"So it really keeps you focused on 'what are you really saying?'. Because what it means is you don't want a downturn but 'never mind, let's look ahead to the ten years', hence it will all be fine. My children will be starting their lives in that next ten years so I have a real stake in the next year, the next two."
It's pretty bad.
Apart from anything else, what she says is mind-bogglingly stupid.
It might make sense, as an argument, to say that she has more of a personal interest in what's going to happen after she's dead because she has children.
But to say that she has a real stake in what happens next year because she has children? Nearly everyone has a real stake in what happens next year, because nearly everyone will still be alive themselves next year!
I think you're right. I've never said "as a father and grandfather blah blah blah."
I remember a friend showing me a reader's letter from the local paper in Barnet many years ago. Something along the lines of "As a survivor of the horrible conflict of the second world war, I believe I can comment on the tree-pruning services of the council. They are disgraceful."
Being a PhD holder myself, I have Dr still on my passport (the companies I worked for would book foreign flights for me). However, I always put Mr on anything else. I have this worry otherwise that someone would come running up and ask for medical assistance.
"Let the bastard die," doesn't sound that sympathetic.
True story: in 2005, was flying home from Calgary after a conference in Banff, Alberta. Mid-way during flight, one of the attendants comes over and asks, "Are you a doctor? We got a passenger with chest pains."
I thought - oh shit, that'll teach me to put "dr" when buying my ticket! Luckily they did find someone else who was medically qualified, so the patient was OK in the end.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
It was played on Radio 4 at 0730 this morning if anyone is bothered to listen on iplayer.
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'd largely agree with that. Also alot of the campaign is so utterly utterly negative. Note how the SNP persuaded the working class of Scotland to be much more "remain" than England.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
It was played on Radio 4 at 0730 this morning if anyone is bothered to listen on iplayer.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
Leadsom just on Sky - she's really pissed off with The Times. Statement, no questions.
What did she say?
It was pretty short. How disgusted she was, that she'd been repeatedly asked about her children etc, made it crystal clear that she didn't want any comparison drawn with May.
I didn't get the impression she was standing down - more incandescent at her words being framed in a misleading way.
Leadsom is clear that she is not claiming an edge over May in the PM contest because she is a mother.
But by newspapers asking her if she is a mother and her answering yes, the media is doing the job for her of pointing out that she is a mother whereas May isn't.
Surely a win win for Leadsom as far as Conservative members are concerned..
That is not what Leadsom said. She said she was't drawing a comparison, then drew the comparison and suggested being a mother did give her an edge, the quotes bear that out, all that stuff about being invested more and thinking more about the future because she has kids, which given she was talking about May voluntarily means she is saying May would not think the same.
Maybe it will play well or at least not negatively with Tory members, but it is taking the piss for Leadsom to claim she was not drawing a comparison, just because she said she wasn't.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
Philip Collins @PCollinsTimes 4m4 minutes ago If @LouiseMensch were still an MP could be PM candidate now. She'd have been big in the campaign and a higher intellectual class to Leadsom
I think on this site we'd label this classic trolling.
Being a PhD holder myself, I have Dr still on my passport (the companies I worked for would book foreign flights for me). However, I always put Mr on anything else. I have this worry otherwise that someone would come running up and ask for medical assistance.
"Let the bastard die," doesn't sound that sympathetic.
I don't have Dr in my passport nor use the title (danger of being ragged about it in the factory/office).
But a fellow engineering PhD booked a plane flight using his doctor title.
During the long distance flight a passenger was taken ill and the stewardess woken him up to provide medical assistance.
Being a PhD holder myself, I have Dr still on my passport (the companies I worked for would book foreign flights for me). However, I always put Mr on anything else. I have this worry otherwise that someone would come running up and ask for medical assistance.
"Let the bastard die," doesn't sound that sympathetic.
True story: in 2005, was flying home from Calgary after a conference in Banff, Alberta. Mid-way during flight, one of the attendants comes over and asks, "Are you a doctor? We got a passenger with chest pains."
I thought - oh shit, that'll teach me to put "dr" when buying my ticket! Luckily they did find someone else who was medically qualified, so the patient was OK in the end.
