Who is going to be the Next Prime Minister of the UK? | Be your stubborn best

Cheesy said:
:lol:

They're literally filling the basic fecking requirements of their job for fecks sake. A potential Prime Minister has made an absurd comment, and is being called out on it.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the cockroaches obviously ignored all of the relevant issues about her own campaign, and jumped on the controversial blip, and made it the headline. Leadsom was naive to fall for it, and this alone shows that May is the more stable choice of the two.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Yeah but the cockroaches obviously ignored all of the relevant issues about her own campaign, and jumped on the controversial blip, and made it the headline. Leadsom was naive to fall for it, and this alone shows that May is the more stable choice of the two.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Leadsom was interviewed...and in said interview, argued that the fact she is a mother perhaps better qualifies her to be PM of this country than her opponent. This is quite clearly a rather bizarre view to hold, and was rightfully picked up on.

The job of a journalist, in any given situation, is to find/report on a story, and to highlight the most relevant and newsworthy story regarding said story. In this case, it was quite clearly, by a monumental distance, Leadsom's absurd view that being a mother makes her a better PM.

In the same way that if Theresa May was being interviewed, and pulled off her face to reveal that she was, in fact, actually Michael Gove, it would be rightfully reported as being the most relevant issue to have come from the story, as opposed to, say, her tax plans.

Journalists are often incredibly sensationalist and talk up stories for the sake of it. This isn't one of those cases, though. A potential future Prime Minister of our country has expressed an incredibly backwards and outdated belief in an interview. The newspaper at hand have, as would be expected of any remotely credible outlet, reported it. What's the problem?
 
Cheesy said:
What on earth are you talking about? Leadsom was interviewed...and in said interview, argued that the fact she is a mother perhaps better qualifies her to be PM of this country than her opponent. This is quite clearly a rather bizarre view to hold, and was rightfully picked up on.

The job of a journalist, in any given situation, is to find/report on a story, and to highlight the most relevant and newsworthy story regarding said story. In this case, it was quite clearly, by a monumental distance, Leadsom's absurd view that being a mother makes her a better PM.

In the same way that if Theresa May was being interviewed, and pulled off her face to reveal that she was, in fact, actually Michael Gove, it would be rightfully reported as being the most relevant issue to have come from the story, as opposed to, say, her tax plans.

Journalists are often incredibly sensationalist and talk up stories for the sake of it. This isn't one of those cases, though. A potential future Prime Minister of our country has expressed an incredibly backwards and outdated belief in an interview. The newspaper at hand have, as would be expected of any remotely credible outlet, reported it. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is obviously in the way Leadsom reacted. Something has either been taken totally out of context, or something she said was assumed to be off the record (revealing her naivety).
She's either massively regretting what she's said, and now trying to cover it up, or she's been set up with the understanding that 'chit chat off the record comments' wouldn't be published.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
The problem is obviously in the way Leadsom reacted. Something has either been taken totally out of context, or something she said was assumed to be off the record (revealing her naivety).
She's either massively regretting what she's said, and now trying to cover it up, or she's been set up with the understanding that 'chit chat off the record comments' wouldn't be published.
Click to expand...

You realise the transcripts and the recording have been released right?

She said exactly what she's reported to have said, if anything her intonation makes it worse.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Yeah but the cockroaches obviously ignored all of the relevant issues about her own campaign, and jumped on the controversial blip, and made it the headline. Leadsom was naive to fall for it, and this alone shows that May is the more stable choice of the two.
Click to expand...

It almost feels like you're saying you'd love to be able to support her but after her 'faux pas/show of naivety/being stitched up by the press' you feel that you can't.
 
Why is it that parents always think they're so fecking better than everybody else? Any daft cnut can have a kid FFS.
 
NinjaFletch said:
You realise the transcripts and the recording have been released right?

She said exactly what she's reported to have said, if anything her intonation makes it worse.
Click to expand...

