@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.
It is a stich up for sure , she would only be stating facts, if you have children you worry about the long term for them and their children , if you have none you only have your own span to worry about.
That's an assumption which really is not true. Normal people really don't think that way.
Well I count myself as fairly normal and I believe I think differently and more longer term based on my grandchildren etc. May not fit your definition of normal but hey I suppose you are an expert
I believe (mostly) people with children & grandchildren do see the future differently. That doesn't mean childless people are not concerned about the future of other people's offspring.
Where the difference chiefly lies is how personal a view is taken, and that can cut both ways.
In my experience a parent is much more likely to be focussed on "the future of my offspring, whom I love dearly". That means there can be an unconscious text of "never mind all the rest".
A non-parent has a less emotionally-engaged view and is more likely to focus on the general future of the community's offspring.
Having children taught me some important new skills: like how to hold a baby, a glass of wine and a book simultaneously.
A baby, a glass of wine, a book, and RCS are at a river. RCS has one boat fitting one item and himself. If he takes the wine, the baby will eat the book. If he takes the book the baby will drink the wine; however, the book will not damage the wine. How does he transport them all safely?
Added note: he is not allowed to use a Gulfstream.
As a gay man, I find the identity politics of motherhood very alienating.
There is, very definitely, a 'club', which you are either inside or outside. It is very noticeable amongst neighbours.
Those on the inside probably don't realise they behave the way they do to childless women, but that's how life & people arrange themselves in all manner of things.
(Good morning, everyone)
The "club" only arises because kids needs constant entertaining and playing with each other is an easy and cheap way for it to happen.
It is also a lot easier to hang out with other families with similarly aged children, you both have to deal with all the inconveniences of trying to do anything with small children anyway, so don't put each other out.
There are certainly some people who become consumed by the idea of their own parenthood, and who want to spend all their lives talking about being a parent or judging other parents. In my experience these people have to stick to each other because no one else can stand them.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
She was the one that misspoke and fatally undermined her bid to be PM.
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...
https:eed to sign up to Dropbox. Just click No thanks, continue to view, then press the Play button...
I want to hea 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 eithesaying
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.
Someone linked to a blog by leadsom on marr
But being attacked, even justifiably, will be enough to back leadsom for p,entry, others will agree with the quotes even if she disavows them and others won't care. She still has a chance, there's a long way to go.
Labour's invention of Civil Partnerships avoided the religious issue. If the Cameroons wanted to change that, they should have made everyone use Civil Partnerships instead. Keeping the State, and religions entirely separate.
Marriage has always had state involvement, MPs in the 1650s argued over marriage laws, the state defining what constituted proper marriage (albeit heavily influenced by their religious positions) , people who wish it were otherwise are free to do so but it is not the natural state of things. It wasn't changed to make marriage suddenly have state involvement.
Nevertheless that wasn't my point - my point was my recollection of the quoted leadsom piece on marriage being a Christian institution when even if it is a religious one, it isn't just Christian, as a demonstration of her being at best carelessly insulting to those not of her view.
On labour, mr herdson seems almost baffled by them, and I do t blame him. It doesn't seem sustainable, the MPs took it to the brink, but even though they've stepped ba pick they can't very well just bend over and grab ankle, but what else is left? None of them are leaving voluntarily and Corbyn seems to have won.
Having gone down the route that they have, they have to challenge Jeremy Corbyn. If they lose, they should set up a new party. Or give up.
It seems so obvious that it's very hard to understand the delay.
I think it's largely about keeping in with the unions. They may be ready to burn their bridges with the party but they want to keep open the chances of securing funding from the traditional sources for Labour. So they are letting the unions explore the possibilities until they are satisfied that they are exhausted.
@Samfr: I do like Theresa May's campaign strategy of doing nothing while all of her opponents set themselves on fire sequentially.
She's going to become PM after taking a 20 week holiday during the most important political period of our country's recent history.
Hilarious isn't it? Wasn't there a us president who barely ever did anything - may could be like that, she'll be in office years and no one will notice
There was Calvin Coolidge, who barely said anything.
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.
Now if you had a daughter.... you would know these things...
@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.
It is a stich up for sure , she would only be stating facts, if you have children you worry about the long term for them and their children , if you have none you only have your own span to worry about.
That's an assumption which really is not true. Normal people really don't think that way.
Well I count myself as fairly normal and I believe I think differently and more longer term based on my grandchildren etc. May not fit your definition of normal but hey I suppose you are an expert
No - I simply believe that most people have thoughts about the future - you do not need to have fathered a child to have those feelings and concerns.
It's similar to some of the arguments we used to have with the fundys on alt.atheism. Atheists can show love and compassion to their fellow humans. Theism doesn't imply higher moral values. Neither does parenthood, sexual orientation, gender identity or ethnicity.
Self-labelling to prove a point is ultimately a bit daft. People are people, and by their deeds shall ye know them and all that.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
She was the one that misspoke and fatally undermined her bid to be PM.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
She was the one that misspoke and fatally undermined her bid to be PM.
