One of the few traditional Conservatives to have served on the Tory front bench under Cameron, Paterson was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before being promoted to the more high profile role of Secretary of State for Defra.

Candidate of the day

Owen Paterson

One day to go and Sir John Major has weighed in. “Labour divides to rule. To win votes they will turn rich against poor; north against south; worker against boss." We hope we don't wake up with them on Friday.

Hero of the day

Sir John Major

Another awful Labour woman. The fact Ed Miliband’s carved his pledges in stone doesn't mean he might not break them, campaign chief Lucy Powell has said.

Villain of the day

Lucy Powell

.

THE REAL CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO

Back marriage. Restore grammar schools. Leave the EU.

Laura Perrins: Hatchet job on Leadsom repels mothers from No 10

Well, that was pleasant. The treatment of Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom over the last few days should leave us in no doubt about how the mainstream media operate – like a pack of wolves hunting for their next victim. The fact that she was taken out by a feminist journalist working for the Paper of Record sums up how degraded our media has become.

Journalists are entitled, obligated in fact, to scrutinise candidates, their competence, their political record, what they have said in the past and proposed policies. What leaves such a bad taste in the mouth is the entrapment of a female politician on such a personal issue such as motherhood. Poor Leadsom, unschooled in the ways of the media and the political world, did not stand a chance.

I was not that invested in either candidate but I did watch in fascinated horror over the weekend how this motherhood story unfolded. Perhaps this says more about my character, but I am sure there are many out there who were turned off politics completely by the entire episode.

Most of all, however, I do not want to hear ever, ever again, especially from anyone from the Slime of London Newspapers (who called mothers ‘monsters’ today by the way) complaining that we do not have enough women or indeed mothers in politics. Andrea Leadsom has been thrown under a bus, referred to as an extremist, and called Andrea Loathsome just for talking about her kids.

Now what mother would put themselves and their family under such scrutiny? You would have to be a masochist to do it. So this, and other reasons I will explain tomorrow, is the reason we do not have more mothers in politics. A media hatchet job is a major repellent.

So I do hope Rachel Sylvester of The Times is proud of her political scalp. Another one bites the dust, eh. Congratulations.

(Image: RachelH_)

Laura Perrins

  • Muttley

    As a lifelong Conservative voter until 2015, I was really hoping something would happen that would tempt me back. This isn’t it.

    • Allie B

      Same for me – and I stopped voting for them at the same time as you as well.

  • Aethelflaed

    Rachel Sylvester should be deeply ashamed of herself, as should the Times. The sword of truth will strike them down sooner of later – and it will be much deserved.

  • Woman at home

    Perfectly put, Laura.

  • Bonce

    Sylvester is married to an editor of the Guardian. The Guardian being hand in glove with both the BBC and labour party.
    The BBC and Guardian have been calling for a general election ever since Cameron resigned, and have called for a second referendum ever since the result was announced.

    This was clearly a put up job organised between the Times, Guardian and the BBC.
    Leadsom shows she lacks the necessary killer instinct to be PM. This row was much about nothing, and I was very surprised that she resigned.

    • Woman at home

      What disturbs me is The Telegraph, The Mail , The Express, Sky… every other media outlet joined in. The personal abuse was wall to wall.

      • bufo75

        Thank the Good Lord for Cuido and Breitbart then !

        • Enoch Powell

          Go Postal.

      • AKM

        Why does that disturb you? You should have learnt to expect it from them by now.

        • Even though we expect it, it is still a disturbing turn of events. It shows that the media makes the decisions, not the people. But yes this doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.

          • macukguy

            The Referendum has shown me how corrupt the establishment and media really are.

          • Peter Oborne’s and Peter Hitchens books in 2009 showed me.

            ‘Triumph of the Political Class’ and ‘The Broken Compass/The Cameron Delusion’ respectively)

          • Woman at home

            Yes indeed. It lays out how it all started.

          • Allie B

            I recall Cameron saying to the Queen they had some ‘fantastically corrupt countries’ at that anti-corruption summit or whatever it was. What was the point in saying that – you might as well include our own! They just rely on the whole British ‘semblance of propriety/decorum’ thing so the public doesn’t realise how much of a banana republic they live in.

        • Woman at home

          EVERY media outlet. That’s what disturbs me. Usually there is at least one outlier that stands a bit further back from the feeding frenzy. Not this time.

      • Bonce

        That was predictable. We all saw how they behaved during the 2015GE Campaign

  • Stephen T

    I’m not sure what Rachel Sylvester is supposed to have done wrong? She asked some questions and Andrea Leadsom replied. Yes, the rest of the media jumped all over it and blew it completely out of proportion, but the potential for this was fairly obvious. Sylvester was then accused of gutter journalism, but, very strangely, not of inaccuracy. I think she can feel unjustifiably insulted. Reporting clumsy remarks isn’t gutter journalism.

    As a candidate for prime minister, Andrea Leadsom has been scrutinised in a way that she hasn’t experienced before. I sympathise with her because a clumsy reply shouldn’t generate such a foolish over-reaction, but, sadly, that’s where we are and it’s not a surprise. I’m afraid her inexperience showed. I hope she now gets the chance to show her qualities in a new role in Government and emerges all the stronger.

    • Woman at home

      Sylvester claimed Leadsom had introduced the topic – in fact she stressed it. It was a lie.

      • warmingmyth
      • Stephen T

        I heard Sylvester say that Leadsom introduced Theresa May into the conversation and that was confirmed by the tape. It’s noticeable that not once has Leadsom or her campaign team accused Sylvester of lying. It’s all rather unfortunate, but no politician or journalist of any persuasion has accused Sylvester of lying.

        • Woman at home

          Politicians don’t use the word lying.
          Leadsom and her team asked The Times to produce the full transcript. The Times refused.
          You should see the link warmingmyth has posted below. It shows Rachel Sylvester admitting she had lied.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It didn’t stop the Remaiers punctuating every “argument” they made with *LIE!!!* *LIARS!!!*

  • bs

    Nonsense, I’ve listened to the tape and what was said about the interview was fair. Leadsom expressly disavowed wanting to make a comparison with Theresa May’s childless status, so she had it on her mind, and then within seconds she went on to emphasise just how important having children was to her having a stake in the future. Saying that you don’t want to cause offence immediately before uttering something so obviously capable of bearing the very offensive meaning you purport to disavow does not excuse you, except it seems to your more deluded supporters.

    Either she was deliberately blowing a dog whistle, or she fails to understand how a PM’s utterances are scrutinised – thankfully she recognised her unsuitability and we can move on.

    It’s worth making two further points about this episode:

    (a) If Leadsom believes that her children give her a real stake in the future, why did she not listen to the young who overwhelmingly want their longer future to be in the EU rather than Leadsom’s Brexitopia – to which she was a very suspiciously late convert.

    (b) it is positively terrifying that 84 MP’s thought she was a suitable PM

    • Woman at home

      a) because the snowflakes know no better.
      b) It is positively terrifying that the best alternative the Conservatives could come up with was May and 180 of them thought May was better.

      • Jonathan Miller

        Having seen the transcript and heard the recording I think Andrea Leadsom was stitched up. Her comments, so widely reported, were preceded by a very clear statement about how she did not want this to be about her having children, and May having none. The journalist emits sympathetic ‘mmm’s to encourage Leadsom to let her guard down, and then betrays her.
        I was sickened by the whole episode, and I despise the faux outrage of childless career women, who pretend that Andrea Leadsom thinks less of them for having put their careers before having a family.

        • Mez

          Re faux outrage of childless career women . You’ve just committed the same social faux pas. Quite a significant percentage of women, like one in ten, can’t have children , and that figure excludes husbands who can’t or won’t. Blaming it all on feminine selfish career mindedness reads as superficial vindictiveness.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You are Rachel Sylvester and I claim my£5!

            He wasn’t talking about their childlessness, but their faux outrage, about something Leadsom never said.

            And only you said anything about selfish career mindedness.

            Do TRY to keep up Rachel!

          • Mez

            Carry on popping the pills..

          • Jonathan Miller

            I specifically criticised women who put their careers before having children. I did not criticise women who can’t have children. You committed a faux pas by taking offense to something I had not said, about a group I had not criticised – which is pretty much what the press did to Angela Leadsom.

    • warmingmyth

      The overwhelming majority of the 18 to 25 year olds either voted to leave or abstained. only 23% voted to remain.—- Only 36% of them actually voted.

  • PipG

    The ever-helptful BBC had her on the radio today while she explained that she had only reported the truth. I read that headline and I read the partial transcript of the inverview that The Times published. There is no possible justification for the headline.
    Andrea Leadsom was not well advised and she does need to have a thicker skin BUT who the hell elected Rachel Sylvester and what right does she think she has to damage potential Prime Ministerial candidates with smear and innuendo.

    • MartinWW

      Of course, The Times has refused to release the full and complete transcript of the interview. Now I wonder why that is?

    • Longstone253

      Rachel Sylvester is married to/has a partner who is a Guardian journalist, I think? She is just a pawn. She probably thinks she is some kind of freedom fighter (or maybe she is cynical and thinks it was a good career move) but she has just been used.