But if it's what she actually believes, why be disgusted with the paper for printing it?
 
vidic blood & sand said:
But if it's what she actually believes, why be disgusted with the paper for printing it?
Click to expand...
Because she was (deservedly) getting gallons of shit for it, and their PR strategy for coping with the fallout was to first deny it ever happened, followed by repeatedly accusing the paper of a smear for daring to report what she'd said. Idiots that follow her lap it all up, of course.
 
elnorte said:
It almost feels like you're saying you'd love to be able to support her but after her 'faux pas/show of naivety/being stitched up by the press' you feel that you can't.
Click to expand...

let's be real here. We have two possible candidates who'll head a team of negotiators to get this country the best possible deal from the scumbags in Brussels. I don't know the woman, but she's already being bullied by the British press. I hoped better from Leadsom.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
But if it's what she actually believes, why be disgusted with the paper for printing it?
Click to expand...

Because she's an idiot.

The question was an absolute gimme and nothing to do with TM and she managed to blow her own foot off with it.

Rachel Sylvester: "Do you feel like a mum in politics?"

Andrea Leadsom: "Yes. So...

RS: "Why and how?"

AL: "So really carefully because I am sure, I don't really know Theresa very well but I am sure she will be really really sad she doesn't have children so I don't want this to be 'Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't' because I think that would be really horrible.

"But genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.

"She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children, who are going to have children, who will directly be a part of what happens next.

"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."
Click to expand...
 
Not naivety, it's what she clearly believes. Listen to her say the word "children" after saying May might have nieces and whatever. She clearly thinks it makes her a better choice.
 
The naivety in Leadsome's part is probably in revealing what her true beliefs are. She is quite out of kilter with modern day society.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Thus revealing her naivety. Which is what I said in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well no, what you actually said, or at least implied, is that she'd been stitched up by the media.

Whereas in reality, her comments were worse than the Times reported.

Lets be on the same level here, she might have been 'naïve' not to know that Theresa May can't have children, although I don't believe that she didn't know, but she genuinely believes that pushing a sprog out of her vagina makes her more fit to be the PM than May, and you can be sure from her 'I am sure she will be really really sad she doesn't have children' comment that she thinks she's playing a very clever game by pointing it out.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
let's be real here. We have two possible candidates who'll head a team of negotiators to get this country the best possible deal from the scumbags in Brussels. I don't know the woman, but she's already being bullied by the British press. I hoped better from Leadsom.
Click to expand...

But are you being real? You might not be a fan of how she's handled all of this, and therefore not believe she's fit to be PM, but you seem way angrier at how the press have handled it. I guess I'm trying ascertain if you subscribe to her politics and if you would have supported her if she hadn't, in your opinion, 'screwed up'.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well no, what you actually said, or at least implied, is that she'd been stitched up by the media.
Click to expand...

Well yes, she has been, as her reaction proves. --------"Truly appalling and the exact opposite of what I said. I am disgusted."

Whereas in reality, her comments were worse than the Times reported.

Lets be on the same level here, she might have been 'naïve' not to know that Theresa May can't have children, although I don't believe that she didn't know, but she genuinely believes that pushing a sprog out of her vagina makes her more fit to be the PM than May, and you can be sure from her 'I am sure she will be really really sad she doesn't have children' comment that she thinks she's playing a very clever game by pointing it out.
Click to expand...

Not according to her reaction. So the obvious answer is that she truly does believe that she's a better candidate as a mother, or she appeared to sound that way, and the paper took advantage of it.
Either way she shows her naivety in dealing with the press.
 
elnorte said:
But are you being real? You might not be a fan of how she's handled all of this, and therefore not believe she's fit to be PM, but you seem way angrier at how the press have handled it. I guess I'm trying ascertain if you subscribe to her politics and if you would have supported her if she hadn't, in your opinion, 'screwed up'.
Click to expand...

The press are press. They are looking for controversy, because sensationalism sells. The Times was all for staying in the EU, and so was Theresa May. And so for Leadsom to give an interview with the Times, she'd have to know that this particular paper would favour May. They'd be fishing for controversy, and they got it. This reveals a weakness on her part, which concerns me.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
Well yes, she has been, as her reaction proves. --------"Truly appalling and the exact opposite of what I said. I am disgusted."



