politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson says the Eagle has floundered

Second! Like Leadsom....

Completely off topic - but a little light hearted fun - what if the US Presidential candidates were AirBNB renters, and what reviews would they get?

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/airbnb-tenant-reviews-of-the-candidates

Secretary Clinton stayed in my spare room in New Hampshire. She seemed nice, and left the space just as she found it. Well, I mean, my Wi-Fi was messed up afterward, and I’m having trouble getting e-mails, but I can’t imagine that has anything to do with her.” —Mitch, Nashua.

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Will Andrea sign?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm36sqiWAAA9OzN.jpg:large

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?

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Will Andrea sign?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm36sqiWAAA9OzN.jpg:large

Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/britain-first-andrea-leadsom-conservative-leadership-election-contest_uk_577d0176e4b0c9460801ceb2

"Fans of Britain First echoed the group’s support [For Andrea Leadsom] the second highest-rated comment on the group’s Facebook post reading: “[Theresa] May will cause civil war - she will let them have sharia law and have them Muslims home for tea. While we find ways of getting our guns etc ready for the off.”

I mean Andrea says she's a mother, but can we really be so sure?

CarlottaVance said:

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Will Andrea sign?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm36sqiWAAA9OzN.jpg:large

Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.

- Not sticking to spending limits
- Cooperating with other parties
- ignoring offensive behavior by supporters on social media
- Not staying within limits of acceptable political debate
- not doing what's right for the party & country

Are you suggesting Angela needs to do this to win?

Cooperating with people is often a good idea, including supporters of other political parties. Who came up with this idiocy, and why would anyone sign up to it?

ThomasNashe said:

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?

Back to bed?

I understand that two years ago I became a better, more moral person, and a better candidate for the Conservative leadership, because I had a child.

Or is it only mothers that Leadsom thinks this applies to? I think she should be asked if she thinks it applies to fathers as well.

Interestingly, her defence is: "But the mother of three tweeted that the way the interview was reported was "the exact opposite of what I said"." (from BBC)

I wonder if she meant to say / recalls the first clause (the part before the 'but'), and didn't particularly mean to say the last part that contradicts it? A running-your-mouth-off problem. If so, it's a defence, but it's also a reason *not* to make her PM.

It's also why I'd be a terrible MP. My mouth is always two sentences ahead of my brain. (*)

(*) I know you all find that hard to believe ...

edmundintokyo said:

IIUC Owen Smith was saying he was holding back because the were talks in progress and it looked like they may be able to sort something out. This isn't necessarily a lie; Insiders on the left must realize that sticking with Corbyn after most of their candidates has said he's shit is likely to result in a very nasty election result, which would be horrible for Labour but probably particularly horrible for the Labour left.

The way through this is clearly for Corbyn to resign in return for making sure another left-wing candidate gets on the ballot. This kind of deal may not be trivial to orchestrate given the lack of trust on both sides, but assuming the NEC is cooperative it doesn't sound like an impossible task.

That's true to some extent about the reason for delay but it's still daft. Putting another, 'better' candidate of the left (MacDonnell?) in is almost certain to result in their victory, partly because the 'coup' against Corbyn will enrage the left - although some on that left would also be enraged at MacDonnell (if it is he) being complicit in it - and motivate them to rally round their new candidate, partly because swing Labour voters will have been told that the new left-winger is 'better', therefore deserving of a look, and partly because frankly, if Corbyn could win now - and he probably could - then an alternative candidate from the left that was marketed as better and which looked better almost certainly could.

But such a candidate almost certainly wouldn't be better, except perhaps presentationally: the infiltration, the policies, the back-story of unsavoury links with edgy characters: none is likely to be much different than now.

But that's to get ahead of outselves. The worst reason not to have acted is that Corbyn doesn't look like a man ready to go and every week that goes by closes the window significantly on the chance of a challenge. Once MPs are on their holidays, it will be far harder for them to plot than when they're in the same place. Sure, they can exchange texts, e-mails and phone calls but there's nothing like being in the same place as everyone else to get a feeling for a mood. Far harder to agree to something when you're in Patagonia if it might end your career if it goes wrong.