    • Mr B J Mann

      There were TWO (sets of) headline(s):

      Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom

      Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

      And:

      ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’

  • bufo75

    ” But dear, how can you hope to lead the party that you divided ? Now be a sensible girl and back Theresa who will find you a nice Cabinet post and we can be one big happy Tory family once again.
    However, if you persist and let those peasants in the Shires have their say, it won’t be just “motherhood” we choose to weaponise”.

    “You’re going to come back on board ? We knew you would, after we’d had a chat !”

  • Clare

    While I do agree that Leadsom’s comments were naive rather than deliberately malicious, and the response was disproportionate, it seems overly simplistic to claim she was vilified merely for discussing her family and personal values. She’s often mentioned her children, so it wasn’t inherently unreasonable for Sylvester to ask her how motherhood had shaped her career and politics. The problem, I think, was more that bringing Theresa May into it risked seeming insensitive, or an exploitation of her rival’s personal misfortunes, particularly as it came quite soon after May had discussed her disappointment at being unable to have children. That doesn’t mean that Leadsom wasn’t treated unfairly, but it’s a bit more complex than her being burnt at the stake just for revealing her children’s existence.

    • Mez

      I agree with all of that. It was very unfortunate to have raised Mrs Mays situation when it wasn’t necessary.

      • Mr B J Mann

        But it was even more unfortunate and unnecessary for the Times to use the headlines:

        Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom

        Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

        And:

        ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’

        Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

  • Kentish1996

    Can we really trust a Remainiac to handle EU exit negotiations? Theresa May has said Oliver Letwin, another Remainiac, will be leading the so-called ‘Department for Brexit’. This is beyond farce. I won’t be surprised come the next Parliament we’re still a member of the EU.

    • princeofnumbers

      Totally agree. If Oliver Letwin is to lead a “Dept for Brexit”, then that really is farcical………..you may as well have Ken Clarke leading the Brexit negotiations!

  • Politically__Incorrect

    The Times, like all other newspapers has suffered a massive decline in circulation over the past few years because of the Internet. That decline has only been marginally offset by revenues from advertising and subscriptions. The result is this once trustworthy broadsheet has had to stoop to levels of journalism more familiar to the tabloids in order to attract readers. If in doubt, hit the gutters because if you can contrive an unpleasant smell, it will get noticed.

    Meanwhile, all eyes should be on Theresa May. Not in admiration but to look for signs of a Brexit stitch-up should any of that plethora of Europhiles around her try to pull her levers. I think Mrs May is astute enough to understand that if there is a stitch-up then the tory party will be kissing its own ass goodbye and handing a massive, early Christmas present to UKIP. Get it wrong Mrs May, and there will be an early election. The 17 million people who voted to leave will take it VERY personally and your premiership will be short-lived.

    • macukguy

      I’m not waiting I’ve already joined UKIP after this establishment stitch up!

      • Politically__Incorrect

        Good for you. I joined a couple of years ago too.

      • Great Briton

        I’ve rejoined today too

    • Bonce

      I predict that May either follows a Cameron like route:
      1. Delay invoking article for as long as possible.
      2. Promise to have a second referendum as part of the Conservative party general election manifesto in 2019-2020.
      3. Likely collateral damage of 20-30 MP’s leaving the party and forming a new one, but given the labour chaos they still get elected as the majority government.
      Or she follows a more pragmatic route to keep the party together:
      1. Try to negotiate behind the scenes and fail.
      2. Get offered a terrible semi detached status that puts us in as bad a position had we stayed in.
      3. Take the terrible deal.
      4. This should keep all of the “Euro sceptics” in the party because of its complexity.

  • John M

    It was inevitable really. There was no way the established political classes were going to remotely entertain someone who was no one of thier own having the remotest chance, and that meant killing her off before a vote could even take place.

    Because these people detest democracy, and even more so since that bloody vote three weeks ago. Order must be restored. We can’t have anby chance of the bloody proles having another bloody vote… what do they know about anything?

    And that is democracy in 2016. I just hope all those journalists whose complicity in the past week’s character assassination of Leadsom remember what they did when May starts reading all thier private emails and web history.

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    The Vichy press…

  • jamesbarn

    At the end of this piece I asked Where do we go from here ? well now we know and the answer is nowhere. This has been a stich up on the most blatent scale. But look on the bright side May will in all probability be the last Tory PM this century it will be UKIP from now on

    Many were and are shocked by the Brexit vote, well perhaps we should all consider the choices facing the electorate. To begin with ALL of the parties, Libdems, Tories , Labour and Greens were ALL pro EU except UKIP. None would admit that immigration is not only changing society’s culture but that it also put pressure on our facilities. In fact just to raise these issues has been answered with cries of racism. Those who voted Brexit are not racist but were denied a voice for their frustration and the only party in tune with them is UKIP. In order to suppress these issues being raised every oppotunity was taken to vilify Farage and UKIP by the other parties and the media and to ridicule his views. However the masses are not stupid and with the increasing use of social media it soon became clear that a lot of what Farage was saying was true. Cameron’s conceit in labelling the 4 million UKIP supporters as fruitcakes, nutters and racist undermined the rights of many to express their views for fear of unfounded allegations of racism. Now not only has he reaped the backlash big time but half his party and Labour are now very much in tune with things UKIP have been saying for years. The warning came when UKIP won the EU election, Cameron did not think he would gain an outright win in the GE so promised a referendum thinking the Libdems would overrule it. Now forced into a referendum he decided to promote campaign scare some of which may have had substance. However the public were by now sick of his empty promises and phony renegotiations they looked for a way to remind ALL political parties that they were there, not for their benefit but to serve the electorate. The Tories had ridiculed the working classes and Labour had ignored them. A referendum was the ideal and only opportunity to bring both into line and they took it. Labour are now in disarray, Cameron and his elite group have been humiliated and he has lost his job. A lesson now learned, you cannot fool all the people all the time
    So where do we go from here.

    • alecto

      Excellent comment. Spot on!

  • jamesbarn
  • David Barlow

    So, according to Leadsome, Sylvester equals feminism equals hater of men.

  • Malcolm Marchesi

    Andrea Leadsom was treated badly by the media but that is what the media does . They all kid themselves that they are guardians of the truth and that they hold our politicians to account but everyone knows that that is just bullshit . They are almost all from the left of the political spectrum and use their positions to further their own political views . They actively seek to embarrass and entrap politicians rather than discover what they really think and if they manage to extract a quote which can be twisted or , even better , deliberately misunderstood , then so much the better .
    Don’t forget that they’ve all been to University so they are naturally more intelligent than the rest of the herd ( honestly , they really believe it )
    At least hyenas and jackals behave as they do to survive , what excuse does the MSM have ?

  • Anony Mouse

    The issue is that Andrea Leadsom made a number of basic mistakes, when she was standing to be our PM. If she can’t handle a simple interview, how could she be trusted to stand up to Putin or Merkel? It’s about competence, not about gender or whether one has children or not.
    Her mistakes were:
    1. She didn’t record the interview herself so she couldn’t check what was said before claiming the Times were not quoting her accurately (In fact they were quoting her accurately)
    2. She said herself that it would be “horrible” to make an issue of her having children and May having none, and then she immediately made it an issue, saying Theresa might have nephews, nieces, but I have CHILDREN (v strong emphasis on this word on the audio.)
    3. She then went ballistic on twitter, complaining the Times had misquoted her. They hadn’t, and produced transcript to prove it. If instead of going ballistic, she had owned up and apologised to May, she could have weathered this.
    4. She still didn’t accept the truth, and asked the Times to release the audio. They did, and it confirmed their version of events. The audio actually made it worse as it showed the lead-in question was asking her to compare herself to May (no mention in question of family, Andrea Leadsom brought it up herself, then the journalist asked a short follow-up) and it showed her emphasis on words: “but I have CHILDREN” was pretty nauseating.

    • Woman at home
      • Anony Mouse

        That’s RW blogger Paul Staines being selective. He starts from the follow-up question to make it seem like the journalist raised the issue of family. She didn’t raise it, Andrea Leadsom did. Journalist then asked a follow-up, which is legit. Longer audio is here: https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/751732509348663296

        • Woman at home

          Sylvester asked how Leadsom was different to May. Leadsom said I am optimistic and I am part of a very large family. Sylvester homed in on the motherhood angle.

          • Mez

            So Leadsom did raise the family issue as a difference
            Major mistake

          • Albiro

            Major Mistake ? Get a grip. Are you for real ? Hysterical or what?

          • WFC

            Why?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Where did she say what they had in the headlines:

            Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom

            Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

            And:

            ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’

            Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

        • Mr B J Mann

          It’s a longer audio, but it’s not the FULL audio, is it.

          Have they released the FULL audio yet?

          And how does the your “longer” audio justify these headline;

          Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom

          Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

          And:

          ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’

          Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

    • Woman at home

      “it showed the lead-in question was asking her to compare herself to May (no mention in question of family)…. the journalist asked a short follow-up”

      “Rachel Sylvester: “Does your family inform your politics? Do you think motherhood – I thought it was very interesting during the debates you several times said, as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?”

      Andrea Leadsom: “Yes. Really carefully because I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’, do you know what I mean? Because I think that would be really horrible. But genuinely I feel that 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.”

