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

https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/751722055750520832

TheWhiteRabbit said:

"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!

The Eagle has floundered?

Brilliant pun David, absolutely love it.

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

PlatoSaid said:

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree said:

MikeK said:

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.

foxinsoxuk said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

Audio here afaik:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36752865

ToryJim said:

grabcocque said:

Can't wait for May's response. Expect she'll put the boot in with a dignified but murderous magnanimity.

I imagine it will be along the lines of "Andrea has to run her campaign in the way she feels comfortable with"

Best not to be drawn in to the fracas - I’d expect a more dignified ‘no comment’ personally.

MaxPB said:

grabcocque said:

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!

Not that I'm complaining but Louise Mensch has gone very quiet on twitter after spending most of last night batting for Andrea Leadsom vs The Times

It's on?

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/751724391889833984

TheScreamingEagles said:

Not that I'm complaining but Louise Mensch has gone very quiet on twitter after spending most of last night batting for Andrea Leadsom vs The Times

I can tell when Louise Mensch is awake just by looking at my Twitter browser tab. She's a machine.

Mr. Eagles, yet you couldn't wait to Menschen it.

As an aside, my German teacher used to clench his fists and growl "Mensch!" whenever someone cocked up.

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.

Is is #wombgate?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

CD13 said:

Sunil,

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.

anotherDave said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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)

Thanks, the ConHome transcript is an improvement.

http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/the-timess-transcript-of-what-leadsom-said-in-her-interview-with-rachel-sylvester.html

For us, maybe.

Would this be an opportune moment for her to decide to spend more time with her family?

anotherDave said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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)

Thanks, the ConHome transcript is an improvement.

http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/the-timess-transcript-of-what-leadsom-said-in-her-interview-with-rachel-sylvester.html

I'd love to hear her explanation of "how the economy works", as she claims to "absolutely understand" this.

John_M said:

Growing up, we did used to get quite a lot of:

"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.

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

anotherDave said:

John_M said:

On topic. The Eagle is flambéed.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/751725533902299136

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.

MaxPB said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

David_Evershed said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MaxPB said:

grabcocque said:

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..

Never interrupt an enemy whilst they are making a mistake.

MaxPB said:

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."

http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/the-timess-transcript-of-what-leadsom-said-in-her-interview-with-rachel-sylvester.html

rottenborough said:

Wanderer said:

It's on?

ttps://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/751724391889833984

Pls don't do this today. We need to keep the focus on Leadsom's unfitness for high office.

Is Milne still running Labour’s media office? – They appear to have a knack for deflecting the media's attention from Tory problems.

Andypet said:

Would this be an opportune moment for her to decide to spend more time with her family?

David_Evershed said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MaxPB said:

grabcocque said:

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..

A PM also has to keep their hands clean and know when to delegate. It wasn't Cameron who said about Ed stabbing his brother in the back last election.

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

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?

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.

Jeremy Corbyn set for leadership challenge after peace talks fail

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

SeanT said:

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

.

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.

Chris said:

David_Evershed said:

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

MonikerDiCanio said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

Jobabob said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

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?

edmundintokyo said:

Wanderer said:

It's on?

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/751724391889833984

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.

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.

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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.

That's about the size of it Max.

Andrea Leadsom's comments are absolutely awful. The Tories surely cannot let this joker be PM?

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.

IanB2 said:

David_Evershed said:

IanB2 said:

PlatoSaid said:

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.

David_Evershed said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MaxPB said:

grabcocque said:

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.

malcolmg said:

Jobabob said:

edmundintokyo said:

Wanderer said:

It's on?

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/751724391889833984

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.

Morning Malc and thanks for your kind words sir!

Jobabob said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

anotherDave said:

MaxPB said:

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?

OK, having now seen the con home transcript I am going with malicious.

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.