Morning all

FPT I see Andrea Leadsom's defence of her comments is apparently she told the reporter not to interpret them in a certain way. Not that she didn't say them, or mean them.

Which is nice...

If the interview as reported was the "exact opposite" of what Leadsome said, has she clarified exactly what she did say?

alex. said:

If the interview as reported was the "exact opposite" of what Leadsome said, has she clarified exactly what she did say?

http://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/751589030924525568/photo/1

"Please don't report that my statements about Theresa May and kids are about Theresa May and kids. Thanks"

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Will Andrea sign?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm36sqiWAAA9OzN.jpg:large

Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.

- Not sticking to spending limits
- Cooperating with other parties
- ignoring offensive behavior by supporters on social media
- Not staying within limits of acceptable political debate
- not doing what's right for the party & country

Are you suggesting Angela needs to do this to win?

Cooperating with people is often a good idea, including supporters of other political parties. Who came up with this idiocy, and why would anyone sign up to it?

When they're trying to take over your party by the back door? How's that working for Labour?

Sean_F said:

ThomasNashe said:

Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?

The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.

And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.

That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

IIUC Owen Smith was saying he was holding back because the were talks in progress and it looked like they may be able to sort something out. This isn't necessarily a lie; Insiders on the left must realize that sticking with Corbyn after most of their candidates has said he's shit is likely to result in a very nasty election result, which would be horrible for Labour but probably particularly horrible for the Labour left.

candidate gets on the ballot. This kind of deal may not be trivial to orchestrate given the lack of trust on both sides, but assuming the NEC is cooperative it doesn't sound like an impossible task.

round their new candidate, partly because swing Labour voters will have been told that the new left-winger is 'better', therefore deserving of a look, and partly because frankly, if Corbyn could win now - and he probably could - then an alternative candidate from the left that was marketed as better and which looked better almost certainly could.

But such a candidate almost certainly wouldn't be better, except perhaps presentationally: the infiltration, the policies, the back-story of unsavoury links with edgy characters: none is likely to be much different than now.

But that's to get ahead of ourselves. The worst reason not to have acted is that Corbyn doesn't look like a man ready to go and every week that goes by closes the window significantly on the chance of a challenge. Once MPs are on their holidays, it will be far harder for them to plot than when they're in the same place. Sure, they can exchange texts, e-mails and phone calls but there's nothing like being in the same place as everyone else to get a feeling for a mood. Far harder to agree to something when you're in Patagonia if it might end your career if it goes wrong.

The problem isn't Corbyn. He knows he's a presentational disaster (which isn't trivial, even in the Labour Party) - that's why he encouraged just about every other hard left MP to stand for leader before doing so himself. The problem is the world-view of the average Labour member. and particularly their view on power. That view is simple: they're against it, because no government can get it right all the time, and for a socialist only perfection will do. If reality is unpleasant - and it almost always is - then let someone else run the country. Even the Tories.

Speaking of whom: consider this. Mrs L offers a referendum on the restoration of capital punishment. Mrs M feels obliged to match the offer. Polls show a 3:2 majority for the return of the noose. Digging into that, we find that the majority is made up of those who have little or no faith in or respect for the law - those who do trust and respect it are - just - against changing the penalty for murder (and treason).

Like Labour, representative democracy is an idea whose time has gone.

MarqueeMark said:

alex. said:

If the interview as reported was the "exact opposite" of what Leadsome said, has she clarified exactly what she did say?

It wouldn't surprise me if she said what The Times have reported, then thought "uh, that came out worse than I meant it to sound", clarified it with "the exact opposite" and said they weren't to use the first quote. Which would fit with both sides positions.