      Are you a May troll or just a useful idiot?

      • Mez

        The question was do you feel like a mum in politics, it didn’t require a response which drew attention to Mrs Mays situation, which wasn’t implied by Sylvestors lead in and is irrelevant as far as the job is concerned.

    • Dougie

      It’s not just Mother-gate though. The Telegraph published an article online last week that was very critical of May’s record as Home Secretary and then removed it within hours so that it didn’t make the print edition. Then, on Saturday, we had a Telegraph leader endorsing May accompanied by a two-page spread profiling May, written by Judith Woods, not hitherto known for her political writings. (Ironically, indeed, Woods’s regular column in the wimmin’s section habitually draws on her experiences as a mother for her inspiration.) Even as I write, the Woods profile is being added to the reading lists of journalism courses across the country, as a case study in the sycophancy module.
      No, whatever Leadsom’s strengths and weaknesses, the MSM had decided they weren’t having her in No. 10. What the public, or the Tory party membership, thought about it was of no interest to them.

    • Albiro

      That sounds word for word how Sylvester described the events in an interview today. Funny that. Are you all reading from the same prepared script ?

  • Don Benson

    It is instructive to note that, while Andrea Leadsom was being stitched up for two solid days, Theresa May subsequently stated she never doubted that Andrea had been innocent of malign intent. So why had she failed to call off her attack dogs…?
    Beware the coward whose first instinct is self-interest; there’s none so dangerous when cornered and none so untrustworthy when you turn your back.

    But now we shall see what we shall see and, for the sake of our nation, I will be delighted to find out that I was wrong about our new Prime Minister. It is only right that we give her time to demonstrate her honest and good intent – but we should all watch her like a hawk.

    • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

      Why has she failed to call off her attack dogs? Come on don’t be naive – she gets to defenestrate someone while looking saintly at the same time.

      May showed what she is by her behaviour during the referendum campaign – a gutless, scheming coward, nailing her colours to the fence to see which way they would blow.

    • engineer1972

      How about we all work together? Our nation has had enough issues with attacks from within, without infighting at this stage. As you say, time will tell.

  • Albiro

    Rachel Sylvester is a useful idiot.

  • EppingBlogger

    The bigger lesson is that anyone who speaks up for Brexit will be attacked by the political class, and it would have been initiated by number ten.

    Over two decades now UKIP members generally and its leaders have been attacked in the grossest and most obnotious ways by successive Conervative Party leasers, including Mr Cameron. Boris was attacked whren he sided with Brexit and Gove as well. Following the referendum result the attacks on both of them and Farage and othgers increased in intensity. It would not surprise me at all to discover that the attacks were briefed by civil service PR staff on behalf of HMG.

    Andrea Leadsom suffered the same attack and for the same reason, she dared to support Brexit and to challenge the establishment’s stooge candidate. Probably Corbyn’s defenestration was organised for the same reasons.

    This experience shows us just how far we have to go in securing Brexit. The Conservative Party will try to thwart the decision of the voters, with NuLab help. I really believe that would result in demonstrations and chaos at the next GE.

    • engineer1972

      UKIP are a single issue party. The Conservatives are a broad church.

      Mrs May has said that brexit means just that. There is an article on the Express website tonight indicating that there will be no vote in Parliament, in other words, we will just get on with leaving the EU.

      • WFC
      • EppingBlogger

        UKIP is not a single issue party. Refer to any of our last three general election or other main manifestos.

        As to Mrs May: she has indicated that she will seek to retain full access to the Single Market which is one of the evil aspects of the EU we have just voted to leave. We do not benefit from the Single Market and we do not need to have any treaty or contractual relation with it. The likelihood is the Conservative Party leadership will seek to negate as much of Brexit as possible by trying to tie us up in the Single Market.

        • Mez

          Not at all, several countries have access to the single market but are safely outside of it..someone said, free movement of …doesn’t have to equate to a right to stay. Pertinent point I think in terms of temporary workers and possible work permits.

          • Mr B J Mann

            That’s true. Mexico and South Korea have, as I understand it.

            Also Lichtenstein is in the single market but does not have to accept free movement.

            However, the problem is that the Establishment, the Media, and any other Remainers, all insist as gospel that you can’t have access to the single market without accepting free movement.

            Which means that if they, the Remainers, “negotiate” to maintain access to the single market, they will be accepting free movement.

            The other big, to use Remainer arguments, *LIE!!!*SPIT! – JAB FINGER!! *LIARS!!!* is that we want access to the tariff free single market and will have to pay dearly to get it.

            It’s actually the EU that desperately needs and wants tariff free access to the UK single market.

            And should have to pay dearly for it!!!

      • 1642again

        Tories are no longer a broad church. The socially very liberal power focused clique running it no longer tolerate small ‘c’ patriotic conservatives at the wells of power. IDS showed this, now Leadsom. Then they wonder why their membership is disappearing, with some turning to UKIP.

      • alecto

        UKIP are not a single issue party . Check out their manifesto.

  • engineer1972

    Mrs May has a medical condition (the inability to have children). Leadsome knew she was treating on dangerous ground with the comment made. Leadsome would dared not have made a similar type of comment on the grounds of religion or race.

    Additionally, Leadsome appears to have ‘fallen apart’ and become ‘upset’ at the backlash. Leadsome was not fit for office.

    We need someone with determination and grit.

    I am a Tory member and believe that May is the best choice to take the Conservative Party forwards. I also was personally not comfortable with the **apparent** closeness of Leadsome and the UKIP. I don’t want UKIP being entryist into the Conservative Party.

    What’s needed now is action to stop the EU block causing anymore economic mayhem in the UK. We also need to fight the enemy within, who would wreck the democratic vote for the sake of getting their own way.

    • WFC

      I’m a kipper, and I also think that May is the best choice .., for UKIP.

      • engineer1972

        Time will tell. Personally, I hope that UKIP are finished. It’s the right wing equivalent of the ‘splitter’ faction seen with the SDP and Labour in the 80’s.

        • Woman at home

          Better to just keep the party together eh, regardless of the direction of travel?

          • engineer1972

            There is no evidence of travelling in any other direction of Brexit. The Conservative Party needs continuity and unity in the face of internal opposition, attempts to wreck the democratic process and hostility from the EU bloc.

          • Woman at home

            Take your blindfold off. You’ve been hoodwinked.

          • engineer1972

            Time will tell. I will take my chance.

            What would your solution have been?

          • Woman at home

            Where would you like me to start?
            First, install some integrity in the Conservative party.

          • engineer1972

            I suspect your solution would have been the same as my parents, not to have gone in the first place back in 1972.

          • Woman at home

            What a bizarre comment.

          • engineer1972

            Badly worded, apologies. My parents view was that the UK should never have gone ahead with the ECA 1972 and that the Brexit vote was merely correcting that bad mistake. Capiche?

          • Woman at home

            And how does that explanation improve your bizarre comment?

          • engineer1972

            If you don’t get it on the second go, I suggest you get back to the gin, Madam.

          • Woman at home

            Good God. Even the insults are Party based.. G&T ‘s all round?
            Second go, third go, to infinity and beyond, your comment was absurd. Or are you a Timelord?

          • engineer1972

            Not at all. Normally if the message doesn’t get across on the second attempt, no point in trying any further.

          • Woman at home

            I bet when you travel abroad you shout at the natives too, lol.

          • engineer1972

            I think in the current climate it would be the other way round. The EU bloc don’t seem like the friendly type ATM.

          • Dacorum

            Of course it was a terrible mistake to join the EEC in the first place because it was sold to us as customs union when it was in fact an embryonic political union and Heath knew that. I voted No in 1975 as a 22 year old and I voted Leave to correct that bad mistake. My father who also voted No in 1975 is no longer with us to see us get our country back. He was right on the EEC and I’m proud to have supported the anti EEC/EU cause all these years. The vote shows that all can’t fool the majority of the people all of the time

          • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

            First time for everything, I suppose!

        • WFC

          Time will indeed tell.

          I rather suspect that they will do better in (former) Labour areas in 2020, but if May does what we all know she’s capable of, who can tell?

          • engineer1972

            I would, frankly, risk ‘my’ future with May instead of Leadsome.

            Leadsome should not have made the comment she did, in or out of context, it was politically naive, immature, spiteful and emotive.

          • WFC

            Don’t you consider it rather sad, surprising and disappointing that, of all the people in the parliamentary Tory party, those were the two names thought most qualified to lead the party/country?

          • engineer1972

            Disappointing more than sad.

            I would like to have seen Redwood or Rees-Mogg put their names up.

            However, Redwood was obviously not interested and Rees-Mogg seems content to backbench and filibuster.

          • WFC

            Or they realised that the currents parliamentary party wouldn’t nominate them?

            Like Davis?

            I watch the “progessivisation” of the parliamentary Tory party more in sorrow than in anger. I used to be a Tory. I no longer recognise a parliamentary “”conservative” party which no longer seems to want to conserve anything, and whose attitude towards their members and voters – insofar as they think of them at all – seems to be hatred and contempt.

          • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

            I differ from you in the sense that I don’t think that is in any way new. It is just that for most of the 20th century the Tories were very scared of red revolution of one kind of another and in a time of universal suffrage had to make common cause with the socially conservative elements of society.

            Now, they see Metropolitan Liberalism as where is it at so have changed accordingly..In truth the party has always been a cynical elite construct just changing its tune when necessary to preserve what it sees as it’s entitlements to office.

          • WFC

            There is one thing which is new.

            Since the Liberal Party disintegrated, and the national liberals joined the Tories, the party has been a more or less uneasy coalition between Tories and (classical) Liberals, which has played out in various ways.

            But the infusion of “progressives” is a different thing altogether. These aren’t politicians, they are evangelists, propagating a new religion, whose only weapons against “heretics” are hatred and character assassination (and, of course, the criminal law).

            Baldwin may have preferred the opinion of his butler to those of his party conference, but he didn’t call them “fruitcakes”.

          • 1642again

            Totally agree. Too many Tories don’t understand the now yawning void between Conservatism and conservatism. Many traditional Labour voters are actually conservative. Conservatives are now primarily worshippers of power and wealth.

          • engineer1972

            But they could have still put themselves forward for consideration, yes?

          • WFC

            What would have been the point?

          • engineer1972

            Trying instead of not trying, I suppose.

          • WFC

            They both saw what happened to IDS.

          • Woman at home

            Immature? Spiteful? and emotive? Your choice of words is fascinating.

          • engineer1972

            Indeed.

            Immature, because Leadsome should have known better.

            Spiteful, because Leadsome knew that a comment of that nature would hit out at May.

            Emotive, as Leadsome knew that such a comment would generate a reaction.

          • Woman at home

            You should read Eppingblogger’s comment above. You might learn something.

          • engineer1972

            Leadsome knew what she was doing. You and I will have to agree to differ.

          • Woman at home

            Of course you know her every thought.
            Bigotry like yours is the reason the Conservative Party is in such a mess.

          • engineer1972

            So I’m a bigot for calling out someone else?

          • Mr B J Mann

            These were the headlines:

            Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom

            Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

            And:

            ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’

            Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

            And has the Times released the FULL audio yet?!

            Where in the released transcript and audio (have they released the full version yet?), in context, does she indicate she holds any of those views, as headlined, and then instantly followed up throughout the meejah.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Have you forgotten WHY the Labour Party split?

          It was because it was no longer the Labour Party!

    • Woman at home

      That’s a modern day Conservative for you. Party first, principles later.

      • engineer1972

        You have two options: Be pragmatic, or be ideological. Leadsome was the ideological candidate. Look where ideology has got Labour.

        • Woman at home

          Pragmatism. The excuse of the clubbable weak.

          • engineer1972

            Please tell me your solution, then.

          • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

            In a word, Toryism.

          • engineer1972

            Would you prefer a pragmatic approach, with the chance to sort things out in Government, or an ideological approach with little to no hope of obtaining government?

          • Woman at home

            Obtaining government only has purpose if you have principles you want to follow when you get there. Following in Blair’s footsteps the current Conservative Party is prepared to ditch all its principles to get into government. Power for its own sake is justified by “pragmatism”. Shabby.

        • Andrew Tekle-Cadman

          The response of your party is ALWAYS to put yourselves first before the country. There is never a right time to have vision or courage, never a right time to stick to your guns. Gutless and cynical. May has both qualities in spades so she is the ideal Tory leader.

          • engineer1972

            Unless I have this wrong, this website should be renamed UKIPWoman due to the amount of anti-Conservative, hard right rhetoric.

          • Woman at home

            You have got this wrong. This website exists to promote the Conservative view point. The Conservative Party has forgotten what it stands for, but members like you continue to support it anyway, because they put loyalty before principles. Which brings us neatly back to where I started
            “That’s a modern day Conservative for you. Party first, principles later.”

          • engineer1972

            Where should I go then? UKIP ^^appears^^ to be the only other choice.

          • engineer1972

            So, is UKIP the ‘natural home’ of ‘traditional conservatism’?

          • princeofnumbers

            The vast majority of readers on this site have “right of centre”, “conservative” views and values. The problem is that the Conservative Party no longer represents those views, and has become very similar to Blairite Labour! Many of us would like to vote Tory but find that nowadays UKIP more accurately represents our views and values.

            Yes there probably are more people on here who currently vote UKIP, than there are Tory voters! Ironic!

          • WFC

            The site is not affiliated to a certain party which calls itself “conservative” but doesn’t seem to want to conserve anything.

        • Labour now gets it’s policies enacted by the party that calls itself conservative.

    • Mez

      I agree. Mrs May has promised to support the electorate and she deserves the opportunity to win respect over this matter. Also delaying the EU situation while discussing options could be a tactical manoeuvre as Brussels wants it settled early. If they don’t deliver the conservatives know they’ll face a landslide next election.

    • princeofnumbers

      I’m an ex-Conservative member and saw through the charade that the Party has become years ago. The Party ceased to be “conservative” or “right wing” more than a decade ago!

      You say “I don’t want UKIP being entryist into the Conservative Party”, but the Tories have had plenty of “entryism” from liberal/blairite types……and that presumably doesn’t bother you?! Nowadays at least half of Tory MP’s are almost indistinguishable from the Blairite MP’s in the Labour Party. Now that is entryism!

      Nowadays I am an ex-Conservative who votes UKIP……..it seems that the majority of others on here are of the same mind.

      Wake-up man……the Tories aren’t a “conservative” Party any more!

      • engineer1972

        You mean, like they’ve more to the centre ground?

        • They moved in that direction – but didn’t stop at the centre.

        • WFC

          What is this “centre ground”? Who defines it?

          The Guardian? The BBC? The All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club?

          Who, exactly?

      • Maurice_Gosfield

        If you’re an ex-Conservative, then what are you doing on a website that quite clearly proclaims its Conservative tendencies?

        • princeofnumbers

          I have traditional “conservative” views. I’m very patriotic, anti-EU, in favour of lower taxation, a smaller state, anti-uncontrolled mass-immigration etc.
          I was an active member of the Tory Party for nearly 17 years, on my constituency Party committee etc

          Like many others on here (and all over the country), I gave up on the Party when it started to become a near replica of Blairite Labour. The majority of Tory MP’s nowadays are pro-EU, pro-unbridled globalism, pro-mass immigration etc……..almost indistinguishable from the last Labour Government under Blair/Brown.

          I haven’t changed my views and worldview…….but the Conservative Party have certainly changed theirs. UKIP more accurately reflects my views nowadays. After today’s “coronation” of Theresa May, I predict that the Tories will lose even more supporters to UKIP.

        • WFC

          Because he, unlike the parliamentary “conservative” party, is still a conservative?

        • Burkeian

          Its conservative principles – there is little sign of these in the Conservative Party

    • DonnaTxx

      May has a very thin skin then, not suitable for politics, if she’s going to be offended everytime someone mentions children. She should never have brought her childless status into the leadership contest.

      • AndyL

        If Leadsom had immediately apologised for ‘rambling on’ the story would
        have probably ended. However she vehemently denied making any use of
        her motherhood, and was found out – just as she was about her CV. Two
        dodgy items too close together.

        It wasn’t helped by Leadsom going into a sulk about ‘unfair’ treatment, as if she thinks the media should always play nice.

        • Mr B J Mann

          So you think these headlines were a fair reflection of even the bit of the interview they released the audio of:

          Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom

          Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

          And:

          ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’

          Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

          And has the Times released the FULL audio yet?!

          • AndyL

            The first headline was absolutely a fair reflection. It was exactly the point that Leadsom made.

            But how she handled it after publication made the problem much worse. She could have said the headlines were unfair, but she went into a complete tizz and was found out by the transcripts.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And your argument for that?

            And what about the sub-heading?!

            And the actual interview headline?!?!

            And it’s sub-heading!?!?!?!?!

            Oh, and has the FULL transcript and audio been released yet?

            Can you think of any reason why it wasn’t in the first place?!

          • AndyL

            The first headline and sub-headline you listed reflect the transcripts. What is hard about that?

            But Leadsom’s reaction after publication did her far more harm than the article itself. Have you ever heard of the Streisand effect?

          • Mr B J Mann

            The “first headline and sub-headline [I] listed” were:

            Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom

            Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

            The transcript says:

            “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.

            Sylvester: Does your family inform your politics?

            Leadsom: Oh, totally.

            Sylvester: During the euro debates, you said several times ‘as a mum’ . Do you feel like a mum in politics?

            Leadsom: Yes.

            Sylvester: Why and how?

            Leadsom: So, really carefully, because I am sure, I don’t really
            know Theresa very well but I am sure she will be 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 focussed on what are you really saying, because what it means is you don’t want a downturn but never mind, ten years hence it will all be fine, my childen will be starting their lives in that next ten years so I have a real stake in the next year, the next two.”

            *WHERE*?!?!?!

            Where does she say, or even infer:

            Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom

            Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

            Never mind:

            ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’

            Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

            IN CONTEXT!

            Some people only see the headlines.

            Some people only scan the headlines.

