• Andrea Leadsom sparks row over 'motherhood' comments
    32 replies, posted
[QUOTE]A row has erupted after Conservative leadership candidate Andrea Leadsom was accused of suggesting that having children made her a better choice to be prime minister. The Times quoted Mrs Leadsom as saying having children means she has "a very real stake" in Britain's future.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36752865[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/751685403975884804[/url] bonus: [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrea-leadsom-brexit-speech-conservative-leadership-election-next-tory-leader-a7124641.html[/url]
Using kids as political tools, that's a new but unsurprising low.
[QUOTE=frankie penis;50678532][url]https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/751685403975884804[/url][/QUOTE] Embedding this tweet [media]https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/751685403975884804[/media]
A person who claims motherhood as a qualification would not get my vote. I screams of "think of the children!"
Sounds much like she's struggling to think of reasons she'd be a good prime minister :v:
So out of the Thatcher 2.0 wannabes she's basically our Sarah Palin? What has she even done, i've got a long list of reasons to hate May but i've not heard of Leadsom before all this.
[QUOTE=alexisgondor;50678753]So out of the Thatcher 2.0 wannabes she's basically our Sarah Palin? What has she even done, i've got a long list of reasons to hate May but i've not heard of Leadsom before all this.[/QUOTE] She has never held a cabinet-level position, [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrea-leadsom-brexit-speech-conservative-leadership-election-next-tory-leader-a7124641.html]opposed gay marriage[/url] and is [url=http://www.andrealeadsom.com/working-for-you/andrea's-blog/what-has-gone-wrong-with-our-adoption-policies/152]troubled by gay adoption[/url], wants to [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/andrea-leadsom_uk_577b6c78e4b0f7b55795bc7b]exempt small companies from all employment rights and regulations[/url], and [url=https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/andrea-leadsom-wanted-every-website-internet-go-censor/]called for all websites to be pre-approved by a censor board[/url]. As of last year she [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11957478/Is-climate-change-real-asks-energy-minister-Andrea-Leadsom.html]wasn't convinced of climate change[/url] but now says she's been 'persuaded', and she also [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-conservative-leadership-andrea-leadsom-brexit-latest-eu-referendum-disaster-next-leader-a7116686.html]said Brexit would be a disaster in 2013[/url] but then changed her mind and backed it. From what I've learned about Leadsom in the past few days, not only do I disagree with her views but I'm not sure that she'd even be a competent PM. The fact that she's being seriously considered for the job seems only to be an accidental result of the Gove-Johnson squabble. May is no progressive champion, but she's more socially liberal than Leadsom and actually appears to know what she's doing - as [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36744449]Nick Robinson wrote[/url], "One is highly experienced - the longest-serving home secretary for more than a century. The other would be the least experienced prime minister this country has had since Pitt the Younger." I wouldn't back either of them in a general election, but a choice between May and Leadsom is a no-brainer for me (and yet inconsequential because I'm not a member of the Conservative Party).
May's strategy of doing nothing whilst her opponents set themselves alight one by one is working pretty well
I'm not completely confident that May will win though - don't the Conservative Party rank-and-file tend to be much more right-wing than the leadership? At the moment she's leading in the polls, but that's easy when barely anyone had even heard of her opponent a week ago. We'll have to see whether her lead survives as Leadsom becomes more well-known.
What a totally innocuous comment. She has children and wants a better future for them? Alert the presses.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50678845]She has never held a cabinet-level position, [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrea-leadsom-brexit-speech-conservative-leadership-election-next-tory-leader-a7124641.html]opposed gay marriage[/url] and is [url=http://www.andrealeadsom.com/working-for-you/andrea's-blog/what-has-gone-wrong-with-our-adoption-policies/152]troubled by gay adoption[/url], wants to [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/andrea-leadsom_uk_577b6c78e4b0f7b55795bc7b]exempt small companies from all employment rights and regulations[/url], and [url=https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/andrea-leadsom-wanted-every-website-internet-go-censor/]called for all websites to be pre-approved by a censor board[/url]. As of last year she [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11957478/Is-climate-change-real-asks-energy-minister-Andrea-Leadsom.html]wasn't convinced of climate change[/url] but now says she's been 'persuaded', and she also [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-conservative-leadership-andrea-leadsom-brexit-latest-eu-referendum-disaster-next-leader-a7116686.html]said Brexit would be a disaster in 2013[/url] but then changed her mind and backed it.[/QUOTE] I don't know if I find comfort, or terror, when facing the very real prospect of another country having an even more insane election cycle than mine.
[QUOTE=DrMonumbo;50678875]What a totally innocuous comment. She has children and wants a better future for them? Alert the presses.[/QUOTE] Having children does not qualify you to be prime minister. She's against a much more politically experienced opponent and needs to convince people she'll actually make good decisions in office.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50678888]I don't know if I find comfort, or terror, when facing the very real prospect of another country having an even more insane election cycle than mine.[/QUOTE] It might be hard to explain to someone outside the UK, but usually politics over here is pretty chill. We have one election every five years, and then you know it's over for another five years. There are no midterms or anything to get in the way. And after the election, the party that lost usually goes through a period of reinvention so that they can try and win next time. That's just the way it's done. But ever since we got on Mr Brexit's Wild Ride it's been an almost nonstop stream of daily chaos with people resigning on all sides, the economy exploding, almost every major political party in turmoil, and with Cameron on the way out and his successor yet to be chosen, there is pretty much no leadership and no certainty about what direction the country is going in.