It would still be news that somebody going for the top job was so imprecise in their words and needed to correct them. I mean, you can't exactly get away with "When I said "Let's bomb Russia!", Mister Putin should know I meant the exact opposite. Let's NOT bomb Russia. So will he recall his missiles, pretty please?"

Reagan got away with it OK

david_herdson said:

edmundintokyo said:

IIUC Owen Smith was saying he was holding back because the were talks in progress and it looked like they may be able to sort something out. This isn't necessarily a lie; Insiders on the left must realize that sticking with Corbyn after most of their candidates has said he's shit is likely to result in a very nasty election result, which would be horrible for Labour but probably particularly horrible for the Labour left.

The way through this is clearly for Corbyn to resign in return for making sure another left-wing candidate gets on the ballot. This kind of deal may not be trivial to orchestrate given the lack of trust on both sides, but assuming the NEC is cooperative it doesn't sound like an impossible task.

That's true to some extent about the reason for delay but it's still daft. Putting another, 'better' candidate of the left (MacDonnell?) in is almost certain to result in their victory, partly because the 'coup' against Corbyn will enrage the left - although some on that left would also be enraged at MacDonnell (if it is he) being complicit in it - and motivate them to rally round their new candidate, partly because swing Labour voters will have been told that the new left-winger is 'better', therefore deserving of a look, and partly because frankly, if Corbyn could win now - and he probably could - then an alternative candidate from the left that was marketed as better and which looked better almost certainly could.

But such a candidate almost certainly wouldn't be better, except perhaps presentationally: the infiltration, the policies, the back-story of unsavoury links with edgy characters: none is likely to be much different than now.

But that's to get ahead of outselves. The worst reason not to have acted is that Corbyn doesn't look like a man ready to go and every week that goes by closes the window significantly on the chance of a challenge. Once MPs are on their holidays, it will be far harder for them to plot than when they're in the same place. Sure, they can exchange texts, e-mails and phone calls but there's nothing like being in the same place as everyone else to get a feeling for a mood. Far harder to agree to something when you're in Patagonia if it might end your career if it goes wrong.

The plotting is already done. The next move is a formal challenge under the rules.

As for the candidate, McDonnell would likely lose fewer seats than Corbyn, but the man in the right place at the right time is Clive Lewis.

MarqueeMark said:

alex. said:

If the interview as reported was the "exact opposite" of what Leadsome said, has she clarified exactly what she did say?

It wouldn't surprise me if she said what The Times have reported, then thought "uh, that came out worse than I meant it to sound", clarified it with "the exact opposite" and said they weren't to use the first quote. Which would fit with both sides positions.

It would still be news that somebody going for the top job was so imprecise in their words and needed to correct them. I mean, you can't exactly get away with "When I said "Let's bomb Russia!", Mister Putin should know I meant the exact opposite. Let's NOT bomb Russia. So will he recall his missiles, pretty please?"

I do have some sympathy for Leadsom, as it does appear as though the Times have done their best to portray her comments in the worst possible light, however, I have no sympathy for her in allowing her mouth to run away with itself and then taking the argument to twitter, of all places.

I expect we’ll see more of this political naivety coming to the fore during the hustings.

Indigo said:

Pong said:

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Will Andrea sign?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm36sqiWAAA9OzN.jpg:large

Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/britain-first-andrea-leadsom-conservative-leadership-election-contest_uk_577d0176e4b0c9460801ceb2

"Fans of Britain First echoed the group’s support [For Andrea Leadsom] the second highest-rated comment on the group’s Facebook post reading: “[Theresa] May will cause civil war - she will let them have sharia law and have them Muslims home for tea. While we find ways of getting our guns etc ready for the off.”

and your point is ?

Andrea appeals to extreme right wingers?

@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

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

ThomasNashe said:

Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?

The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.

And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.

That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.

Which is probably why some new kind of centrist party is needed. However, FPTP doesn't really allow for three parties of government.

