.
I don't carry any candle for Leadsom - I still know very little about her - but she seems to be getting all the fire from the media whilst May just pootles along with no questions asked. It's clear who the establishment want anyway. I thought on Friday 24th Gove or Boris were the only viable candidates for PM and its almost as though they have knocked each other out just to hand it to May.
I understand that two years ago I became a better, more moral person, and a better candidate for the Conservative leadership, because I had a child.
Or is it only mothers that Leadsom thinks this applies to? I think she should be asked if she thinks it applies to fathers as well.
Interestingly, her defence is: "But the mother of three tweeted that the way the interview was reported was "the exact opposite of what I said"." (from BBC)
I wonder if she meant to say / recalls the first clause (the part before the 'but'), and didn't particularly mean to say the last part that contradicts it? A running-your-mouth-off problem. If so, it's a defence, but it's also a reason *not* to make her PM.
It's also why I'd be a terrible MP. My mouth is always two sentences ahead of my brain. (*)
(*) I know you all find that hard to believe ...
Have we seen the video/recording of the interview yet ?
Do we need to , who gives a F****, Tory nasties abusing each other is just BAU.
Comments
If it is real, then she's toast. Or at least should be, whatever the Kippers and TINO's on here think. )
There you go.
Any overnight news? ....
Similar to Corbyn.
Welcome to pb.com, Mr (?) Jamei.
Mr. Freggles, cheers. However, at the risk of being pedantic, I'd want to know whether 'harassment' includes being a moron online.
@mrjamesob: The truth doesn't matter. Even if it's on tape. Our new politics involves saying outrageous things, sowing a seed, then claiming victimhood.
The USA has Trump. We have Leadsom
Although 90% of the discussion, both in the media and on PB, has focused on personalities, the so-called moderate MPs have just as much of a problem through lack of any clear policy platform to bind them together or provide any sort of bedrock/appeal if they ever moved on from the Labour brand. All they really have is antipathy to some of Corbyn's nuttier antics, mostly from the distant past. And an opposition to 'anti-austerity' economics at a time when even the Tories are giving up on austerity, at least for the time being.
Leadsom v Soubry would be the equivalent.
However we must compliment the 84 idiots who voted for her and are providing PB with much hilarity.
A Scottish type PR system would be better though.
Mr. W, said it before, May not picking Gove may come back to haunt her.
Part of the issue is that Corbyn may have been largely ineffectual but, unlike the 1980s, he has not yet actually saddled labour with anything in policy terms that many so-called ordinary people would see as off the scale. In a sense, the Rebels have acted too early...rebels without a cause (or a leader). And the stances Labour has that have turned away a lot of their core wwc support are those of the 'moderates' as much if not more than the corbynistas.
Leadsoms defense is either that she is nasty and meant every word she said or that she is too incompetent and thoughtless to be able to answer a question without thinking through the implications of what she said.
1. Potential hostile interview - risky option.
2. Not taking a media adviser with her.
3. Being drawn into May's childless situation
4. Denying the quotes when tapes were being taken.
5. Taking to social media.
6. Doubling down on the whole fiasco.
Naive and crushingly stupid in equal measure. Just what we need from a PM in a few weeks time.
Yes - the dyke has breached.
It is much better for the leader of a major political party to have had children. One only needs to look at Germany (today and 75 years ago) or the UK of 45 years ago, to see the negative consequences of being led by those who haven't. Writing as someone who doesn't have any, having children makes one think twice about the future.
The endless sledging adds nothing, and puts off those with an alternative viewpoint from expressing it.
My vote is undecided, and it's not endearing me to TeamMay at all.
I find both candidates uninspiring but I'm not that bothered.
May as PM will be Sadiq Khan in a frock; don't rock the boat and be all things to all men.
Leadsom may have more brain cells but she's not a politician. You don't insult your opponent directly, you get someone else to do it.
Lawyers may be the scum of the earth (sorry, Mr Meeks), but journalists and politicians rank hardly above them.
Nothing like a good generalisation is there. But May winning would be a triumph of style over substance. She'll use the impending Brexit to blame it for any cock-ups. Jezza has much more substance, but he's barmy.
Pretty important question IMHO.
Incidentally the interviewer's "mmmmms" were the 'mmmms' of someone who couldn't believe what their luck in what their subject was saying
The line is still "It's a Times smear campaign"
@DPJHodges: Having argued we all need to listen to the full audio, Penny Mourdant has just said she hasn't heard the audio.