It certainly used to be the case that pharmacists with PhD’were specifically instructed NOT to use the title anywhere where the public might become confused.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
As a general rule in interviews or discussions, when answering a question with a series then end on the one that you wish to move the conversation on to.
Andrea demonstrated her inexperience/malignity by steering the conversation onto her children.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
"I didn't fight in t'last war just so you young buggers could [insert unapproved behaviour here]"
That, I think was acceptable.
Surely the reply of snotty, young smart arse should have been 'Come now Grandpa, surely you recognise that was precisely what you were fighting for', followed by a swift clout to the ear of said smart arse.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
That is being unreasonably sympathetic. Even without her fuller answer, volunteering having children as one of three differences you have from a political opponent is low, not naive. Where she was naive was thinking that saying she didn't wish to draw an unkind comparison with May (before doing just that) would keep the story on May rather than her.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Yes, I have an aunt who is infertile, the subject has never been mentioned and we were told as children not to bring it up. She loved my sister and I as if we were her own children growing up, along with the rest of my cousins. Looking back you could see just how much it hurt for her not to be able to have her own children. I'm astonished by the comparison made by Leadsom.
This Labour plot is so odd. If the MPs don't have the power to force Mr Corbyn out, why did they do this?
Peer pressure. Emotional blackmail. The need to be seen to be doing 'something'. The trope that anything can happen if you really, really want it and give it 110%. Being stupidly naive. Not understanding their own party rules. Take your pick.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Yes, I have an aunt who is infertile, the subject has never been mentioned and we were told as children not to bring it up. She loved my sister and I as if we were her own children growing up, along with the rest of my cousins. Looking back you could see just how much it hurt for her not to be able to have her own children. I'm astonished by the comparison made by Leadsom.
I suspect the truth is not some much being nasty, but literally having nothing else to say. She has no idea what to do with the premiership. This is Chauncey Gardiner all over again.
Right, chaps, I'm off for a bit. Shall return for the pre-race piece (probably this evening, may be tomorrow if the weather looks wonky). Just a reminder in case the site goes down due to shifting server.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
It affects people deeply. We're being visited today by a friend and his German wife. When we had the little 'un they kept away, as they were trying for a child and she was deeply upset it was taking them so long.
Once she was pregnant, they came to see us and she loved our baby.
Yes, I have an aunt who is infertile, the subject has never been mentioned and we were told as children not to bring it up. She loved my sister and I as if we were her own children growing up, along with the rest of my cousins. Looking back you could see just how much it hurt for her not to be able to have her own children. I'm astonished by the comparison made by Leadsom.
The comparison was being part of a large extended family who keep her grounded.
"Rachel Sylvester: What is the main difference between you and Theresa May?
Andrea Leadsom: In terms of the country I think I absolutely understand how the economy works and can really focus on turning it around.
In terms of personal qualities I see myself as one an optimist
and two a huge member of a huge family and that’s important, my kids are a huge part of my life, my sisters my two brothers who are half brothers my mum and step dad’s sons who are very close, huge part of a family so very grounded and normal, enormously optimistic."
Being a PhD holder myself, I have Dr still on my passport (the companies I worked for would book foreign flights for me). However, I always put Mr on anything else. I have this worry otherwise that someone would come running up and ask for medical assistance.
"Let the bastard die," doesn't sound that sympathetic.
I don't have Dr in my passport nor use the title (danger of being ragged about it in the factory/office).
But a fellow engineering PhD booked a plane flight using his doctor title.
During the long distance flight a passenger was taken ill and the stewardess woken him up to provide medical assistance.
Suspect there are any number of "Dr"s commenting on NHS matters while not publishing that they are actually Phds in something irrelevant.
A certain village idiot who is a "Dr" of Irish Womens' History, for example, but who made the mistake of libelling Anna Soubry and Lord Ashcroft, amongst others.
She has a pendant thingy round her neck which is hopelessly off to one side. Minor point, but looking shambolic is not a good thing. Does she not have people to sort this sort of thing out?
And she says she has clarified instructions to her campaign team. It wasn't the campaign team that gave the interview...
Being a PhD holder myself, I have Dr still on my passport (the companies I worked for would book foreign flights for me). However, I always put Mr on anything else. I have this worry otherwise that someone would come running up and ask for medical assistance.
