After listening I get why some people are taking it in that way. I won't go on (too much) because the majority on here obviously have a different opinion than mine. I pretty much agree that having kids changes your perspective and that it also changes your behaviour (in terms of decision making and actual behaviour) because after the birth of my first I became much more patient, more understanding and thought much more about what I said and did both in their company and when not. My Mum has commented on this a few times saying I am much different now to how I was before I had children at the age of 30. So in many ways I pretty much agree with her statement there. However I get that bringing up Theresa May was very naive and foolish and she has not done herself many favours there because no matter what her intention was it comes across really badly and she was obviously having to think on her feet which seems to show that her thought process has not done a very good job there. All in all I am not concerned about the intention of what she thinks are her own strengths because I don't feel that someone thinking that having children gives you a different perspective is untrue or not important after all how many people voted both ways in the referendum citing that they were thinking about their children's future? However being so easily trapped there and not being able to quickly think about how what she is saying before she says it will be perceived (spin or no spin) gives me much more of a concern going forward as to whether she is capable of avoiding this kind of blunder in the future. I should also add that I have been anti-May for a couple of years so that does bias my thinking of who is best for the job. At the end of the day we are stuck with one of these 2 and so it is now a very hard choice. We are obviously going to disagree on this one and you may think ImpSaint is 'orrible but we are all different peas in a pod here. I do think it is a little funny though that anything Murdoch has been give short shrift in this thread and on football threads on this site yet "The Times" seems to be thought of differently.
Angela Eagle to announce Labour leadership bid on Monday http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36753769 Looks like it's happening.
If Leadsom becomes PM then I doubt she would command a majority. In such a case it would trigger a general election. As much as I sympathise with many of Corbyns policies, he does not have the leadership qualities required. The party needs to be ready to fight an election...
An article on the last leadership election a year ago which sort of ties in and the second part is interesting in what it says about why many politicians use the "as a father, as a mother" prefix: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/labour-mp-im-supporting-yvette-cooper-because-shes-a-mother/
From the Guardian. So much for May's "clean campaign pledge": Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, has since called for Leadsom to sign the “clean campaign pledge”, saying Conservative members “do not want to witness a slanging match or see any backstabbing”. He also opened up a new front in the battle between the two Tory candidates by suggesting May had the advantage on the world stage because many senior foreign politicians “have never heard of Andrea Leadsom”. Hammond, who is supporting May’s bid to be the new prime minister, made the comments on the fringes of a Nato summit in Poland. “I’m not making it up or scoring a point,” he said.
Leadsom is an easy target, probably for the same reasons she'll appeal to a lot of the tory membership. Her biggest fault imo is the lack of open mindedness she displays in several areas. Being a conviction politician is fine, fingers in ears and singing 'la la la' less so. But we are stuck with one of them. I'm almost rooting for Leadsom now as I agree she'd be more likely forced into an early election, few would've even been aware of her when voting Conservative in the last election.
I don't get this "Oh no she's in the god squad" line either. Are we saying that religious people should not be in politics? Might have a major problem there and not just with those of Christian leanings because most religions aren't that open towards the LGBT issue." We have this moaning about her opening up all the time with "As a mother....." when we (not me personally but Londoners) have just elected a mayor who opened many more times with "As a muslim....." I don't see the problem.
I don't have a problem with religious people in politics. But I do have a problem when they bring their religious views into it. No matter how it is put not agreeing with LGBT rights is hate speech and is disgusting. Also on Leadsom she knew what she was doing and got called out with being disgusting. But as you have said you are biased so can't see that.
OK, this could be interesting in light oof the Labour mess. Haven't read it yet. https://medium.com/@Layo_91/how-mid...oyed-the-labour-party-8256e707ec01#.dfhftbs5z
I hate politics, I hate people, so many loathsome people around and the media advertise all of it. All this negative ****e, no wonder depression is high in modern society.
Conservatism is king, you'll find solace if you study the works of Edmund Burke. Life is as it is because it is as it is. It may not be spectacular or interesting or fair but life just works because it works.
It may be your king, but it certainly isn't mine. Ultimately, Conservatism is about seeing people, on the other side of life's street, weaker than yourself through little fault of their own, and turning your face the other way whilst feeling OK about it. Whilst I live and breathe I'll never turn the other way.
This is not conservatism. This is a socialist's view of conservatism. Conservatism is the cornerstone of society. It promotes the most natural and basic of human natures, and that is self preservation. It doesn't wrap itself in ideology concerned with a utopian society. It doesn't claim to be fun, interesting or fair. Conservatism accepts that there will always be indifference and inequality in society because that is how society as an organism works. That may be depressing in some people's eyes but as the saying goes, that is is the way of the world.
Oh I've heard the BS about Conservatism and Capitalism being the natural order of things. I even believed it for a milliseocnd once upon a time. With Conservatism loads of people lose badly while a significant proportion lose less badly, while a minority actually win. At least with Socialism everyone wins/loses more or less equally. And humans have been above the natural order of things for centuries. We can come together and make a better fairer world if we want to. There are just too many who want more of the pie for themselves at the moment. Doesn't mean to say it shouldn't be resisted.
That is a summary from a report Cruddas made. I posted the full article earlier in this thread as well as the John Healey one that came to the same conclusions at about the same time. Problem though is if you read your one (and the others) it states "we need a leader that can.......blah blah blah. The reality is that it doesn't matter who their leader is. What they actually need are policies that reach out not another leader just keeping the same policies.
Nobody in society wins under socialism. Strict government regulation, which is the pretext of socialist society prevents 'winners'. Instead it just makes everyone a 'looser' together. Conservatism promotes personal self interest and is totally against strict government regulation, it allows people to be set free, to have the opportunity to work hard and make of life what they will. Some have a better opportunity to do this than others through personal circumstance. However, at least there is always that opportunity. Under a socialist regime, there is no opportunity, no chance, no personal liberty. In regard, to the idea of people coming together to make a better world, this merely exists in the realm of fantasy. Deep routed elements of human nature will never allow this. When it comes to the crunch, people will put their self interests first regardless of how charitable they morally feel they ought to be. I hate to burst the bubble but this utopian idea of a fair an equal world can never exist, not because of wealthy people, as socialists will have you believe but because of basic human nature itself.