If we ever get to the point where there are three political groupings with around a third of the vote each the outcome under FPTP will be a lottery.
That's why we need to know the positions on PR from each of those groupings before a GE. If Labour MPs do split to form another party they would have financial backing and would be well advised to advocate some form of PR. They should also come to electoral pacts with the LibDems and Greens.

Have we established whether the 3 quidders will have a vote if Labour hold another leadership election in the near future?

Michael Crick reported on Thursday that the party's membership had grown by 128,000 within the last fortnight or so, which rather suggests that Eagle's actions or otherwise could be an irrelevance.

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Will Andrea sign?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm36sqiWAAA9OzN.jpg:large

Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.

- Not sticking to spending limits
- Cooperating with other parties
- ignoring offensive behavior by supporters on social media
- Not staying within limits of acceptable political debate
- not doing what's right for the party & country

Are you suggesting Angela needs to do this to win?

Cooperating with people is often a good idea, including supporters of other political parties. Who came up with this idiocy, and why would anyone sign up to it?

When they're trying to take over your party by the back door? How's that working for Labour?

That's the membership secretary's problem.

And not the Leader's?

logical_song said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

ThomasNashe said:

Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?

The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.

And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.

That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.

Which is probably why some new kind of centrist party is needed. However, FPTP doesn't really allow for three parties of government.

If we ever get to the point where there are three political groupings with around a third of the vote each the outcome under FPTP will be a lottery.
That's why we need to know the positions on PR from each of those groupings before a GE. If Labour MPs do split to form another party they would have financial backing and would be well advised to advocate some form of PR. They should also come to electoral pacts with the LibDems and Greens.

As in the 1920's. Relatively small shifts in votes can wipe out one of the three, while giving another a landslide victory.

stodge said:

Morning all

The problem for Labour is democracy. Corbyn won because the membership, old and new, backed him and as he is a quasi-revolutionary figure, he won't walk. The leadership will have to be prized from him and unlike the Conservatives who challenged both Thatcher and IDS, the mechanisms are just not there for a PLP challenge.

What made elements of the PLP act in 1981 was Militant moving to de-select sitting MPs in favour of more pro-Foot individuals and the Party adopting positions on Europe and defence that some MPs simply could not accept.

Trident might then become one of those bellweather issues which helps draw the lines.

Trident seems like a weird thing to schism over. Nuclear weapons were a huge deal back in the Cold War when the wrong policy risked ending the world, but does anyone care that much either way nowadays?

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Will Andrea sign?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm36sqiWAAA9OzN.jpg:large

Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.

- Not sticking to spending limits
- Cooperating with other parties
- ignoring offensive behavior by supporters on social media
- Not staying within limits of acceptable political debate
- not doing what's right for the party & country

Are you suggesting Angela needs to do this to win?

Cooperating with people is often a good idea, including supporters of other political parties. Who came up with this idiocy, and why would anyone sign up to it?

When they're trying to take over your party by the back door? How's that working for Labour?

That's the membership secretary's problem.

And not the Leader's?

Neither of them are leader yet. If either of both of them decide to cooperate with another party that is there for the members to see and take in account when they vote, if the members approve of the cooperating then they won't suffer for it, and if they don't they will. You appear to be struggling with this democracy thing.

You appear to be struggling with this "party" thing....

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Indigo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Will Andrea sign?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm36sqiWAAA9OzN.jpg:large

Establishment candidate calls on insurgent candidate to not do the sort of things that make insurgent campaigns work - interesting approach.

- Not sticking to spending limits
- Cooperating with other parties
- ignoring offensive behavior by supporters on social media
- Not staying within limits of acceptable political debate
- not doing what's right for the party & country

Are you suggesting Angela needs to do this to win?

Cooperating with people is often a good idea, including supporters of other political parties. Who came up with this idiocy, and why would anyone sign up to it?

There are many reasons to co-operate with other parties or members of other parties, but to win an internal party contest isn't one of them.

logical_song said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

ThomasNashe said:

Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?

The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.

And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.

That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.