"Let the bastard die," doesn't sound that sympathetic.
I don't have Dr in my passport nor use the title (danger of being ragged about it in the factory/office).
But a fellow engineering PhD booked a plane flight using his doctor title.
During the long distance flight a passenger was taken ill and the stewardess woken him up to provide medical assistance.
Suspect there are any number of "Dr"s commenting on NHS matters while not publishing that they are actually Phds in something irrelevant.
A certain village idiot who is a "Dr" of Irish Womens' History, for example, but who made the mistake of libelling Anna Soubry and Lord Ashcroft, amongst others.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Politics is a rough old game. May's childlessness is of interest as was Heath's failure to marry.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Yes, I have an aunt who is infertile, the subject has never been mentioned and we were told as children not to bring it up. She loved my sister and I as if we were her own children growing up, along with the rest of my cousins. Looking back you could see just how much it hurt for her not to be able to have her own children. I'm astonished by the comparison made by Leadsom.
I suspect the truth is not some much being nasty, but literally having nothing else to say. She has no idea what to do with the premiership. This is Chauncey Gardiner all over again.
Yes, it's probably a case of dimness rather than malice, but it's not really a quality that you want in the PM. Especially one that is going to have to convince 27 other heads of governments of our views on trade and immigration. Truly astonished at the 84 idiots who thought putting her on the ballot paper was a good idea.
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?
Not a great piece of marketing. It looks like what it is, a piece of campaigning literature. It's a okish idea as it goes, but needed to be done in a less crass way - an open letter on HOC paper or something.
She has a pendant thingy round her neck which is hopelessly off to one side. Minor point, but looking shambolic is not a good thing. Does she not have people to sort this sort of thing out?
And she says she has clarified instructions to her campaign team. It wasn't the campaign team that gave the interview...
Were the instructions, please go buy a gag for the next time I'm within earshot of journalists?
I'm not sure if this means it's on or it's off. One or the other. Or possibly Don't Know.
I think IIRC, Watson rushed back from Glasto and persuaded the rebels (for want of a better word) to hold off until he attempted a compromise involving the him, the unions and Corbyn thrashing it all out. So, him saying there can be no negotiation with Corbyn as no prospect of compromise, means the ball is back in the rebels court.
The Labour party tearing itself apart in a leadership war might help May, as once again can be seen as the only grown up left standing who can get a bloody grip.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
.
I suspect the truth is not some much being nasty, but literally having nothing else to say. She has no idea what to do with the premiership. This is Chauncey Gardiner all over again.
Yes, that makes sense. Just sitting there thinking Ooh, three things, Um, God, dunno, that's difficult, oh.. Wait. I've got kids. Theresa hasn't. Yes. I'll say that.
So she said it.
A charitable conclusion is that she's just a bit dim, as you imply.
And stayed dim for the next five minutes of the conversation, whilst spelling out the difference explicitly?
The remarkable thing isn't the condemnation of her suitability but the lengths to which some people are going to defend her in the circumstances.
When I first heard the story I expected the position to be that the interviewer had asked some question along the lines of "what are your greatest influences/motivates you in politics", to which Leadsom quite reasonably could have mentioned her motherhood, and then a crafty interviewer had led her along to explain why this makes her a better politician and then hit her at the end with the killer comparison with May.
Whereas the transcript shows there are no leading questions at all, and everything that has been said was volunteered by Leadsom pretty much unprompted.
And she was not so dim as to realise how it might look, since before making the worst of her comments she explicitly acknowledges how "really horrible" it is.
Leadsom is clear that she is not claiming an edge over May in the PM contest because she is a mother.
But by newspapers asking her if she is a mother and her answering yes, the media is doing the job for her of pointing out that she is a mother whereas May isn't.
Now we know from the longer transcript that Leadsom brought the issue of children up unprompted, as one of the main differences between her and Theresa May, is it too much to hope that her apologists will stop telling us she was the innocent victim of a trap?
Leadsom is clear that she is not claiming an edge over May in the PM contest because she is a mother.
But by newspapers asking her if she is a mother and her answering yes, the media is doing the job for her of pointing out that she is a mother whereas May isn't.