            The headlines make it sound as if Leadsom had issued a press release asserting:

            ‘I’m sure Theresa will be really sad that she doesn’t have children, but being a mother gives me the edge on Theresa May – I will be better leader because the childless home secretary lacks a ‘stake in future’

            And the Times has added the editorial:

            Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

            The headlines, while “quoting” words used by Leadsom out of context (even to the released “key” PART of the interview (have they released the FULL audio and transcript yet, and if not, why not?!) does NOT reflect the transcripts.

            What is hard about THAT?

            Theresa?!

          • AndyL

            It’s right there in the text you copied. The bit where Leadsom said:
            “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.”

            The word “but” is the clue. She is directly comparing herself to May and saying she is a better candidate because she has children

            She goes on to say that “my childen will be starting their lives in that next ten years so I have a real stake in the next year, the next two” clearly saying that May has less of a stake.

          • Mr B J Mann

            The clue is also in this “but”:

            I don’t really know Theresa very well but I am sure she will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’,

            Why isn’t the headline “Andrea wants to be all lovev-dovey, touchy-feely, reaching-outy in her campaign to work with Theresa on a sisterly basis” instead of “Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister”.

            The article chooses to take an anti Andrea, dislike Leadsom, attack her by twisting as much of what we admit she said to put her in the worst possible light.

            For about the dozenth time:

            Have they released the FULL audio and transcript yet?

            If not, why not.

            And why have you not once answered either of THOSE questions yet, Rachel?

            Or is it Theresa?!

          • AndyL

            The reason the headline isn’t what you suggest is that Leadsom immediately contradicted herself. Having said she doesn’t want this to be “Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t” she goes straight on to make exactly that comparison.

            The headline on the leader may have been a bit unfair, but the first headline (and sub) you quoted was exactly right. However that isn’t really the point. Faced with one critical headline Leadsom went to pieces. As has often been said, politicians complaining about the media is like sailors complaining about the sea. If she isn’t tougher than that she shouldn’t even be an MP, let alone PM.

          • Mr B J Mann

            For about the dozen and oneth time:

            Have they released the FULL audio and transcript yet?

            If not, why not.

            And why have you *STILL* not once answered either of THOSE questions yet, Rachel?

            Or is it Theresa?!

            I keep getting you and TNL mixed up!

          • AndyL

            Who cares about the transcripts? Only a few conspiracy theorists determined to create a myth of how Leadsom was done in.

            Face it. Leadsom was the third choice Brexiteer. After only one slightly OTT article and leader she had a meltdown, and both she and we realised she’s not up the the job. Maybe some time in future she will be, but certainly not yet.

    • Jolly Roger

      Leadsom expressed sympathy with May’s condition. But in her interview she rambled on too much. She supposed May regretted not having children, but that wasn’t for her to speculate upon. If Leadsom fell into the first trap laid for her by a mere journalist it doesn’t look like she would be able to take on Merkel and co.

      I suspect that the voting and the other machinations of the Tory MPs and the other candidates were designed to put the weakest Remain candidate against May. So now a Remain Tory prime minster is to be replaced by a Remain Tory prime minister. Business as usual.

      • Mr B J Mann

        But the point isn’t whether she fell into a trap, it’s whether the entire Establishment and entire media colluded to spring it shut on her while backing May regardless of her weaknesses!

  • EppingBlogger

    Andy Murray is allowed to blub about his family, Cameron and Blair emoted about their families and the Royal family is defined by its family values.

    So how come a candidate for the Conservative leadership was damned for talking about the experience and understanding which results from family life and responsibilities. We know the answer – the person concerned was disapproved by the political class so she had to be destroyed.

    One has to wonder if Leadsom will still be on the approved candidate list for selection at the next GE.

    • engineer1972

      Possibly Leadsome may end up in UKIP?

      • Longstone253

        That wouldn’t make sense. She denied all contact with ukip and ukip has also denied this. If she had wanted to act on behalf of ukip, she wouldn’t have given up the leadership contest. She has given up under pressure and will be given a role in the cabinet as a thank you from May. I am disappointed in her.

        • engineer1972

          With the rate of change we continue to see in our political system since the referendum, I would not be in the least surprised if this happened.

    • Mez

      The issue is the context in which family was referred to. Other MPs haven’t compared their large family in a competitive situation with a woman who has none.

      • DonnaTxx

        May is too sensitive, silly to bring her childless status into the Leadership contest. Now her enemies know her weakness.

        • Mez

          It isn’t a weakness…the result of raising it at all..shows all to well what the end result is likely to be.

          • DonnaTxx

            It is a weakness, what happens when someone else offends May? She can’t just keep getting her minions to bully that person!

    • DonnaTxx

      It was May who first brought up the subject of children, she hoped her childless status would deflect attention away from her shambolic tenure at the Home Office.

  • Torymory

    AL was not vilified for being a mother. She was asked what distinguished her from TM… Instead of replying with policy or style differences she that said she was a mother. As a mother she had a focus on the future through her children and future grandchildren… unlike poor old TM who only had nephews and nieces (and by implication therefore did not care about the future of the country). It was an insensitive, crass and politically naive. And I would say wrong… many parents are only focused on their own children’s future and could not care less about other people’s children’s future. Many childless people – men and women – have greatly contributed to the future welfare of the nation – through politics, social campaigning and philanthropy.

    • mjollnir

      How do you know what she said? The Times, firmly in May’s pocket, refused to release the audio (what a surprise!) so you are taking Rachel Sylvester’s word over Andrea Leadsom’s denial. Why exactly? In fact Sylvester contradicted herself within the space of one hour on the BBC, first claiming that she didn’t raise the issue, then admitting that she did. It seems clear that the journalist set a trap, distorted what was said and then bore false witness before being forced to row back. The whole episode was a hatchet job, obviously orchestrated at the highest level, and anyone who finds that acceptable belongs in the sewer with the rats who planned it.

    • Burkeian

      Leadsom was vilified for saying she was a mother. That does distinguish her from May. She did not say she was more distinguished than May nor did she decry achievements by childless people. She merely intimated that mothers had an added incentive to think of the needs of the next generation – ( I would say the same of fathers). This is a perfectly rational statement which would not have caused much comment if there had not been a vitriolic and repellent Remainer campaign of character assassination against her

      • DonnaTxx

        The same media gave the remainer Millenials a platform to bitterly complain about the Brexit result and how it was invalid because they (being younger) have more of a stake in the future than the ‘oldies’ who voted Brexit. But when a Brexiter implies it all hell breaks loose. Children are significant in this election because childless May will drag us, or should i say our children? Into a nuclear conflict with Russia.

      • DonnaTxx

        The same media gave the remainer Millenials a platform to bitterly complain about the Brexit result and how it was invalid because they (being younger) have more of a stake in the future of Britain than the ‘oldies’ who voted Brexit. But when a Brexiter implies it all hell breaks loose. Children are significant in this election because childless May will drag us, or should i say our children? Into a nuclear conflict with Russia.

      • AndyL

        She was vilified for saying she would not make an issue of being a mother. Then making an issue of being a mother. Then denying having made an issue of it. Then being found out.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Really?

          Before publication?!

          And why was the only article vilifying May pulled before publication and taken off the internet?!?!

  • phil

    I could not agree more with your article. Leadsom from start to finish has been positive about her stance on Brexit and has not once resorted to any mudslinging whatsoever. In direct contrast May’s team has descended into the gutter from day one casting aspersions left right and centre. To cap it all May herself has signed a pledge to keep the campaign clean when in fact her team were the biggest culprits fighting a dirty campaign of character assassination. How hypocritical is that?
    Words fail me when it comes to Sylvester that headline was a barefaced lie and if I was Leadsom I would sue the s.o.b.

  • Clare

    As a minor point, contrary to what this article implies, the Times piece wasn’t calling mothers “monsters” in a general sense at all. It said that mothers “can be” monsters- ie. simply bearing a child does not confer moral authority. A somewhat over-the-top attempt to distort what Mrs. Leadsom was trying to say perhaps, but hardly an anti-mother manifesto.

    • Burkeian

      You seem somewhat complacent about ‘A somewhat over -the-top attempt to distort’ what Mrs.Leadsom was actually saying. So if we were writing about homosexuals in the Times , for instance, it would be appropriate to interject out of the blue that some of them ‘can be ‘ monsters ? Try that one on.
      Mrs. Leadsom has been the victim of an increasingly repellent character assassination led covertly by the Remainers with the aid of the BBC and the Press. Can we believe a word we will now hear from their leader, Mrs May ?

      • Bo Williams

        It was Leadsom herself who appeared to claim merely being a mother meant she would, almost automatically, be a better Prime Minister. The ability to do your job, the ability to think strategically, the ability to think on you feet, the ability to hold press conferences, the ability to build alliances – in Andrea Leadsom’s world these were all of secondary importance to being a mother.

        Nobody is denying being a parent gives men and women a different perspective on life but that alone is not nearly enough to make you qualified to be Prime Minister. Leadsom had none of the qualities required to be Prime Minister. To be perfectly honest, she doesn’t have the necessary skills to be a Cabinet minister although I’d imagine Theresa May will feel obliged to offer her a minor Cabinet post.

        • Longstone253

          Whatever ‘Bo’. We know your agenda.