Not according to her reaction. So the obvious answer is that she truly does believe that she's a better candidate as a mother, or she appeared to sound that way, and the paper took advantage of it.
Either way she shows her naivety in dealing with the press.
Click to expand...

What?

Why are you placing so much stock in her reaction? It proves nothing. Especially when you can literally compare what she actually said to what the Times said and see for yourself that the report was not 'the exact opposite of what [she] said' it was, in fact, exactly what she said.

They had an interview with her, they reported what she said in the interview, what should they have done? Not used the interview at all because anything they reported would be 'taking advantage'?
 
NinjaFletch said:
What?

Why are you placing so much stock in her reaction? It proves nothing. Especially when you can literally compare what she actually said to what the Times said and see for yourself that the report was not 'the exact opposite of what [she] said' it was, in fact, exactly what she said.

They had an interview with her, they reported what she said in the interview, what should they have done? Not used the interview at all because anything they reported would be 'taking advantage'?
Click to expand...

So you believe that Leadsom has been busted as a liar.
I understand that it is in the paper's best interest to sensationalize this point, but I'm sure Leadsom went away thinking that this point was a minor thing that wouldn't even get published. And this is what makes her naive. This is the whole point. I'm sure she sat there for a while talking about her plans, without knowing that a minor point (from her perspective) was going to be headline news the next day.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
So you believe that Leadsom has been busted as a liar.
I understand that it is in the paper's best interest to sensationalize this point, but I'm sure Leadsom went away thinking that this point was a minor thing that wouldn't even get published. And this is what makes her naive. This is the whole point. I'm sure she sat there for a while talking about her plans, without knowing that a minor point (from her perspective) was going to be headline news the next day.
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe she's been busted as a liar. She is a liar (not the first time this week she's been caught lying either). She said something that wasn't true and the Times were able to prove that she said it.

Also on the subject of staggering Leadsom idiocy. She's just tweeted this:



Unfortunately for her the linked article includes this :

Ms. Leadsom has regularly referred to her 25 years of experience in the financial sector since she became an MP in 2010, claiming recently to have run “enormous teams, small teams, startup businesses.”

However, he said that she didn't run a fund or make investment decisions, contrary to the claims made by one member of Parliament, Bernard Jenkin, who supports her.

Mr. Yerbury, her manager at Invesco, said Ms. Leadsom “handled a lot of stuff for me because I was very busy and Andrea assisted me with managing the team”
Click to expand...

Bit awkward. I'm not sure those are particularly 'clear comments' regarding doing what she said she did in business.
 
Christ. I didn't think Leadsom's comments were all that bad, but on further inspection, pretty ridiculous.

Also, maybe it's harsh but she looks pretty bad for her age. The woman is supposedly the same age as my mum.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
The naivety in Leadsome's part is probably in revealing what her true beliefs are. She is quite out of kilter with modern day society.
Click to expand...

It's not her fault. She expects the PM to become a meaningless role once Edward I has finally captured William Wallace, and has been really enjoying Charlie Chaplin's latest movie. With the imminent threat of Hitler thrown into the bargain, she can be easily forgiven for being unsure on certain matters.
 
As someone who's not very educated about British politics, I'm confused. How can there be a new PM without an election? Surely a new leader will have different ideas than Cameron and an election is needed to mandate them to lead the country?

This whole affair doesn't seem "democratic" to me.
 
Giant Midget said:
As someone who's not very educated about British politics, I'm confused. How can there be a new PM without an election? Surely a new leader will have different ideas than Cameron and an election is needed to mandate them to lead the country?

This whole affair doesn't seem "democratic" to me.
Click to expand...
UK voters only vote for their MP, not to choose the government or the PM. The PM is typically the leader of the party with the most MP's, and party leaders are selected by the party. The tories will still be the party of government so the new PM and the new government will not need another mandate.
 