Now we know from the longer transcript that Leadsom brought the issue of children up unprompted, as one of the main differences between her and Theresa May, is it too much to hope that her apologists will stop telling us she was the innocent victim of a trap?
Someone should remind Leadsom, that she's campaigning to run the country, not #mumsnet
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Yes, I have an aunt who is infertile, the subject has never been mentioned and we were told as children not to bring it up. She loved my sister and I as if we were her own children growing up, along with the rest of my cousins. Looking back you could see just how much it hurt for her not to be able to have her own children. I'm astonished by the comparison made by Leadsom.
I suspect the truth is not some much being nasty, but literally having nothing else to say. She has no idea what to do with the premiership. This is Chauncey Gardiner all over again.
Yes, that makes sense. Just sitting there thinking Ooh, three things, Um, God, dunno, that's difficult, oh.. Wait. I've got kids. Theresa hasn't. Yes. I'll say that.
So she said it.
A charitable conclusion is that she's just a bit dim, as you imply.
hope you don't write such utter garbage in your latest book @SeanT
I'm not sure if this means it's on or it's off. One or the other. Or possibly Don't Know.
I think IIRC, Watson rushed back from Glasto and persuaded the rebels (for want of a better word) to hold off until he attempted a compromise involving the him, the unions and Corbyn thrashing it all out. So, him saying there can be no negotiation with Corbyn as no prospect of compromise, means the ball is back in the rebels court.
The Labour party tearing itself apart in a leadership war might help May, as once again can be seen as the only grown up left standing who can get a bloody grip.
Indeed and the last thing that Labour wants to do is show the other side what happens when the members choice has little Parliamentary support.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Politics is a rough old game. May's childlessness is of interest as was Heath's failure to marry.
Not at all. It's off limits, as any decent person should know.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Politics is a rough old game. May's childlessness is of interest as was Heath's failure to marry.
Not at all. It's off limits, as any decent person should know.
It does feel as though ordinarily sensible people are overlooking a lot for the sake of ideological purity at the moment. This must be how Labour moderates feel when talking to the likes of Nick Palmer about Corbyn.
Being a PhD holder myself, I have Dr still on my passport (the companies I worked for would book foreign flights for me). However, I always put Mr on anything else. I have this worry otherwise that someone would come running up and ask for medical assistance.
"Let the bastard die," doesn't sound that sympathetic.
True story: in 2005, was flying home from Calgary after a conference in Banff, Alberta. Mid-way during flight, one of the attendants comes over and asks, "Are you a doctor? We got a passenger with chest pains."
I thought - oh shit, that'll teach me to put "dr" when buying my ticket! Luckily they did find someone else who was medically qualified, so the patient was OK in the end.
It certainly used to be the case that pharmacists with PhD’were specifically instructed NOT to use the title anywhere where the public might become confused.
It is also only a fanny that would do it in any case, bit like those losers that get knighted and then have sycophants calling them Sir, cringeworthy.
As a father of three, I believe that Andrea Leadsom is a political lightweight who is also prone to not being entirely truthful about a whole range of issues. She lied during the referendum campaign, she lied about her work experience and she has now lied about the interview she gave to the Times.
If she really is the true keeper of the flame, what does it tell us about that flame and the people who want it to burn in perpetuity?
I'm not sure if this means it's on or it's off. One or the other. Or possibly Don't Know.
Yvette/Chuka should now lead the PLP. Freeze out the left in parliament. Then go through the process of destroying the Momentum group through a well financed #savinglabour campaign. Corbyn and his rabble will be gone by end 2017.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
A "difference" is not the same as an "edge". Clearly May is different from Leadsom in not having children. This life experience might be an advantage or a disadvantage but it is a difference.
Presumably if she was up against Blunkett she would have said she can do a better job because she can see and if up against Roosevelt she would have said she could have done a better job because she could walk properly?
What was fascinating here last night was remainers desperately trying to play it down because presumably they think she would cock up brexit and fail to achieve it in office.
I'm not sure if this means it's on or it's off. One or the other. Or possibly Don't Know.
I think IIRC, Watson rushed back from Glasto and persuaded the rebels (for want of a better word) to hold off until he attempted a compromise involving the him, the unions and Corbyn thrashing it all out. So, him saying there can be no negotiation with Corbyn as no prospect of compromise, means the ball is back in the rebels court.