      • Clare

        “f we were writing about homosexuals in the Times , for instance, it
        would be appropriate to interject out of the blue that some of them ‘can
        be ‘ monsters ?” “Out of the blue”? No. In the context of a gay candidate claiming that his sexuality made him more suitable than a rival, then yes, it would absolutely be appropriate for a columnist to point out that homosexuality does not confer moral superiority (in fairness, I don’t think this is actually what Leadsom meant to say with respect to motherhood) and that plenty of gay men have been horrendous people.

        The Times article in question was simply stating that just being a parent isn’t necessarily a virtue in and of itself, it wasn’t an all-out, anti-family attack on mothers as a group. If Leadsom’s defenders (rightly) want to argue that no one should be hauled over the coals for a careless remark, then in the spirit of consistency, it’s only fair to stress the importance of judging an article by its entire content rather than just the clickbaity headline.

        • Longstone253

          Hm maybe (rolls eyes!). But the ‘clickbaity headline’ had nothing to do with what she said, or any other reality. So I think your argument, such as it isn’t, is null and void.

  • James P

    Looking at how Andrea has been treated by the Murdoch machine, it would appear that he does not like her. Really very sad just how much power this man still has. The last Brexit hopeful destroyed!

    • sandy winder

      Not just Murdoch but the whole gutter media, including BBC.

      • Gordon Stewart

        I trust Murdoch more than ANY political rat,you can get rid of him by not buying his products, you cant do that with our “elected” elite

        • Longstone253

          It has been sickening to watch all of the media ‘cheer up’ and churn out endless sycophantic pieces about May’s coronation and her stupid shoes. Even less edifying than seeing all the worst mps (Soubrey, Justine Greening, et al…) crowding around her, nodding away, smugly. Vomit.

    • A real liberal

      And treated by the whole Conservative machine, I’m afraid. The smugness of the Tory Grandees at having engineered the coronation of one of its own – and thereby denying its own (unintelligent, Brexit) membership a vote – is ugly. You’d have thought there was no lesson whatsoever in the referendum result. Clearly the 1922 Committee believes the lesson to be that the people want more patrician, antidemocratic processes.

  • Bik Byro

    “Poor Leadsom, unschooled in the ways of the media and the political world, did not stand a chance”. Exactly. That’s the reason why she would have been a bad choice for Prime Minister.

    • AndyL

      Indeed. The strongest defence of Leadsom was that she was naive.

      • Longstone253

        I find it very hard to believe that Leadsom survived 20 odd years in finance and then crumbled just because of a few unkind words from the ‘mean girls’. No. This was pre-programmed. All part of the anti-democracy movement.

        • Bik Byro

          Oh. Hang on then, I’ll go and get my tinfoil hat.

          • Longstone253

            Oh how droll! You’re so funny, you anti-democratic people…!

          • Bik Byro

            I know.

  • Y Bother

    Didn’t Yvette Cooper make exactly the same claim, that her being a mother made her a better leadership candidate than Liz Kendall? Anyone remember that?

    • Bo Williams

      One of Yvette Cooper’s supporters made the claim – Yvette Cooper was not stupid enough to make it herself – but even her supporter was roundly criticized. You’d think Andrea Leadsom would have learned from that incident.

  • noix

    Everybody with a brain can see what went on. Remain moles, like Boles, destroying the Brexit candidates, aided and abetted by the MSM. It will only dilute Brexit at the expense of the Tory Party membership.

  • Mothering Business

    Catherine Hakim’s research showed that mothering was the top value of 83% of all women in OECD countries. that is right–of all WOMEN, not just of all mothers. She also showed that women fall into three groups–work-centred, (about 16%) Home-centred (about 14%), and the in-betweens which she called ‘adaptives’ (about 70%). The Adaptives are much more like the home-centred than they are like the work-centreds. So that is about 84% of women put a very high value on the role of mothers and mothering. But, how many home-centred women can anyone name in the media, publishing, policy-making, and corporate worlds? These enclaves talk to their own kind and are unaware of the many people with views very different from theirs.
    There is no point in mothers waiting for the media and policy-making class to start giving them a voice. Mothers will have to speak up for themselves and defend the role of mothers and mothering.
    Phone and write to your member of parliament, send letters to national and local newspapers,
    Mothers have huge commercial power. they decide the allocation of $8.00 out of every $10.00 spent. Start using your power. Stop buying newpapers that denigate and despise mothers–and write to tell them why you have stopped buying their paper. Stop patronising shops and businesses that in any way denigrate mothers and mothering or who support those who do.
    Mothers do not realise how much power they have. they have to band together and start using it.

  • AndyL

    This is nonsence.
    Shortly after it was discovered that Lesdsom had made false claims in her CV – when the claims were a big part of her justification for having sufficient experience to be PM – the following happened in the interview
    She said she would not make an issue of being a mother, or of May’s childlessnes
    She then directly compared herself being a mother with May and said that gave her an advantage
    After the interview was published she denied she had done this
    After her words were quoted, she claimed a stitch-up
    She then apologised

    The whole saga showed everyone just how much Leadsom is suited for the role of PM, i.e. not at all.

    • Mr B J Mann

      as Bob Yerbury, Leadsom’s boss for 10 years at fund manager Invesco
      Perpetual, said when defending her last week from allegations that she
      had inflated her CV: “I would never, ever doubt her honesty. Andrea
      doesn’t play games.”
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/10/ive-been-under-attack-its-been-shattering-andrea-leadsom-apologi/

      So who do we believe?

      AndyL or BobY?!

      • AndyL

        It is not a question of belief. It is a matter of record that the word “Deputy” was missed from her CV as well as other innacurcies. BobY is saying it must have been an honest mistake, because he would not doubt Leadsom’s honesty.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Wow, so the worst thing you can find ‘as well as other innacurcies’ was that ‘she’ had missed ‘the word “Deputy”….. from ‘her’ CV’?!

          Do you have a link to “her” CV where it’s missed?

          Because apparently there is only one of HER CVs available, and it’s the one with the “innacurcies” corrected!

          I’d love to see Blair’s, or Eagles, or even Brown’s or Corbyn’s CVs, or Cameron’s, or Osborne’s or May’s CVs, checked down to the very last word!

          And how about all the luvvies in the Beeb, Channel4 and Sky “News”, current affairs and “documentaries”?!

          How about Rachel Sylvester’s? I wonder if it’s closer to Leadsom’s or Connie St Louis’?!

          And every CV of yours!!!

          There’s an idea, post every one of YOUR CV’s and PROVE *EVERY* word is TRUE!!!

  • Gordon Stewart

    Leadsome is a complete fraud …just like the rest of them of course,this will not damage her career as much as the tories will ~~~k up the country, vote UKIP

  • Bo Williams

    Andrea Leadsom did not fail because she was a mother. (Wasn’t Margaret Thatcher a mother?) She failed because it became patently obvious she was not up to the job. She could not make even a short speech without reading it, she could not hold a press conference and her much heralded senior executive experience in the City didn’t exist.

  • Longstone253

    Ah I see the anti-democracy people have found this and want to tramp all over anyone with a genuine opinion. See the comments immediately below this. How stupid do they think we are.

  • Pozieres

    It was entrapment and our mainstream media is degraded to the point where it is utterly contemptible. That said, it is what it is and any potential Prime Minister must be capable of facing down these jackals. Leadsom obviously was not capable so it is for the best that she withdrew. What a shame we ended up with a Prime Minister who appears just to be Cameron in drag.

    • Longstone253

      AL was never meant to run. Noone was meant to run as a Brexit PM candidate. Brexit wasn’t meant to happen. We all thought that it was going to get nobbled at the polling stations and were surprised when it wasn’t. I guess they were just complacent that the brainwashing of Project Fear would have dealt with it, but no. The funereal atmosphere of the morning of 24th June and the disarray of the Leave campaign told us everything we needed to know at that point. They all dropped out leaving only AL. The pressure we saw on her in the media must have been just the tip of the iceberg of what was going on behind the scenes. She may not have been capable. More importantly, she was not part of the plan.

  • chrisH

    Agree with every word.
    But what are we going to do about it?
    On the 23rd June I voted to leave the EU-not replace the useless spent prophylactic Cameron with a Majorette.
    If only the Tories knew now how despised they are…UKIP will remove the Remainiacs, because we now see that they can not be improved.
    Disastrous for the Tories…now we`ll be heading for an ultra-UKIP on steroids to specifically target the likes of Soubry, Russ, Miller and Duncan.
    Couldn`t happen to nicer people..God is a God of anger as well as love, you know!
    Leadsom will be back…until then, May is merely a Callaghan, Brown or Major.
    Dead Mayflies all-after their ritual matings in the limelight of yesterday notwithstanding.

    • Pozieres

      Just hope that UKIP are unified under an electable leader in time for the next election. They are our only hope for Brexit.

      • Bo Williams

        There appears to be quite a few UKIP sympathisers on this Conservative Woman website. The Conservative Party is not UKIP. Sometimes Andrea Leadsom and some of her supporters appeared to forget that.

        • Longstone253

          Hm. Like you are a Conservative?!? I’ve seen you all over the place recently, churning out propaganda. Your views are not compatible with Conservatism.