[As an aside, I don't like the sexist angle taken, whereby death threats for Farage barely trouble the MSM but those against a backbench MP are serious news, or when a videogame developer receives death threats (and some aimed at his family) for altering the reload time of weapons in a patch for an FPS but nobody cares].
Even the verdicts of her friends tend toward the confusing. “She has steel,” blethered Iain Duncan Smith, “but there is a velvet glove of compassion.” Oh Iain! God knows I’ve learned to manage my expectations as far as IDS is concerned. But I would like a secretary of state who understood a basic despot metaphor before he accidentally deployed it.
This is the Guardian!
Which leaves us with Theresa May. Has it really come to this? Yes. Yes, I’m afraid it has. There are few neater indicators of quite how far we’ve travelled over the past 14 days than to find so many people, particularly non-Tory voters, now actively yearning for it to be Theresa May. “Christ,” muttered one friend with wry despair, “I now want this more than I did Obama.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/09/andrea-leadsom-tory-leadership-am-dram-peasant-revolt
This is nothing to do with TeamMay at all. Leadsom's loaded her mouth, primed herself, and shot her campaign in the foot.
It's utterly self-inflicted.
If "No" then why do you think they should be allowed to do it on Twitter?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nvkjp54rfwhrsq8/Full extract.mp3?dl=0
As before, there is no need to sign up to Dropbox. Just click "No thanks, continue to view", then press the Play button..
If anyone is foolish enough to bet on him picking her, that could be a profit opportunity.
Yes I agree with you, the interviewer won't have believed how good a story they were getting.
"Wasn't quite the same in Kendall's case. It was one of Yvette Cooper's backers."
I refer you to my fourth paragraph.
Even Wee Dougie is taking the piss...
If being a mother gives her this extra perspective which makes her more suitable to be PM, then surely we are all entitled to know what kind of a mother she has been, what her children think of her, how they have turned out and all sorts of other stuff about her family. Does she really want this kind of scrutiny?
I couldn't care less about this sort of stuff not least because, whether you are a mother or not, women don't think with their ovaries. But if you're going to make an issue of it, if you're going to imply that somehow you care more about the future because you have a biological stake in it through your children then you cannot be surprised if some people may look more closely at your own personal offerings to the future.
Naive and clumsy at best I'd say, it'd be like me saying spirit don't want it to be used against them, but the difference between me and another person us I'm not a twat.
Despite the angry protestations, the presence of the caveat does not mean the implication of the other words remains
I see the response to the referendum petition boils down to the fact there was no threshold in place and it's too late now? Shocking. As we now know it was set up by a leaver pre referendum, and I'd be interested in a debate on it, as I don't recall if parliament discussed if there should be a threshold or not beforehand, as is the case in some nations. It's too late to apply retrospectively, but it is amusing as there was that gold club recently I believe which voted to allow women members but didn't reach a high genough threshold for it to be official.
Crabb is at best in the spare room. I really don't like that sort of cheap muck-raking.
Leadsom them mentioned Theresa May, and said please don't make this about the woman I just mentioned.
Nasty. And stupid.
But then, I've played The Witcher 3, which is full of violence and grimness, and I've never once decapitated someone. I've also played a couple of F1 videogames, but have never actually driven an F1 car myself.
" I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
Yes, she comes over as amateurish (as does Jezza), but a few on here are making that a criminal offence. We're not all political anoraks. Most voters would decide on overall image, and I suspect the Conservative members would follow suit. I don't know any Conservative members but I doubt if most are at the cutting edge of International politics.
Jezza is unelectable, and that's because a GE campaign would shine a light on his lunatic ideas, yet he swept to victory with the Labour members. Leadsom is still an unwritten political page, May's page would be totally malleable.
Who knows how the cookie will crumble?
May will probably win bnd I find her ominously grey. I didn't agree with Maggie Thatcher but grey she was not.
Ok...
I maintain this won't come to all that much, but unless the provided quotes are simply made up, leadsoms outrage is a little misplaced all the same. Qualifying your words while making several comments that without mental gymnastics look like what the tines says, doesn't really work. At best she was clumsy Inher words because the times interpretation makes sense asked if the quoted words, there's no getting around that,
She needs to just do a politicians 'regret if my words were misinterpreted let's move on'
If a politician is unable to answer such a simple question without making a complete horlicks of it, is she really suitable to be PM? Frankly, virtually everything she has said about herself has turned out either to be untrue or exaggerated or has landed her in trouble.
I bet Blair and Straw just can't believe their collective luck.