She needs to step down now
If it was fatal May should deliver the killing blow in the contest - why give Leadsom' backers an excuse to cause trouble by complaining she was forced out?
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
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.
What 'trick' are people 'missing' in your view?
That Party members may not be so excited by the things which tickle many PBers. We saw it again and again and again during the Brexit campaigns.
Taking myself as a subset of one - I think it's perfectly understandable for someone with kids to say how much they influenced their life/their motivations and attitude to the future.
I don't have kids. When the subject comes up, every parent I've ever met has impressed on me how much impact they've had on them. I accept that they're very certain about this *life changing event*.
I really can't get worked up about Leadsom using it as a touchstone. Stone me.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
Mrs L is not appealing to anyone's head. Her appeal is to the Party members' hearts - and that is what they will vote with.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
She was the one that misspoke and fatally undermined her bid to be PM.
She needs to step down now
If it was fatal May should deliver the killing blow in the contest - why give Leadsom' backers an excuse to cause trouble by complaining she was forced out?
I can see the logic in that but this is our Country we are talking about that desperately needs a Government now.
She should withdraw in the national interest and be given a cabinet position of some kind
Having children taught me some important new skills: like how to hold a baby, a glass of wine and a book simultaneously.
A baby, a glass of wine, a book, and RCS are at a river. RCS has one boat fitting one item and himself. If he takes the wine, the baby will eat the book. If he takes the book the baby will drink the wine; however, the book will not damage the wine. How does he transport them all safely?
Added note: he is not allowed to use a Gulfstream.
He downs the wine and skim-reads the book, then the two of them row home.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
Got a feeling Ruth Davidson will be in the running for the next Tory leadership and Leadsom didn't compare well with her in the BBC debate.
With respect to those who feel differently, it's noticable that when the general consensus around here (which is Tory inclined) gathers on an issue, even though there are vocal supporters of the opposing positions and more nuanced positions, the complaints of echo chamber pop up. Yes, the majority around here seem opposed to Leadsom, to one degree or another, but prominent thread writers and a few die hards aside, it was a leave echo chamber a few weeks ago.
Turnabout is fair play. Give it a month and there'll be a shift to consensus on another issue and different people will be in a majority.
Having children taught me some important new skills: like how to hold a baby, a glass of wine and a book simultaneously.
A baby, a glass of wine, a book, and RCS are at a river. RCS has one boat fitting one item and himself. If he takes the wine, the baby will eat the book. If he takes the book the baby will drink the wine; however, the book will not damage the wine. How does he transport them all safely?
Added note: he is not allowed to use a Gulfstream.
He drinks the wine, reads the book, and gets in the boat with the baby.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
Reading the transcript the interview does not remotely appear 'hostile' - more a 'cosy chat' with Leadsom wittering gaily on.....being fed enough rope to hang herself.....
Rookie mistake 1 - the interview - but salvageable with a contrite 'of course that's not what I meant and apologise unreservedly if thats the impression I gave'. 'Fair enough, case closed, move on.'
However
Rookie mistake 2 - 'The Times are lying'. 'We have tapes' 'PLAY THE TAPES!!!' Oh.....
How can her complaints about the media (of which I'm sure she'll have some) be taken seriously in the future?
I see that Leadsom carries a lot of Hate on PB, especially from the lefty crowd, wether Tory or Labour versions.
She must frighten them because because she is slightly, ever so slightly, right wing.
No: no hate. Amused contempt mostly and concern at the idea that she thinks (and 84 fellow MPs think) she is up to being PM and not because she is right-wing but because she is an idiot who lacks judgment.
Linking this with the thread header, the resigning shadow ministers cited Jeremy Corbyn's ineptness, not his politics. But for the true faithful competence is not a relevant consideration.
You'd hope they could be steered though. By criticising his competence not his politics, by and large, the MPs could not get away with not having a Corbynistas in a leadership contest if Jeremy stood down, and they might be an improvement, how has that compromise not already happened?
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
Mrs L is not appealing to anyone's head. Her appeal is to the Party members' hearts - and that is what they will vote with.
Maybe, but why would she want the leadership if she can't command the support of her MP's and with so much of the media set against her? If she was to get the leadership it will be a miserable time where she'll be unable to get anything done. And that's without with self-inflicted mistakes from her inexperience.
Personally I quite like Mrs L, but her parliamentary party and the media are very seriously set against her. It's not a position from which she'll be able to do any good. Much better for her to play the long game.
I see that Leadsom carries a lot of Hate on PB, especially from the lefty crowd, wether Tory or Labour versions.
She must frighten them because because she is slightly, ever so slightly, right wing.
Tories who don't like Leadsom aren't right wing then - not just not on the right wing of their party, just not right wing at all? Fascinating stuff. It's like those anti-Corbynites, not on the left at all, even if they've been fighting for the left for decades.
The Tories haven't been a right wing conservative party since MacMillans "Wind of Change" speach.
Having children taught me some important new skills: like how to hold a baby, a glass of wine and a book simultaneously.
A baby, a glass of wine, a book, and RCS are at a river. RCS has one boat fitting one item and himself. If he takes the wine, the baby will eat the book. If he takes the book the baby will drink the wine; however, the book will not damage the wine. How does he transport them all safely?