The Labour party tearing itself apart in a leadership war might help May, as once again can be seen as the only grown up left standing who can get a bloody grip.
This is it now - the whole future of the Labour party is in play.
The rebel MPs all face deselection if Corbyn wins once more, so they actually have very little more to lose.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Politics is a rough old game. May's childlessness is of interest as was Heath's failure to marry.
Not at all. It's off limits, as any decent person should know.
It does feel as though ordinarily sensible people are overlooking a lot for the sake of ideological purity at the moment. This must be how Labour moderates feel when talking to the likes of Nick Palmer about Corbyn.
I'm not sure if this means it's on or it's off. One or the other. Or possibly Don't Know.
Yvette/Chuka should now lead the PLP. Freeze out the left in parliament. Then go through the process of destroying the Momentum group through a well financed #savinglabour campaign. Corbyn and his rabble will be gone by end 2017.
Two absolute donkeys, a snake oil salesman and an absolute no hoper. Labour are well and truly F****** if that is what they have to depend on.
Leadsom is clearly a liar. It is now without a doubt. It is in black and white.
Another contrast with Thatcher (with whom Leadsom herself invited comparisons). Even Thatcher's worst enemies would never claim she told anything other than the truth as she saw it.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
A "difference" is not the same as an "edge". Clearly May is different from Leadsom in not having children. This might be an advantage or a disadvantage but it is a difference.
She implied (or said?) it makes her a better candidate because she has a direct stake in the future of the country. It's an indecent attack on a person who is unable to have children and has said she feels great regret about that inability.
Leadsom just on Sky - she's really pissed off with The Times. Statement, no questions.
She is really annoyed at the way they tried to twist her words by quoting them verbatim.
The Times headline wasn't justified by Leadsom's remarks was it?
Murdock's The Sun and The Times are both backing May and have an agenda. They are going to get attacked by Leadson so better watch out.
The Daily Mail is also pro May. Will any news organisation back Leadsom - The Daily Express?
The headline was that Leadsom claimed being a mother gave her the edge on May.
In an interview about a leadership contest where Leadsom had volunteered being a mother as one of her key attributes. Then without prompting referred to it being sad that her opponent has no children, and in the same answer gone on to explain in detail how being a mother gave her a stake in the future and meant she would be more keen to avoid a downturn. Etc.
In the circumstances I suggest that the headline is not only accurate but relatively restrained. If the interview had been with the Sun? That last question left as an 'exercise for the reader', as those old textbooks used to say.
Without seeing the previous questions we can't tell if it was unprompted.
Can't wait for May's response. Expect she'll put the boot in with a dignified but murderous magnanimity.
The best thing to do is not respond.
If there is one strength to May it is her expertise at masterly inactivity!
That works as a minister but not as a PM because a PM has to show leadership..
May's inactivity and reluctance to compromise does run the risk of running down the A50 clock, forcing a last minute scramble or an unceremonious exit.
I'm not sure if this means it's on or it's off. One or the other. Or possibly Don't Know.
I think IIRC, Watson rushed back from Glasto and persuaded the rebels (for want of a better word) to hold off until he attempted a compromise involving the him, the unions and Corbyn thrashing it all out. So, him saying there can be no negotiation with Corbyn as no prospect of compromise, means the ball is back in the rebels court.
The Labour party tearing itself apart in a leadership war might help May, as once again can be seen as the only grown up left standing who can get a bloody grip.
This is it now - the whole future of the Labour party is in play.
The rebel MPs all face deselection if Corbyn wins once more, so they actually have very little more to lose.
I'm hesitant to make a prediction given the way this summer is going. On the face of it, all out civil war starts on Monday in a bitter fight for the party. But then again nothing may happen.
I did have one thought though. Stand Lord Kinnock against Corbyn.
I'm not sure if this means it's on or it's off. One or the other. Or possibly Don't Know.
Yvette/Chuka should now lead the PLP. Freeze out the left in parliament. Then go through the process of destroying the Momentum group through a well financed #savinglabour campaign. Corbyn and his rabble will be gone by end 2017.