Giant Midget said:
As someone who's not very educated about British politics, I'm confused. How can there be a new PM without an election? Surely a new leader will have different ideas than Cameron and an election is needed to mandate them to lead the country?

This whole affair doesn't seem "democratic" to me.
Click to expand...

You'd think. What you're saying is completely sensible...and it's possible we could end up with an election, but basically each party choose their own leader, and when said party is running in the country, it's shit luck for the rest of us.
 
Giant Midget said:
As someone who's not very educated about British politics, I'm confused. How can there be a new PM without an election? Surely a new leader will have different ideas than Cameron and an election is needed to mandate them to lead the country?

This whole affair doesn't seem "democratic" to me.
Click to expand...
In constitutional terms, because we're a parliamentary democracy and don't run a presidential system, the Prime Minister is merely the person able to command the confidence of a majority of elected MPs in the Commons. So basically, whoever's elected leader of the party in power.

But in practice, with politics becoming more presidential all the time, there's certainly less of a feeling of legitimacy when they haven't gone to the public to endorse their de facto leadership of the country. If I had to guess, if it's May, she'll get a popularity bounce after winning and call an election within 6 months.
 
Xeno said:
And not push the a.50 button until after said election?
Click to expand...
Probably before to take it off as an election topic. Though the argument against that would be less time to actually do the negotiations. But I think the positives outweigh - less likelihood of bleeding support to UKIP, Labour likely still in a mess, Lib Dems not in a much better state than 2015, and potential to increase to a comfortable majority which would make her next 5 years easier.
 
They won't actually want to have a General Election - unless they are VERY sure a good win is virtually assured. I don't see those circumstances occurring very easily. The other route to a GE is that they are forced to have one, lose a vote of no confidence or similar turmoil. They want to avoid that one, obviously.

I dunno about triggering a50 - there a lot of negotiating before that - even negotiating about the format of the negotiating. No one seems to want to break cover on that away from saying we must accept the result of the referendum, which is handy, that they ALL from ALL parties believe there are no reasons or circumstances to say anything other than that. Doesn't help (or perhaps it does) that neither major party has a proper leader atm, all this is very much a 'developing story'. The shit hits the fan when actual Brexit consequences start to get debated. Not that I think the most committed Brexiteers actually care, they just don't like non-English people. And/Or they don't like this Metropolitan Elite Ruling Class thing, the folks with all the ££££ & power (over them). But (more controversial) positions will have to be taken sooner or later , they don't have to be taken atm, really. Theresa May seems to be aware of this. Everyone seems to be aware of this, which is a bit conspriracy-tastic if you like that kind of thing (which I do a little bit, I must admit)

Long way to go yet.
 
Last edited:
The intonation on Leadsom's 4 words ''but, I have children'' is just appalling. Unless Conservative grass roots are completely batshit Brexit these days (they might be) - with strong Eurosceptic/UKIP alignment. It must have done as much harm as good. But there's a long way to go here too. May is the preferred winner of the faceless Establishment & mass media folks it would seem.
 
Leadsom strikes me as someone who's suddenly found herself in a position she'd never have even been considering six months ago, and is clearly showing her complete lack of political nous and guile. May is an experienced politician at the highest level, she's been in high-level negotiations with other world leaders, she's been part of the inner-circle of a Government and is clearly the person who'd be better-equipped to handle the Brexit business.

Of course, Tory party members may disregard all of that!
 
May saying all the right things .Even addressing many of the the concerns of the Labour party.
 
Andrea Leadsom is expected to pull out of the two-way contest to become the next Conservative Party leader and UK prime minister, the BBC understands.

A source close to the energy minister said "the abuse has been too great".

Mrs Leadsom was up against Home Secretary Theresa May in the race to succeed David Cameron as prime minister.

She apologised to Mrs May on Monday after suggesting being a mother made her a better candidate for the job.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36763208
 
It's nothing to do with the alleged abuse, and everything to do with the fact that she was going to lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.