Added note: he is not allowed to use a Gulfstream.
I see that Leadsom carries a lot of Hate on PB, especially from the lefty crowd, wether Tory or Labour versions.
She must frighten them because because she is slightly, ever so slightly, right wing.
No: no hate. Amused contempt mostly and concern at the idea that she thinks (and 84 fellow MPs think) she is up to being PM and not because she is right-wing but because she is an idiot who lacks judgment.
Linking this with the thread header, the resigning shadow ministers cited Jeremy Corbyn's ineptness, not his politics. But for the true faithful competence is not a relevant consideration.
You'd hope they could be steered though. By criticising his competence not his politics, by and large, the MPs could not get away with not having a Corbynistas in a leadership contest if Jeremy stood down, and they might be an improvement, how has that compromise not already happened?
Because those around Jeremy Corbyn think that Jeremy Corbyn himself would stand a much better chance of winning a contest than his Svengali or his acolytes.
On topic. From a comp sci or software engineering perspective, Labour's woes are fascinating.
Some very nasty bugs can arise when one modifies software and assume that previously defined invariants will still hold.
Am I right in thinking that prior to Ed Miliband (the first of his name) changing the rules, the leader would not have survived a vote of no confidence? Would Foot, Kinnock et al been able to do as Corbyn has?
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
Got a feeling Ruth Davidson will be in the running for the next Tory leadership and Leadsom didn't compare well with her in the BBC debate.
All Davidson did in that debate was talk over the other team.
I see that Leadsom carries a lot of Hate on PB, especially from the lefty crowd, wether Tory or Labour versions.
She must frighten them because because she is slightly, ever so slightly, right wing.
No: no hate. Amused contempt mostly and concern at the idea that she thinks (and 84 fellow MPs think) she is up to being PM and not because she is right-wing but because she is an idiot who lacks judgment.
Linking this with the thread header, the resigning shadow ministers cited Jeremy Corbyn's ineptness, not his politics. But for the true faithful competence is not a relevant consideration.
You'd hope they could be steered though. By criticising his competence not his politics, by and large, the MPs could not get away with not having a Corbynistas in a leadership contest if Jeremy stood down, and they might be an improvement, how has that compromise not already happened?
And this is precisely why I want to see the media scrutinise the candidates on policy attitudes. They spend far too much time on gotcha, tittle tattle and point scoring.
I see that Leadsom carries a lot of Hate on PB, especially from the lefty crowd, wether Tory or Labour versions.
She must frighten them because because she is slightly, ever so slightly, right wing.
Tories who don't like Leadsom aren't right wing then - not just not on the right wing of their party, just not right wing at all? Fascinating stuff. It's like those anti-Corbynites, not on the left at all, even if they've been fighting for the left for decades.
The Tories haven't been a right wing conservative party since MacMillans "Wind of Change" speach.
Then Leadsom must be a careerist if she is a little right wing but joined a non-right wing party anyway.
Having children taught me some important new skills: like how to hold a baby, a glass of wine and a book simultaneously.
A baby, a glass of wine, a book, and RCS are at a river. RCS has one boat fitting one item and himself. If he takes the wine, the baby will eat the book. If he takes the book the baby will drink the wine; however, the book will not damage the wine. How does he transport them all safely?
Added note: he is not allowed to use a Gulfstream.
He downs the wine and skim-reads the book, then the two of them row home.
But that risks being drunk and disorderly in charge of both a boat and a baby.
(Is it possible to be d&d in charge of a boat? An acquaintance of mine was done for being d&d on a bike: he was riding along the middle of the A6 north from Matlock at about one in the morning. His excuse? the white lines were easier to see as his bike didn't have a light ...
It really feels like we are living in a different country at the moment in Scotland. Sitting up here we cannot see any other option than May and this will be the vote from the large Scottish Tory party. If leadson gets elected it may well be the point the Scottish tories cut their links even further with the south English party which has seizef control of the Tory party.
I don't see how the Conservative and Unionist party could survive a Leadsom PMship.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
Reading the transcript the interview does not remotely appear 'hostile' - more a 'cosy chat' with Leadsom wittering gaily on.....being fed enough rope to hang herself.....
Rookie mistake 1 - the interview - but salvageable with a contrite 'of course that's not what I meant and apologise unreservedly if thats the impression I gave'. 'Fair enough, case closed, move on.'
However
Rookie mistake 2 - 'The Times are lying'. 'We have tapes' 'PLAY THE TAPES!!!' Oh.....
How can her complaints about the media (of which I'm sure she'll have some) be taken seriously in the future?
Not PM material, certainly now, and maybe ever.
One of the oldest tricks in the journalist playbook. Let the interviewee fill any space with their own warbling, it takes a harden professional to either not fill the space, or fill it with non-quotable boring stuff.
With respect to those who feel differently, it's noticable that when the general consensus around here (which is Tory inclined) gathers on an issue, even though there are vocal supporters of the opposing positions and more nuanced positions, the complaints of echo chamber pop up. Yes, the majority around here seem opposed to Leadsom, to one degree or another, but prominent thread writers and a few die hards aside, it was a leave echo chamber a few weeks ago.