She sounds like one of those mothers who just fires off uneducated opinions on every topic under the sun, then qualifies it with "how about you go through the pain of giving birth, then you can come tell me I don't know what I'm talking about."
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/4r9j3k/in_2008_tory_leadership_candidate_andrea_leadsom/[/url] This woman is a menace. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [url]https://twitter.com/daviddpaxton/status/751130388458795008[/url] I also found this properly weird old blogpost
It's worth remembering that she was explicitly asked about her children. It didn't come out of the blue like the journalist later tried to spin it. [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;50678845]wants to [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/andrea-leadsom_uk_577b6c78e4b0f7b55795bc7b]exempt small companies from all employment rights and regulations[/url][/QUOTE] Sorry this isn't accurate, she only wanted this for 'micro businesses', as in businesses with three employees or less. As I've worked for someone who is self-employed, I completely understand where she is coming from. It must sound like I really support Leadsom, but the truth is I just hate May even more. Leadsom is a crazy old christian lady, but May is Orwell's nightmare.
How has it come down to these two completely out-of-touch hags possibly being the next PM
I can't get over the irony that we blew up our economy to 'take back control' but are about to have a prime minister elected by 0.002% of the population.
The polls? She leads 'em. [sp]no rugrats[/sp]
[QUOTE=CatFodder;50681967]I can't get over the irony that we blew up our economy to 'take back control' but are about to have a prime minister elected by 0.002% of the population.[/QUOTE] We don't have a Presidential system, which you apparently haven't learned.
> old people vote for Brexit "What bullshit, they'll die before they feel the effects" > woman cares because she has kids "So fucking low! Get her out of here!" [editline]9th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50678956]Having children does not qualify you to be prime minister. She's against a much more politically experienced opponent and needs to convince people she'll actually make good decisions in office.[/QUOTE] having children is not the sole requisite for being suitable to lead the UK correct, good job
[QUOTE=ksenior;50678600]A person who claims motherhood as a qualification would not get my vote. I screams of "think of the children!"[/QUOTE] During one of the EU referendum debates she kept doing the whole "as a mother" thing. [editline]10th July 2016[/editline] New "idea": She becomes PM, full scale commons revolt leading to vote of no confidence leading to a general election leading to the conservative party being wiped out. I can dream right. [editline]10th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Barcock;50682380] > woman cares because she has kids "So fucking low! Get her out of here!" [/QUOTE] From what I have read / heard the issue is nothing to do with the fact she is saying a mother would be better its the fact she appears to be insinuating that her opponent is a lesser candidate because she is incapable of having children.
[QUOTE=Jsm;50683180]During one of the EU referendum debates she kept doing the whole "as a mother" thing. [editline]10th July 2016[/editline] New "idea": She becomes PM, full scale commons revolt leading to vote of no confidence leading to a general election leading to the conservative party being wiped out. I can dream right. [editline]10th July 2016[/editline] From what I have read / heard the issue is nothing to do with the fact she is saying a mother would be better its the fact she appears to be insinuating that her opponent is a lesser candidate because she is incapable of having children.[/QUOTE] so what is it? "A mother is better" or "my opponent is not lesser"? If you have a benefit and your opponent doesn't, you're free to use it. And that they don't have it is a mark against them. Literally lesser in some regard.
The other reason it is so underhanded is that Theresa May can't have children, which leadsom should know and makes this exceptionally slimy.
Now project Smear.
Which, much like 'project fear', will turn out to actually be accurate predictions. I fucking hate this new concept of fact and reality free politics.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50684512]Which, much like 'project fear', will turn out to actually be accurate predictions. I fucking hate this new concept of fact and reality free politics.[/QUOTE] Yeah, facts and reality are good things. [QUOTE] The other reason it is so underhanded is that Theresa May can't have children, which leadsom should know and makes this exceptionally slimy. [/QUOTE] As much as I prefer May I can't help think that Remain supporters just can't get beyond their loss.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50684522]Yeah, facts and reality are good things. As much as I prefer May I can't help think that Remain supporters just can't get beyond their loss.[/QUOTE] you keep treating this like some kind of football match "oh those petty remain supporters are just salty they lost"
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50684534]you keep treating this like some kind of football match "oh those petty remain supporters are just salty they lost"[/QUOTE] Because it emanates in every relevant thread, still. I don't see the football match comparison thing though, it doesn't match the 2nd part of your post?
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50684550]Because it emanates in every relevant thread, still. I don't see the football match comparison thing though, it doesn't match the 2nd part of your post?[/QUOTE] "just can't get beyond their loss" it's almost as if you don't understand the implications of such a huge and drastic change
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.