Which is probably why some new kind of centrist party is needed. However, FPTP doesn't really allow for three parties of government.

The key point is that on those numbers, there are four right-wingers for every three left-wingers. And you only get to those numbers by counting all nationalists as lefties, which is absurd (ask Malcolm of this parish). A more plausible ratio is 3:2.

@SeanF Do you really believe that " The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population".
That would indicate that two thirds of Conservative support in the country was 'right wing'. I don't think that that is correct. I would put it as a minority of the 36%, say around a quarter at 9%. That would give the 'right wingers' 21% not 33%.

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects Jul 6
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 36%
LAB: 32%
UKIP: 12%
LDEM: 9%
(via Survation, phone / 04 - 05 Jul)

I'd put the Conservative Right at about 50% of Conservative voters.

edmundintokyo said:

stodge said:

Morning all

The problem for Labour is democracy. Corbyn won because the membership, old and new, backed him and as he is a quasi-revolutionary figure, he won't walk. The leadership will have to be prized from him and unlike the Conservatives who challenged both Thatcher and IDS, the mechanisms are just not there for a PLP challenge.

What made elements of the PLP act in 1981 was Militant moving to de-select sitting MPs in favour of more pro-Foot individuals and the Party adopting positions on Europe and defence that some MPs simply could not accept.

Trident might then become one of those bellweather issues which helps draw the lines.

Trident seems like a weird thing to schism over. Nuclear weapons were a huge deal back in the Cold War when the wrong policy risked ending the world, but does anyone care that much either way nowadays?

Surely I can't be alone in wishing we were still in the last century? I don't understand this one

Good morning, my fellow mothers.

I often feel that my fully functioning ovaries give me an edge over other, fallopian-deprived F1 gamblers. As a mother, I have an instinctive understanding of aerodynamics and mechanical grip which single people and childless couples simply lack.

Third practice kicks off at 10am, finishes at 11am, as usual, so I'll try and get something up between 11.30am-12pm, childcare duties permitting.

On-topic: I agree. The PLP, after going to the unexpected trouble of a no confidence vote, appear to have bottled it.

ToryJim said:

Oh dear think Leadsom has lost this battle with The Times. Said exactly what they wrote and her over the top reaction just juices up the original story. How not to do media management.

2m
Mike Smithson‏ @MSmithsonPB
#Babygate going to make future Leadsom complaints about media harder. It just highlights her inexperience.

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

ThomasNashe said:

Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?

The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.

And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.

That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.

Which is probably why some new kind of centrist party is needed. However, FPTP doesn't really allow for three parties of government.

The key point is that on those numbers, there are four right-wingers for every three left-wingers. And you only get to those numbers by counting all nationalists as lefties, which is absurd (ask Malcolm of this parish). A more plausible ratio is 3:2.

@SeanF Do you really believe that " The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population".
That would indicate that two thirds of Conservative support in the country was 'right wing'. I don't think that that is correct. I would put it as a minority of the 36%, say around a quarter at 9%. That would give the 'right wingers' 21% not 33%.

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects Jul 6
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 36%
LAB: 32%
UKIP: 12%
LDEM: 9%
(via Survation, phone / 04 - 05 Jul)

I'd put the Conservative Right at about 50% of Conservative voters.

I'd agree with that at a push for Members maybe, but voters - not a chance.

Michael Deacon
1m
Michael Deacon‏ @MichaelPDeacon
Anagram of the Year award to @Beeestonia, for pointing out that "Andrea Leadsom" is NO LEADER AS MAD

Indigo said:

Freggles said:

Police investigate suspect packages after 42% rise in hate incident complaints

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/police-record-3000-hate-incidents-weeks-around-referendum?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

The PM has also apologised to the Polish PM for the spate of hate attacks.

But we were told on PB that this was just a media meme? Anyone going to own up to being wrong?

I think you will find the view here was that with the referendum there was an increased sensitivity to the issue and events which would otherwise have gone unreported are currently being reported. A responsible person not looking to grind an axe would wait a month or two and look at the figures then.