Turnabout is fair play. Give it a month and there'll be a shift to consensus on another issue and different people will be in a majority.
My perception was that it was reasonably evenly split during Euref. The Remainers typically gathered strength during the evening and late on into the night.
I do agree with your general point though. When I first discovered the site in 2006 Tories were few and far between, it was peak Sion Simon time.
The real question is whether Leadsom is worth a bet at current odds. I was struck by James Forsyth's tweet yesterday that the contest was closer than people thought. Set against that, May seems to have the whole of the right-leaning press on her side, barring the Express. Can Leadsom really win from behind against the Mail, Telegraph and Times?
'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?'
Problem is their leader is still at the students union stage of politics.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 36m36 minutes ago If Leadsom wins, (and Corbyn stays), I think a major political realignment is a genuine possibility.
Perhaps we should hope Leadsom wins then, a realignment would be a good thing, but I doubt it would occur even then.
Me too. I was just passing it on really. If I had a pound (falling as it is) for every time in my lifetime we were on the verge of the Great Realignment, then I'd be a Gulfstream owner.
So, in summary, on the Labour side what one journalist has called the 'mañana coup' has flopped, and on the Conservative side any remaining doubts about whether the contest is going to move in Andrea Leadsom's favour have been resolved.
The real question is whether Leadsom is worth a bet at current odds. I was struck by James Forsyth's tweet yesterday that the contest was closer than people thought. Set against that, May seems to have the whole of the right-leaning press on her side, barring the Express. Can Leadsom really win from behind against the Mail, Telegraph and Times?
The released polls (if at all accurate) as I recall have the Con party membership supporting Leave 2:1.
I'm assuming that will ultimately carry Leadsom to a win.
So, in summary, on the Labour side what one journalist has called the 'mañana coup' has flopped, and on the Conservative side any remaining doubts about whether the contest is going to move in Andrea Leadsom's favour have been resolved.
Having children taught me some important new skills: like how to hold a baby, a glass of wine and a book simultaneously.
A baby, a glass of wine, a book, and RCS are at a river. RCS has one boat fitting one item and himself. If he takes the wine, the baby will eat the book. If he takes the book the baby will drink the wine; however, the book will not damage the wine. How does he transport them all safely?
Added note: he is not allowed to use a Gulfstream.
He eats the baby.
He makes a little raft for the baby and the book and pulls these alongside the boat as he savours the wine.
It would be helpful to know
a) What the book is called? "How to make rafts", would be useful. b) The quality of the wine?
It really feels like we are living in a different country at the moment in Scotland. Sitting up here we cannot see any other option than May and this will be the vote from the large Scottish Tory party. If leadson gets elected it may well be the point the Scottish tories cut their links even further with the south English party which has seizef control of the Tory party.
I don't see how the Conservative and Unionist party could survive a Leadsom PMship.
It's not the Party I'd worry about, it's the country. Markets will look decidedly unpretty if international confidence evaporates which is highly plausible.
Sarah Wollaston: In truth @andrealeadsom better suited to obscurity than high office
Yeah but the attention seeking Dr Woolaston hasn't exactly covered herself with glory over recent weeks either...
It's always the same attention seeking people that seem to have the most to say for themselves (Dr Woolaston, Dan Hodges, Louise Mensch, Nadine Dorries, etc.)
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
Mrs L is not appealing to anyone's head. Her appeal is to the Party members' hearts - and that is what they will vote with.
Maybe, but why would she want the leadership if she can't command the support of her MP's and with so much of the media set against her? If she was to get the leadership it will be a miserable time where she'll be unable to get anything done. And that's without with self-inflicted mistakes from her inexperience.
Personally I quite like Mrs L, but her parliamentary party and the media are very seriously set against her. It's not a position from which she'll be able to do any good. Much better for her to play the long game.
But that's just my take on it.
I much prefer her sunnyside up approach. IMO She needs to beaten fairly and squarely in a membership vote. Right now, the media are playing such a one-sided game that they're in real danger of over-egging it.
If the Leadsomers feel they've been unfairly stacked against, it doesn't solve anything - the Tories just end up with May as EdM and Leadsom as DavidM.
“I want to speak to the markets,” Leadsom smiled, with the air of someone who imagines you can negotiate with gravity. There was absolutely nothing to fear, she went on, smiling that smile again. Andrea Leadsom’s smile is terrifying. It is the smile of the school careers adviser telling you flatly that the school is looking for a night caretaker. It is a smile that is powered by the extinguishing of your future. You can’t escape Andrea’s smile. And it’ll certainly come for you if you try.
For me the most offensive thing Leadsome said is 'I am sure Theresa will be really, really sad she doesn't have children'. Is this what it amounts to for us all, women and men? Our life's fulfilment is becoming a parent, and it's somehow tragic if we don't have children.
People derive satisfaction from many things in life, and care about the world for a wide variety of reasons. Being a father certainly has been a very fulfilling thing for me personally, and I have seen many other people mellow considerably when they become parents.