Two absolute donkeys, a snake oil salesman and an absolute no hoper. Labour are well and truly F****** if that is what they have to depend on.
The more I think about it I think its dark arts from Leadsom. She has made the point she wanted to about Mrs May being childless. Its despicable but I feel sure she intended this.
Frankly she should never be allowed anywhere near No 10.
Yes, she's certainly enthused the hard-right Tory/Kipper contingent on here, who aren't far short of shouting 'Go Girl!' But this is straight out of the Trump playbook - if you can get the powers that be into a flap, then you must be doing something right, and the alienated will love you for it. This might work out very well for her.
I've listened to the interview as posted by @Gadfly earlier, I don't know what Leadsom is complaining about. She was given a softball question about her being proud of her family, she then went on to draw the comparison between herself and May to paint May in a negative light. The interviewer didn't even mention Mrs May.
I find her lack of compassion pretty disconcerting. She claims to be a Christian, but I'm sure that compassion is one of the foundations of the religion having sat through endless sermons while at school.
We don't know what the preceding questions were. There seems to be an audio recording available, but the Times have chosen not to release it.
There is a longer transcript on ConHome.
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
I've got friends with no kids. People who, I know, wanted kids. We talk about everything under the sun from sex to death to God to spin bowling. But, like any sentient human being, I know never to go near THAT subject, unless they start talking about it first. Which they generally don't.
It's an unspoken human rule. You don't mention it. Because it is pointlessly hurtful.
I think Leadsom is probably guiltier of stupid naivety than active nastiness. But it still damages her, badly.
Politics is a rough old game. May's childlessness is of interest as was Heath's failure to marry.
Not at all. It's off limits, as any decent person should know.
The life experience of the PM candidates is surely important?
Leadsom is top of the news billing - and the electorate now know that Leadsom has children, and May doesn't. Whether this should be an issue aside, the way it was done aside, like Leave's 350m claim, I don't think this is going to harm her.
Being a PhD holder myself, I have Dr still on my passport (the companies I worked for would book foreign flights for me). However, I always put Mr on anything else. I have this worry otherwise that someone would come running up and ask for medical assistance.
"Let the bastard die," doesn't sound that sympathetic.
True story: in 2005, was flying home from Calgary after a conference in Banff, Alberta. Mid-way during flight, one of the attendants comes over and asks, "Are you a doctor? We got a passenger with chest pains."
I thought - oh shit, that'll teach me to put "dr" when buying my ticket! Luckily they did find someone else who was medically qualified, so the patient was OK in the end.
It certainly used to be the case that pharmacists with PhD’were specifically instructed NOT to use the title anywhere where the public might become confused.
It is also only a fanny that would do it in any case, bit like those losers that get knighted and then have sycophants calling them Sir, cringeworthy.
Ive got more letters after my name than in it - including my middle name - but rarely use them even at work.
Basically only when Im writing a missive to correct some arrogant twunt then the letters appear on the end which adds to the impact.
OK Andrea's leadership campaign has crashed and burned. She should now do the honourable thing and step out of the race, it will be painful but she should be honest and say "my inexperience has shown during this campaign that I am not ready to be PM and although I never meant any harm by my comments I know I shouldn't have said them". Said down gracefully instead of losing ungracefully.
I'm not sure if this means it's on or it's off. One or the other. Or possibly Don't Know.
Yvette/Chuka should now lead the PLP. Freeze out the left in parliament. Then go through the process of destroying the Momentum group through a well financed #savinglabour campaign. Corbyn and his rabble will be gone by end 2017.
Two absolute donkeys, a snake oil salesman and an absolute no hoper. Labour are well and truly F****** if that is what they have to depend on.
All of which are an improvement over the incumbent.
Comments
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/united-kingdom-pre-qualifying-2016.html
Edited extra bit: I thought it'd take me a bit longer than it did, otherwise I wouldn't''ve put up the betting post early.
It might make sense, as an argument, to say that she has more of a personal interest in what's going to happen after she's dead because she has children.
But to say that she has a real stake in what happens next year because she has children? Nearly everyone has a real stake in what happens next year, because nearly everyone will still be alive themselves next year!
Brilliant pun David, absolutely love it.