You think white powder being sent to parliamentarians would not have been reported?

Just logged on and I'm open-mouthed at Leadsom's comments. What was that bit about "my children will have children"? How does she knew that they won't be gay, infertile or not have children by choice?

JosiasJessop said:

I understand that two years ago I became a better, more moral person, and a better candidate for the Conservative leadership, because I had a child.

Or is it only mothers that Leadsom thinks this applies to? I think she should be asked if she thinks it applies to fathers as well.

Interestingly, her defence is: "But the mother of three tweeted that the way the interview was reported was "the exact opposite of what I said"." (from BBC)

I wonder if she meant to say / recalls the first clause (the part before the 'but'), and didn't particularly mean to say the last part that contradicts it? A running-your-mouth-off problem. If so, it's a defence, but it's also a reason *not* to make her PM.

It's also why I'd be a terrible MP. My mouth is always two sentences ahead of my brain. (*)

(*) I know you all find that hard to believe ...

Perhaps Leadsom will impose a mothers and fathers only shortlist for prospective Tory MPs Also I don't imagine she'll appoint any childless Cabinet ministers since you can't trust those who don't have a stake in the future.

Indigo said:

The continuing and very boring hatchet job on Leadsom is futile. There are about ten party members on this forum, almost all of whom are voting for May anyway, and the one of two who are not are not going to change their minds. So what is the point except virtue signaling party loyalty. If this is going to continue for the next six week I think it might be time to take a break.

Agreed, but what would Pasty Scott spend his time on if this stopped?

Mr. Freggles, an issue, as I understand it, is that a 'reported crime' can be anything from an attack with weapons to someone sending an obnoxious tweet. So the 42% rise could be very serious, or it could be mostly twittering. A more detailed statistical breakdown is needed.

Alistair said:

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://www.dropbox.com/s/qv7bz9mbbff965k/Interview extract.mp3?dl=0

There is no need to sign up to Dropbox. Just click No thanks, continue to view, then press the Play button...

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

ThomasNashe said:

Given the state of the Labour party, and if Leadsom becomes PM, surely there has to be a major Lib-Dem revival. Where else can the sane go?

The problem for the Lib Dems is that 90% have forgotten they exist, and they no longer have an infrastructure in five sixths of the seats. A very good result will be if they get back to 15 seats.

And there's this too. It could be that most voters actually want to see a very right wing Conservative Party competing with a very left wing Labour and are sick of centrist triangulation. The Conservative Right + UKIP are one third of the population, while the Labour Left + Greens, SNP, Plaid are 25-30% of the population.

That leaves about a third of the population open to centrist politics.

Which is probably why some new kind of centrist party is needed. However, FPTP doesn't really allow for three parties of government.

Especially where one of them appeals broadly to the same proportion of people in every constituency. FPTP rewards obscenely any basis of support that is geographically concentrated. Given the class-based origins of British politics, that has always been the centre's problem.

So the Times weren't making it up?

Mr. Indigo, beg to differ. As reported on the Sky papers last night, it sounded insensitive at best and bloody obnoxious at worst.

OldKingCole said:

Gadfly said:

Here is the Leadsom interview. No need to sign up, just click No thanks, continue to view, then press the Play button...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qv7bz9mbbff965k/Interview extract.mp3?dl=0

Thanks Mr Gadfly. Makes it pretty clear that Leadsom said that being a mother (a “mum”) gives her more concern for the future than someone who wasn’t one. Someone who didn’t have children wouldn’t be as worried about the very long-term.

She explicitly contrasts her position - as a person with children of her own - against her opponent's - as a person with nephews and nieces - and makes the point that a mother has more stake in the future.

Leadsom says the report is disgusting but, since the report is accurate, she's saying her own words were disgusting.

This also feeds into the narrative that Leadsom says things that aren't strictly true. She denies the Times report. And then a recording verifies it.