Is May a stony faced authoritarian that struggles to connect emotionally with anyone because of her childlessness? Who knows? I have no window into her soul. It is quite possible that she would be the same with a family too.
The real question is whether Leadsom is worth a bet at current odds. I was struck by James Forsyth's tweet yesterday that the contest was closer than people thought. Set against that, May seems to have the whole of the right-leaning press on her side, barring the Express. Can Leadsom really win from behind against the Mail, Telegraph and Times?
I can't get inside the mindset of the key group - Conservative party members who voted Leave for cultural rather than sovereigntist reasons and for whom that is of vital importance. Will they regard such missteps as irrelevant or will they decide ultimately that competence is a relevant criterion?
The answer to outsiders seems obvious but this is by definition a fairly odd cohort of people.
The real question is whether Leadsom is worth a bet at current odds. I was struck by James Forsyth's tweet yesterday that the contest was closer than people thought. Set against that, May seems to have the whole of the right-leaning press on her side, barring the Express. Can Leadsom really win from behind against the Mail, Telegraph and Times?
The released polls (if at all accurate) as I recall have the Con party membership supporting Leave 2:1.
I'm assuming that will ultimately carry Leadsom to a win.
If May gets almost all the Remainers then Leadsom would need ~75% of the Leavers. Difficult, surely?
If the Leadsomers feel they've been unfairly stacked against, it doesn't solve anything - the Tories just end up with May as EdM and Leadsom as DavidM.
From Andrea's position, that seems to be a pretty good position for be in (long term)
On topic, thanks @david_herdson for an interesting article.
I'm inclined to think that the Labour party has gone beyond salvaging, but that millions of loyal voters would still vote for the new incarnation anyway.
Sad, but surely those rebel MPs can't expect to be standing again in 2020?
The real question is whether Leadsom is worth a bet at current odds. I was struck by James Forsyth's tweet yesterday that the contest was closer than people thought. Set against that, May seems to have the whole of the right-leaning press on her side, barring the Express. Can Leadsom really win from behind against the Mail, Telegraph and Times?
The released polls (if at all accurate) as I recall have the Con party membership supporting Leave 2:1.
I'm assuming that will ultimately carry Leadsom to a win.
If May carries the remainer vote (not a certainty, but probably she'll have a lot of it) then she doesn't need to win too many Leavers to win overall, and she has plenty of Leaver backers at parliament at least, but the leave thing really does provide an opportunity for Leadsom. There are plenty of people paranoid Brexit will be avoided, and those who think May will go for a version of Brexit they don't like, and so Leadsom has a chance if she can pin May down, make any attempt for a cautious or nuanced approach look like equivocation or lack of commitment to the cause. If she can do that, it would also undermine May's experience as a factor, and her own inexperience, as she would be shown to be out doing May. Add in the 'anti-establishment' crowd, ludicrious though it would be, those who just hate May, and Leadsom has a chance.
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.
What 'trick' are people 'missing' in your view?
That Party members may not be so excited by the things which tickle many PBers. We saw it again and again and again during the Brexit campaigns.
Taking myself as a subset of one - I think it's perfectly understandable for someone with kids to say how much they influenced their life/their motivations and attitude to the future.
I don't have kids. When the subject comes up, every parent I've ever met has impressed on me how much impact they've had on them. I accept that they're very certain about this *life changing event*.
I really can't get worked up about Leadsom using it as a touchstone. Stone me.
The real question is whether Leadsom is worth a bet at current odds. I was struck by James Forsyth's tweet yesterday that the contest was closer than people thought. Set against that, May seems to have the whole of the right-leaning press on her side, barring the Express. Can Leadsom really win from behind against the Mail, Telegraph and Times?
The released polls (if at all accurate) as I recall have the Con party membership supporting Leave 2:1.
I'm assuming that will ultimately carry Leadsom to a win.
If May gets almost all the Remainers then Leadsom would need ~75% of the Leavers. Difficult, surely?
I'm assuming that this will just be perceived as a continuation of the referendum, and split the same way.
The scoop the other night, a photo of what may be Leadsom's campaign strategy, had among it 1. a bid to decentralise power from CCHQ to Con Associations, which I assume will be popular with members 2. Boris Johnson will go around the country campaigning for her.
Mr. Borough, I think MPs tweeting Leadsom should withdraw helps her. It'll, I imagine, irritate the membership, who they're advocating should have no say.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
Got a feeling Ruth Davidson will be in the running for the next Tory leadership and Leadsom didn't compare well with her in the BBC debate.
All Davidson did in that debate was talk over the other team.
I went right off her during the debates. I put it down to the nature of Holyrood - but I found her bombastic and overbearing/self-righteous.
The real question is whether Leadsom is worth a bet at current odds. I was struck by James Forsyth's tweet yesterday that the contest was closer than people thought. Set against that, May seems to have the whole of the right-leaning press on her side, barring the Express. Can Leadsom really win from behind against the Mail, Telegraph and Times?
The released polls (if at all accurate) as I recall have the Con party membership supporting Leave 2:1.