I thought - oh shit, that'll teach me to put "dr" when buying my ticket! Luckily they did find someone else who was medically qualified, so the patient was OK in the end.
'It is a disgrace that The Times have made Andrea look like a reactionary bigot, by quoting her words'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36752865
The open question that led to the conversation was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May?". In answer to which Leadsom volunteers understanding the economy, being an optimist, and having children.
The interviewer then not surprisingly starts to explore the third of these.
I don't see any defence for Leadsom in the longer transcript? Indeed the emphasis in the original question "difference from May" makes bringing up children even worse. (And entirely justifies the Times headline)
Two: One to change the bulb, and one to upload the audio online as proof.
but I feel the hand of hsitory on my shoulder"
Tony Blair
So Leadsom is clearly in a PM mold.
"I didn't fight in t'last war just so you young buggers could [insert unapproved behaviour here]"
That, I think was acceptable.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/751724391889833984
As an aside, my German teacher used to clench his fists and growl "Mensch!" whenever someone cocked up.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/the-timess-transcript-of-what-leadsom-said-in-her-interview-with-rachel-sylvester.html
If @LouiseMensch were still an MP could be PM candidate now. She'd have been big in the campaign and a higher intellectual class to Leadsom
I think on this site we'd label this classic trolling.
I don't have Dr in my passport nor use the title (danger of being ragged about it in the factory/office).
But a fellow engineering PhD booked a plane flight using his doctor title.
During the long distance flight a passenger was taken ill and the stewardess woken him up to provide medical assistance.
Maybe Ovareaction?
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/751725533902299136
Andrea demonstrated her inexperience/malignity by steering the conversation onto her children.
Once she was pregnant, they came to see us and she loved our baby.
"Rachel Sylvester: What is the main difference between you and Theresa May?
Andrea Leadsom: In terms of the country I think I absolutely understand how the economy works and can really focus on turning it around.
In terms of personal qualities I see myself as one an optimist
and two a huge member of a huge family and that’s important, my kids are a huge part of my life, my sisters my two brothers who are half brothers my mum and step dad’s sons who are very close, huge part of a family so very grounded and normal, enormously optimistic."
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/the-timess-transcript-of-what-leadsom-said-in-her-interview-with-rachel-sylvester.html
A certain village idiot who is a "Dr" of Irish Womens' History, for example, but who made the mistake of libelling Anna Soubry and Lord Ashcroft, amongst others.
And she says she has clarified instructions to her campaign team. It wasn't the campaign team that gave the interview...
Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson calls off talks and says there is “no realistic prospect of reaching a compromise”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/jeremy-corbyn-set-for-leadership-challenge-after-peace-talks-fail?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The Labour party tearing itself apart in a leadership war might help May, as once again can be seen as the only grown up left standing who can get a bloody grip.
The remarkable thing isn't the condemnation of her suitability but the lengths to which some people are going to defend her in the circumstances.
When I first heard the story I expected the position to be that the interviewer had asked some question along the lines of "what are your greatest influences/motivates you in politics", to which Leadsom quite reasonably could have mentioned her motherhood, and then a crafty interviewer had led her along to explain why this makes her a better politician and then hit her at the end with the killer comparison with May.
Whereas the transcript shows there are no leading questions at all, and everything that has been said was volunteered by Leadsom pretty much unprompted.
And she was not so dim as to realise how it might look, since before making the worst of her comments she explicitly acknowledges how "really horrible" it is.
If she really is the true keeper of the flame, what does it tell us about that flame and the people who want it to burn in perpetuity?
What was fascinating here last night was remainers desperately trying to play it down because presumably they think she would cock up brexit and fail to achieve it in office.
The rebel MPs all face deselection if Corbyn wins once more, so they actually have very little more to lose.
Not a single word on May's record in one of the great offices of state.
Got to love the serious commentators on PB...
Another contrast with Thatcher (with whom Leadsom herself invited comparisons). Even Thatcher's worst enemies would never claim she told anything other than the truth as she saw it.
I did have one thought though. Stand Lord Kinnock against Corbyn.
There appear to be no available odds on that one.
Basically only when Im writing a missive to correct some arrogant twunt then the letters appear on the end which adds to the impact.
Yours Mr Bedfordshire BEng(Hons) CEng MI** MI***