          • Bo Williams

            I am a Conservative and I never churn out propaganda. Conservatives should fight to keep the party out of the hands of the extreme right-wingers as that is the road to ruin. And Conservatives should never be encouraging UKIP.

          • Longstone253

            You are a Blairite. This exercise in ‘democracy’ (the referendum) has finally proved that there is no democracy. It means that our political system is a sham. We are no longer a country. We are owned by the rest of the world. Yes I was naïve not to have accepted this already.
            Fighting to keep the Conservative party united is just a joke and irrelevant. Even if ukip won in 2020, it would make no difference because they would become corrupted as well. There is clearly too much pressure from the globalist, internationalist, powers that be, those who really own and run this country, for us ever to return to being Great Britain. It’s too late. All of our politicians are corrupt. We’re bankrupt, and not just morally. We’d better just get on with being blind little lab-rat consumerists, watching x-factor and planning our next car or holiday, which we will buy with our credit card. End.

        • chrisH

          Bit silly Bo
          Whoever voted out is neither UKIP or Conservative..just a patriot.
          And without any confidence in a Brexiteer to run things, but the offer of sloppy seconds from a liberal bed blocker like Theresa May-then the Tories may be filleted unto irrelevance down south as Labour have been up north.
          WE voted OUT-not “swap one empty suit for a trouser suit that buttons on the other side).

        • Pozieres

          I’ll read and comment on any website I wish to.

          • Bo Williams

            Fine, but don’t confuse Conservatives for UKIP.

          • Pozieres

            Who are you to give orders? **** off.

          • Bo Williams

            It’s not an order just a request.

          • Pozieres

            Where I come from, requests incorporate the word ‘please’. Are you an honours graduate of the Amber Rudd school of charm and deportment? Are manners non-existent on planet Tory? Or merely optional?

          • Bo Williams

            I don’t tell people **** off.

          • Pozieres

            I only say that when people try to order me around without any authority to do so, in which case it is fully justified.

        • Burkeian

          I think you have been told before. This not a Conservative ( Party) site. It is a most admirable site where you can find daily the best expression of conservative ( note the small ‘c’ ) social and political values to be found on the internet. UKIP incidentally is full of true conservatives ( big or small ‘c’) and, of course, Brixeteers, and will have to be the main force in seeing that the decision of the people for Independence is implemented in FULL.

          • Bo Williams

            UKIP might have small ‘c’ conservatives but they have no Conservatives. They may have some ex-Conservatives.

      • chrisH

        Steve Woolfe did a great job on Any Questions the other Friday-fearlessly trashing Emily Thornberry and the London liberal audience, very much as a Daniel might have.
        Apart from that, there ARE a few good ones…but a hopeless division between the blazers and the young`uns…lots of cultural problems, and Nigel did us no favours with that weird cult of his.
        But good times ahead…Norman Tebbit would be a great asset of he can put country ahead of old loyalties.
        After May-all bets are off, as long as a Soubry or a Rudd are in the Tory Party.

  • Dacorum

    What Angela Ledsome was saying is that her marriage, family and children are the most important part of her life and they have shaped the way she looks at the world which is the way any good parent views their family. She said nothing wrong in that interview. Having children of your own changes your outlook on life and she wasn’t denigrating Mrs May who has no children of her own but simply pointing out a difference between them that motivated her.

  • Her Indoors

    who would have thought politics in a supposed democratic country could be as ruthless and corrupt as a banana republic. May will not survive long, she will fall on her own sword. She will now have to be constantly be watching her back, as we have seen, MPs have no real loyalty they will always put their own self-interests first.
    A Hollow Crown indeed.

  • Webwrights

    Thank all the gods that Andrea Leadsom’s delusions of adequacy were so
    swiftly punctured. Rachel Sylvester has done a splendid service to the
    country, and also to the Conservative party, by exposing Mrs Leadsom’s
    woeful shortcomings in one interview. Surely worth a CBE in the
    resignations honours?

    • Her Indoors

      I think there is more to this than just the result of this one interview. Sylvester herself, lied about who bought up the subject of motherhood. Leadsom was being honest in her answers and yet this is called a woeful shortcoming. Lying seems to be a virtue of being an effective politician. May herself, gave a whole interview with the Mail about being childless a few days before. It is pretty damning when according to you, we have newspaper proprietors who effectively decide on who should be our PM based on one interview. Democracy who needs it ?, when we have the metropolitan journalists, editors, who know what is best for the ordinary working man/woman and the Tory membership (who did not have any say). Funnily enough, many MPs are ex/current journalists.
      In the fullness of time we will find out what really happened. How many good people thinking of entering politics have now been put off. It has now become a elite select club.
      Who would dare try to join?

      • Webwrights

        Andrea Leadsom fell apart in that one interview. She made a foolish and (whether consciously or unconsciously) vile comment, which was received with (whether real or confected) horror. Newspaper proprietors didn’t decide this; tides of adverse opinion – colleagues, friends, press, public – did.

        She claimed that it was a tough interview, but how much tougher would be almost any other part of a PM’s job? She was under-prepared and under-qualified. I suspect that she would have been as lamentable a PM as Iain Duncan-Smith (similarly inadequate and also foisted on the party by the knuckle-brained element of the membership) proved to be.

        However, cynic that I am, it could well be that Leadsom’s (very elegantly announced) dropping out was a centrally-agreed tactic, to ensure that we get a PM and effective government without undue delay. Let’s see if she gets a Cabinet job.

        • Webwrights

          Iain Duncan-Smith … proved to be as the mere leader of the Opposition (of course).

          • Her Indoors

            Cameron a PR man who will be remembered for what
            Gay marriage
            5p on shopping bags
            Holding a referendum which he lost.
            PR man just like Blair and nothing to write home about.
            This country needs politicians with real convictions who get on with the job and not be worried about the news headlines.
            Mrs Thatcher the last and only true Tory PM.
            Leadsom may not have been suitable for the role, however, the bullying and manipulation by the press for a coronation of May was not right. Leadsom a Brexiter and that was her biggest crime – Soubry, Ken Clarke, Ian Duncan all EU fanatics were beyond contempt in their treatment of her in tv/radio interviews.
            As for effective, May has been ineffective in all her roles, what is going to change. She is a technocrat who has no grasp on of ordinary life. Her speech consisted of soundbites and has no real idea how it will pratically work. Sending out vans advertising illegal immigrants to hand themselves in. Result – one illegal gave himself in.
            The May idea of ordinary workers sitting on boards. The reality – boards will have secret meeting without these workers etc etc.
            Her ruthlessness will mean Ministers and MPs will never trust her and she will be constantly looking over her back.
            In short, the Tory party has its own Gordon Brown.
            Good Luck with that.

        • Mr B J Mann

          No, as is obvious from my earlier reply to you, she didn’t fall apart, she accepted she was up against overwhelming odds.

          And maybe it wasn’t the proprietors, just the editors and staff, but equally clearly it was the newspapers that decided, created, the “tides of adverse opinion – colleagues, friends, press, public” were “informed” by!

    • Mr B J Mann

      As I replied to TNL, in case you miss it:

      You can’t defend views against a concerted concentrated barrage of abusive headlines while your opponent gets elevated to the sainthood and anything considered heretical is immediately pulled!

      Leadstrom didn’t play the ‘mummy card’ as some have called it.

      The Times did, and has it released the FULL audio yet?

      Even the “key” part of it released doesn’t even begin to justify the headlines:

      Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom
      Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

      https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/7517325093486… (Scroll down to screengrab of front page)
      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/being-a-mo

      And:

      ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’
      Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/i-m-sure-t

      As for May, the one derogatory article about her was pulled, funny that:

      http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-artic
      http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/telegraph-online-pu

      Strange how the May article gets pulled, the Leadsom one goes round the world, like a lie before the truth has even time to put it’s boots on!

      If it’s clear that that is how the game is going to be played out, it’s clear that there is no point in trying to compete.

      It’s not a question of Leadstrom being too thin skinned, not able to take the heat or pressure, being naive or unprepared, or not being up to the job:

      It’s a question of whether the dice are so loaded you would have to be insane to play their game!

  • TNL

    Oh come on, if she can’t even defend her own views then she was never going to be an effective leader let alone PM.

    • Mr B J Mann

      You can’t defend views against a concerted concentrated barrage of abusive headlines while your opponent gets elevated to the sainthood and anything considered heretical is immediately pulled!

      Leadstrom didn’t play the ‘mummy card’ as some have called it.

      The Times did, and has it released the FULL audio yet?

      Even the “key” part of it released doesn’t even begin to justify the headlines:

      Being A Mother Gives Me The Edge On May – Leadsom
      Tory Minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks ‘stake in future’

      https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/7517325093486… (Scroll down to screengrab of front page)
      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/being-a-mo

      And:

      ‘I’m Sure Theresa Will Be Really Sad That She Doesn’t Have Children’
      Andrea Ledsom gets personal in her ruthless campaign to be the next prime minister

      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/i-m-sure-t

      As for May, the one derogatory article about her was pulled, funny that:

      http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-artic
      http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/telegraph-online-pu

      Strange how the May article gets pulled, the Leadsom one goes round the world, like a lie before the truth has even time to put it’s boots on!