I'm assuming that will ultimately carry Leadsom to a win.
If May gets almost all the Remainers then Leadsom would need ~75% of the Leavers. Difficult, surely?
The YouGov poll shows half the Leavers support May.
May gets about 90% of the Remainer members and about 50% of the Leaver members.
I would think the 90% is solid but the 50% could still move + or - 25%. It still gives it to May.
On topic, thanks @david_herdson for an interesting article.
I'm inclined to think that the Labour party has gone beyond salvaging, but that millions of loyal voters would still vote for the new incarnation anyway.
Sad, but surely those rebel MPs can't expect to be standing again in 2020?
If they won't challenge Corbyn, and they won't breakaway, both of which appear to be true, then I would expect to see a lot more deciding not to stand in 2020, as you suggest. What other option is there? If they calculate even losing in 2020 (if that occurs!) won't break the spell of the current membership, then they'd be stuck there under a Corbynite leader until 2025 at least.
Mr. Borough, I think MPs tweeting Leadsom should withdraw helps her. It'll, I imagine, irritate the membership, who they're advocating should have no say.
Keep a tally of those MPs. If it exceeds 6, that's the majority gone.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
Got a feeling Ruth Davidson will be in the running for the next Tory leadership and Leadsom didn't compare well with her in the BBC debate.
All Davidson did in that debate was talk over the other team.
I went right off her during the debates. I put it down to the nature of Holyrood - but I found her bombastic and overbearing/self-righteous.
Having children taught me some important new skills: like how to hold a baby, a glass of wine and a book simultaneously.
A baby, a glass of wine, a book, and RCS are at a river. RCS has one boat fitting one item and himself. If he takes the wine, the baby will eat the book. If he takes the book the baby will drink the wine; however, the book will not damage the wine. How does he transport them all safely?
Added note: he is not allowed to use a Gulfstream.
He eats the baby.
He makes a little raft for the baby and the book and pulls these alongside the boat as he savours the wine.
It would be helpful to know
a) What the book is called? "How to make rafts", would be useful. b) The quality of the wine?
People are taking this question a little more seriously than I intended.
Marriage has more than just state "involvement". It's basically a state thing - a fact blurred in England by the fact that the C of E can't decide whether it (the C of E) is church or state. Note that no other religion except the C of E can create a marriage without giving 28 days notice to the Register Office. We have piled so much cultural and religious junk on top of the basic legal relationship that it's difficult to see what objection there is to piling gay marriage on with all the other stuff. Oddly, I think I would be vehemently offended by the idea that I might want to enter a gay marriage, if I were actually gay, on the grounds that it is patronising and uncle Tom-ish and no one has solved the problem of how the groom and groom should dress without looking silly. But Leadsom wibbling about a lot of Christians writing to her about it is just plain silly.
Mr. Borough, I think MPs tweeting Leadsom should withdraw helps her. It'll, I imagine, irritate the membership, who they're advocating should have no say.
Keep a tally of those MPs. If it exceeds 6, that's the majority gone.
No it's not, that's like saying May's majority is gone too as Leadsom has more than six supporting her.
I think Andrea would be advised to withdraw from the leadership race. Let Theresa take over (she'll almost certainly prove to be a disaster - She's really not a character the public will ever warm to) and then Andrea might be able to have another run in 2020.
Because of one hostile interview? Nonsense.
No, because she's too inexperienced and accident prone. If she was to become leader she'll have a miserable time because she doesn't command the support of her parliamentary party, the media hate her and because she keeps screwing up she doesn't help herself.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
Got a feeling Ruth Davidson will be in the running for the next Tory leadership and Leadsom didn't compare well with her in the BBC debate.
All Davidson did in that debate was talk over the other team.
I went right off her during the debates. I put it down to the nature of Holyrood - but I found her bombastic and overbearing/self-righteous.
Different strokes for different folks - it was the first I'd really seen her, and I thought she was great. Dynamic, quick witted, pretty funny. The talking over people I didn't count against her, as she was against Boris, the master of being a rude, pushy debater. And she was bold enough to try the line that we make the EU work for us, rather than the other way around - shooting for the stars was Ruth!
The real question is whether Leadsom is worth a bet at current odds. I was struck by James Forsyth's tweet yesterday that the contest was closer than people thought. Set against that, May seems to have the whole of the right-leaning press on her side, barring the Express. Can Leadsom really win from behind against the Mail, Telegraph and Times?
The released polls (if at all accurate) as I recall have the Con party membership supporting Leave 2:1.
I'm assuming that will ultimately carry Leadsom to a win.
If May carries the remainer vote (not a certainty, but probably she'll have a lot of it) then she doesn't need to win too many Leavers to win overall, and she has plenty of Leaver backers at parliament at least, but the leave thing really does provide an opportunity for Leadsom. There are plenty of people paranoid Brexit will be avoided, and those who think May will go for a version of Brexit they don't like, and so Leadsom has a chance if she can pin May down, make any attempt for a cautious or nuanced approach look like equivocation or lack of commitment to the cause. If she can do that, it would also undermine May's experience as a factor, and her own inexperience, as she would be shown to be out doing May. Add in the 'anti-establishment' crowd, ludicrious though it would be, those who just hate May, and Leadsom has a chance.
I think all Leadsom needs to do is pass a not-mad threshold, to get the Leave vote. I don't think she really needs to contrast herself with May, the referendum has done that for her.
Mr. Borough, I think MPs tweeting Leadsom should withdraw helps her. It'll, I imagine, irritate the membership, who they're advocating should have no say.
Keep a tally of those MPs. If it exceeds 6, that's the majority gone.
No it's not, that's like saying May's majority is gone too as Leadsom has more than six supporting her.
If they're calling on her to withdraw now, how loyal do you think they would be to her in future?
@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.
It is a stich up for sure , she would only be stating facts, if you have children you worry about the long term for them and their children , if you have none you only have your own span to worry about.
That's an assumption which really is not true. Normal people really don't think that way.
Well I count myself as fairly normal and I believe I think differently and more longer term based on my grandchildren etc. May not fit your definition of normal but hey I suppose you are an expert
No - I simply believe that most people have thoughts about the future - you do not need to have fathered a child to have those feelings and concerns.
I still think you may take a longer term view if you have children
Marriage has more than just state "involvement". It's basically a state thing - a fact blurred in England by the fact that the C of E can't decide whether it (the C of E) is church or state. Note that no other religion except the C of E can create a marriage without giving 28 days notice to the Register Office. We have piled so much cultural and religious junk on top of the basic legal relationship that it's difficult to see what objection there is to piling gay marriage on with all the other stuff. Oddly, I think I would be vehemently offended by the idea that I might want to enter a gay marriage, if I were actually gay, on the grounds that it is patronising and uncle Tom-ish and no one has solved the problem of how the groom and groom should dress without looking silly. But Leadsom wibbling about a lot of Christians writing to her about it is just plain silly.
Thank you for the Gays, Those endless Gays, those sacred Gays you gave me. I'm thinking of the Gays, I won't forget a single Gay, believe me.
I bless the light, I bless the light that lights on you believe me. And though you're gone, You're with me every single Gay, believe me.
Gays I'll remember all my life, Gays when you can't see wrong from right. You took my life, But then I knew that very soon you'd leave me, But it's all right, Now I'm not frightened of this world, believe me.
I wish today could be tomorrow, The night is dark, It just brings sorrow anyway.
Thank you for the Gays, Those endless Gays, those sacred Gays you gave me. I'm thinking of the Gays, I won't forget a single Gay, believe me.
Gays I'll remember all my life, Gays when you can't see wrong from right. You took my life, But then I knew that very soon you'd leave me, But it's all right, Now I'm not frightened of this world, believe me. Gays.
Thank you for the Gays, Those endless Gays, those sacred Gays you gave me. I'm thinking of the Gays, I won't forget a single Gay, believe me.
I bless the light, I bless the light that shines on you believe me. And though you're gone, You're with me every single Gay, believe me. Gays.
@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.
It is a stich up for sure , she would only be stating facts, if you have children you worry about the long term for them and their children , if you have none you only have your own span to worry about.
That's an assumption which really is not true. Normal people really don't think that way.
Well I count myself as fairly normal and I believe I think differently and more longer term based on my grandchildren etc. May not fit your definition of normal but hey I suppose you are an expert
I believe (mostly) people with children & grandchildren do see the future differently. That doesn't mean childless people are not concerned about the future of other people's offspring.
Where the difference chiefly lies is how personal a view is taken, and that can cut both ways.
In my experience a parent is much more likely to be focussed on "the future of my offspring, whom I love dearly". That means there can be an unconscious text of "never mind all the rest".
A non-parent has a less emotionally-engaged view and is more likely to focus on the general future of the community's offspring.
Mr. Borough, I think MPs tweeting Leadsom should withdraw helps her. It'll, I imagine, irritate the membership, who they're advocating should have no say.
Keep a tally of those MPs. If it exceeds 6, that's the majority gone.
No it's not, that's like saying May's majority is gone too as Leadsom has more than six supporting her.
If they're calling on her to withdraw now, how loyal do you think they would be to her in future?
Comments
Where the difference chiefly lies is how personal a view is taken, and that can cut both ways.
In my experience a parent is much more likely to be focussed on "the future of my offspring, whom I love dearly". That means there can be an unconscious text of "never mind all the rest".
A non-parent has a less emotionally-engaged view and is more likely to focus on the general future of the community's offspring.
Added note: he is not allowed to use a Gulfstream.
It is also a lot easier to hang out with other families with similarly aged children, you both have to deal with all the inconveniences of trying to do anything with small children anyway, so don't put each other out.
There are certainly some people who become consumed by the idea of their own parenthood, and who want to spend all their lives talking about being a parent or judging other parents. In my experience these people have to stick to each other because no one else can stand them.
She needs to step down now
Nevertheless that wasn't my point - my point was my recollection of the quoted leadsom piece on marriage being a Christian institution when even if it is a religious one, it isn't just Christian, as a demonstration of her being at best carelessly insulting to those not of her view.