      If it’s clear that that is how the game is going to be played out, it’s clear that there is no point in trying to compete.

      It’s not a question of Leadstrom being too thin skinned, not able to take the heat or pressure, being naive or unprepared, or not being up to the job:

      It’s a question of whether the dice are so loaded you would have to be insane to play their game!

      • TNL

        “It’s not a question of Leadstrom being too thin skinned, not able to take the heat or pressure, being naive or unprepared, or not being up to the job…”
        Actually it’s exactly that. All modern politicians put up with abuse – justified or otherwise. May is no exception – witness Littlejohn’s article on the Daily Mail website today. Rightly or wrongly it is part of the territory that goes with the job and if Leadsom can’t cope with that then she was never going to succeed as leadership candidate, let alone leader or PM.

        • Mr B J Mann

          You haven’t read what I said, have you, Theresa?!

          You seem to have accidentally missed:

          You can’t defend views against a concerted concentrated barrage of abusive headlines while your opponent gets elevated to the sainthood and anything considered heretical is immediately pulled!……

          …….Strange how the May article gets pulled, the Leadsom one goes round the world, like a lie before the truth has even time to put it’s boots on!

          If it’s clear that that is how the game is going to be played out, it’s clear that there is no point in trying to compete.

          …..:

          It’s a question of whether the dice are so loaded you would have to be insane to play their game!

          Along with most of the rest of my post!

          Or are you Rachel:

          You seem adept at, shall we say, “editing”!

          • TNL

            Theresa? Rachel? Oh do grow up.
            There are plenty of politicians who get streams of abuse on a consistent basis but manage to get through it. If you are a professional politician putting yourself in to a leadership position to fight for what you believe in then you will be in the firing line. May has taken abuse – again, look at the Littlejohn article cite in my comment. And what about Farage? Like him or loathe him he took decades of abuse, much of which was inaccurate and seemingly relentless at times.
            Leadsom had a bad weekend of headlines; she then ran away. Not leadership material.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Oh do grow up?!

            You manage to find ONE article by a SATIRICAL writer and you want me to read it?!?!

            As I’m sure I’ve pointed out somewhere, no, I’m not going to double check it’s on this sub-thread to you, there has been a concerted attack on Leadsom by the meejah, politicians and the rest of the establishment (except, apparently, for one satirical article in what the “liberals” insist is the lowest tabloid, on May – while one serious uncomplementary article in a supposedly right wing broadsheet about May was pulled before publication?!?!) clearly indicating that Leadsom is on a hiding to nothing, and there is no point in her continuing (rumour has it that May/s supporters were preparing to do a Hilary and get the equivalent of the FBI and IRS on Leadsom’s case?!?!) says nothing about someone’s leadership potential.

            I suppose you think that generals who fight every battle they have no hope of winning are better leaders than those who recognise when they haven’t a hope in hell and keep their powder dry for other times?!?!

            Farage might have taken years of abuse, but he was slowly working towards, and achieving, victory.

            Leadsom didn’t have ” a bad weekend of headlines”, she had a sign of what was to follow in the week if she ignored the not too subtle hints and tried to continue.

            All Leadsom would have been working towards was destruction of her career and personal life!

          • TNL

            Yes, do grow up.
            Your “argument” reads like paranoid twaddle frankly. The whole point of the leadership campaign would have been to win the party and the media over. Leadsom chose not to do that. It’s a clear sign of weakness in a politician and an absolute sign of unsuitability in someone vying to be party leader. She could have won but she chose not to fight. As a result she has not kept her powder dry for another time; I cannot see anyone ever nominating her for party leader again given she didn’t make it through the first weekend of a campaign.
            You point about Farage does not stand as there was never a guarantee of victory – indeed given how close the referendum result was and how Farage himself almost seemed to admit defeat as the votes started to be counted shows this. Furthermore, on top of the headlines and attack articles, Farage also had constant setbacks such as never winning a seat in Parliament across the decades he was fighting for his cause. The notion that victory was somehow guaranteed is nonsense on stilts (and arguably victory for his cause has not been obtained until the UK actually leaves the EU.)
            I have no idea whether the leadership campaign would have destroyed her personal life but Leadsom has destroyed her own career through showing how spineless she actually is.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Paranoid?

            The pulled article on May has been released by it’s writer to Guido Fawkes, and the Times and Sylvester, as far as I’m aware (certainly none of the pro may/Sylvester defenders has told me where they can be found) the FULL transcript and audio STILL haven’t been released.

            Tell me where the full transcript and audio are and then we have grounds for further discussion:

            Put up, or shut up!

            Because unless you can show that there is a cat in he ll’s Sylvester and the Times could have been “won over” by rational argument, there is no rationality to yours!

            And i never said there was any guarantee of victory for Farage.

            I said “he was slowly working towards, and achieving, victory”!

            As he was, but by bit.

            Unlike Leadsom, who was being shown (and apparently told) at every turn that the establishment weren’t going to allow her to win.

            Discretion, as they say, is the better part of valour.

            As for Farage himself “almost” “seemed” to admit defeat as the votes started to be counted shows this:

            Do you have a direct quote?

            Or are you relying on what the meejah thought he might have said in a bit of banter with a mate that someone overheard a bit of!

            Unlike his supposed presumptious crowing about victory later when what he had actually said, cut, no doubt for reasons of space and time, was something like if the figures keep stacking up the way they have been doing it looks like…./ “we have victory”, or whatever was “reported”.

            It looks like Sylvester isn’t the only one to have gone to a “liberal” journalism school.

            Just like when Obama supposedly crushed Romney with a put down about him not being patriotic but investing in China.

            When he had come right back with actually Obama’s pension fund was invested in China.

            Which, again, the meejah didn’t have the space or time to report.

            Funny that, notice a pattern emerging.

            But Farage had steadily improving voter figures.

            However, you will note he mentioned that he wuz robbed when he stood for Parliament, but he REFUSED to go to court about it, because, even though he was right, he knew he’d still be the one villified by the meejah for being a poor loser.

            Or, as some would say:

            “It’s a clear sign of weakness in a politician and an absolute sign of unsuitability in someone vying to be….” whatever.

            But at least he wasn’t wasting time and risking money on the venture.

            Similarly, as with Leadsom, she analysed the situation, recognised it was a battle she couldn’t win, so cut her losses, as anyone from a rational trader to a sensible general or a wise politician would.

  • Bogbrush

    The media only have the power you give them. Why she even agreed to a random interview I don’t know.

    If I were in this situation (of being a political leader) I would;

    1. Be interesting, controversial. Be good copy. Sell papers.
    2. Make only very carefully pre-arranged interviews in staged surroundings AND live broadcasts so that the risk of misrepresentation is minimal.
    3. Reward reasonable journalists with scoops and reveals / give others nothing (which is why you have to be interesting or controversial or they won’t care).
    4. Be focused in your discussion; don’t get dragged out into subjects that you’ve not thought through.
    5. Never discuss anyone’s personal life. Be as controversial as you like about their professional positions.

    It’s not hard, and the way she blew that more or less showed she wasn’t up to it.

    • Her Indoors

      Its not hard for journalist with their own political agenda to create/spin a headline which bears no relevance to what was actually said. Leadsom was not the choice of the remain establishment and this was glaringly obvious in the over the top bullying by the press. If the Tory membership had voted for Leadsom, which is what they all feared, the majority of the out of touch Tory Ministers and MPs, who supported remaining in the undemocratic club of the EU, would have made life very difficult for her as they did for Thatcher in the end. Leadsom made the right choice to step away because of this but it is the remain media savvy Ministers and MPs who will pay the price at the next GE. They are the ones elected to serve the public not the other way round.

      • Bogbrush

        Well that’s my point. Look at point 2 and they can’t really be abused.

        Longer term, points 1 and 3 induce better treatment.

        Points 4 & 5 are just self-discipline.

        She didn’t do any of this and paid the price.

        • Her Indoors

          It’s a pretty sad reflection of today’s politics when the media can distort the message if it’s not in line with their agenda. The BBC picked up a few tricks when they visited North Korea.
          In this climate Leadsom was always going to be wrong but she knew it was being used as a excuse by the remain MP’s not to work with her in forming an effective government. Not good for stability of the country, which Leadsom understood. Leadsom like you, would have learnt quickly and would have got on with the job of Brexit as instructed by the people. May and her remain toads will fudge Brexit as planned.

  • LynneBurnham

    She shot herself in the foot with the comment “But I HAVE CHILDREN” .

    • Longstone253

      No. She was brought down by the Establishment (or deliberately brought herself down, having been a plant from the beginning) because we were never going to be allowed to Brexit. The fix was in from the beginning but went a bit wrong because we, against all the scare tactics, voted to leave. After 25 or more years of having been sold down the river by successive Blairite governments, this country can no longer survive on its own. We are bankrupt and totally dependent on being a banking and finance hub, owned by the rest of the world. This means we can only survive with money from our creditors and they do not want us to move even an inch towards nationalism and/or splendid isolation. So Cameron won his gamble after all.