'He had an erection'.....
Self-labelling to prove a point is ultimately a bit daft. People are people, and by their deeds shall ye know them and all that.
Much better to step aside with dignity, let Theresa take take over and prove to the Tories version of Gordon Brown, and then be well placed to have a run with a much fairer wind behind her in 2020.
It's been a while since we have discussed AV
'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?'
Problem is their leader is still at the students union stage of politics.
She should withdraw in the national interest and be given a cabinet position of some kind
You're not going to stop people posting below the line about whatever they want to post about.
Turnabout is fair play. Give it a month and there'll be a shift to consensus on another issue and different people will be in a majority.
Rookie mistake 1 - the interview - but salvageable with a contrite 'of course that's not what I meant and apologise unreservedly if thats the impression I gave'. 'Fair enough, case closed, move on.'
However
Rookie mistake 2 - 'The Times are lying'. 'We have tapes' 'PLAY THE TAPES!!!' Oh.....
How can her complaints about the media (of which I'm sure she'll have some) be taken seriously in the future?
Not PM material, certainly now, and maybe ever.
If Leadsom wins, (and Corbyn stays), I think a major political realignment is a genuine possibility.
Personally I quite like Mrs L, but her parliamentary party and the media are very seriously set against her. It's not a position from which she'll be able to do any good. Much better for her to play the long game.
But that's just my take on it.
Some very nasty bugs can arise when one modifies software and assume that previously defined invariants will still hold.
Am I right in thinking that prior to Ed Miliband (the first of his name) changing the rules, the leader would not have survived a vote of no confidence? Would Foot, Kinnock et al been able to do as Corbyn has?
But that risks being drunk and disorderly in charge of both a boat and a baby.
(Is it possible to be d&d in charge of a boat? An acquaintance of mine was done for being d&d on a bike: he was riding along the middle of the A6 north from Matlock at about one in the morning. His excuse? the white lines were easier to see as his bike didn't have a light ...
I do agree with your general point though. When I first discovered the site in 2006 Tories were few and far between, it was peak Sion Simon time.
So, in summary, on the Labour side what one journalist has called the 'mañana coup' has flopped, and on the Conservative side any remaining doubts about whether the contest is going to move in Andrea Leadsom's favour have been resolved.
Bet accordingly.
I'm assuming that will ultimately carry Leadsom to a win.
It would be helpful to know
a) What the book is called? "How to make rafts", would be useful.
b) The quality of the wine?
It's always the same attention seeking people that seem to have the most to say for themselves (Dr Woolaston, Dan Hodges, Louise Mensch, Nadine Dorries, etc.)
If the Leadsomers feel they've been unfairly stacked against, it doesn't solve anything - the Tories just end up with May as EdM and Leadsom as DavidM.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/09/andrea-leadsom-tory-leadership-am-dram-peasant-revolt?CMP=share_btn_tw
Is May a stony faced authoritarian that struggles to connect emotionally with anyone because of her childlessness? Who knows? I have no window into her soul. It is quite possible that she would be the same with a family too.
The answer to outsiders seems obvious but this is by definition a fairly odd cohort of people.
I'm inclined to think that the Labour party has gone beyond salvaging, but that millions of loyal voters would still vote for the new incarnation anyway.
Sad, but surely those rebel MPs can't expect to be standing again in 2020?
The scoop the other night, a photo of what may be Leadsom's campaign strategy, had among it
1. a bid to decentralise power from CCHQ to Con Associations, which I assume will be popular with members
2. Boris Johnson will go around the country campaigning for her.
May gets about 90% of the Remainer members and about 50% of the Leaver members.
I would think the 90% is solid but the 50% could still move + or - 25%. It still gives it to May.
http://bit.ly/29tmRyG
The extreme bitterness of the reaction to her is what she represents, and what she may do as Prime Minister.
And that it might be popular.
*innocent face*
Some forms of incompetence are more equal than others.
Those endless Gays, those sacred Gays you gave me.
I'm thinking of the Gays,
I won't forget a single Gay, believe me.
I bless the light,
I bless the light that lights on you believe me.
And though you're gone,
You're with me every single Gay, believe me.
Gays I'll remember all my life,
Gays when you can't see wrong from right.
You took my life,
But then I knew that very soon you'd leave me,
But it's all right,
Now I'm not frightened of this world, believe me.
I wish today could be tomorrow,
The night is dark,
It just brings sorrow anyway.
Thank you for the Gays,
Those endless Gays, those sacred Gays you gave me.
I'm thinking of the Gays,
I won't forget a single Gay, believe me.
Gays I'll remember all my life,
Gays when you can't see wrong from right.
You took my life,
But then I knew that very soon you'd leave me,
But it's all right,
Now I'm not frightened of this world, believe me.
Gays.
Thank you for the Gays,
Those endless Gays, those sacred Gays you gave me.
I'm thinking of the Gays,
I won't forget a single Gay, believe me.
I bless the light,
I bless the light that shines on you believe me.
And though you're gone,
You're with me every single Gay, believe me.
Gays.
There ain;t gonna be no next time.