How on earth have they gone from that transcript to that article? They have phrased what she said in a way she hasn't said. Where's the "give her the edge" comment?????? It isn't there.
Sorry, but she hasn't really got a leg to stand on. Nobody asked about May or the fact she can't have children. The Times asked her why she keeps bringing up her motherhood. She then went with the 'I don't want to be suggesting this about Theresa, but...' which is classic political messaging. The question was about her being a mum. She then immediately brings up that Theresa is childless. If she didn't want it to be about 'I'm a mum and Theresa isn't' then she wouldn't have brought it up, then said 'but' and proceeded to make the point regardless. I really hope this woman doesn't end up in Number 10. Oh and also, nobody from her camp thought to record the interview themselves. Amateur hour.
Yep brought up May for no reason and then said " it must be horrible but i will say it anyways". I dislike May but damn leadsom is disgusting.
If, at very best, it's naivety. Then is now the time for a naive, potty-mouth PM who can't handle herself and her trap in interviews? We need a keen-eyed negotiator and Andrea Leadsom is not it. Bugger me, I don't really like May but she's far more cut out for the job than this chancer.
How do we know there wasn't a leader before the "published question"? We are going on what a journalist wrote on her phone.
People wanted the transcript of the question and the answer, in full. Well, there it is. The cut of it is... Q: 'Andrea you mention being a mum a lot, do you feel like a motherly figure in politics?' Andrea: 'Yes, obviously Theresa doesn't have children but let me make this clear I don't want to be nasty and make this about me having children and her not being able to have children... BUT (I'm going to do it anyway...!), I have children so I have a tangible stake in the future.' (and ergo, the inference is that May does not and that therefore affects her suitability for the role) Come on, you're better than defending people like Leadsom. She hasn't a leg to stand on with that transcript and she knows it.
I see it as awkward and a bit foolish but I don't get from what she said to the Times filling in the gaps and why doesn't this get pulled like the Telegraph one on May earlier this week? Dirty tricks to the fore here.
It's malicious. Andrea Leadsom knows full well why she brought up Theresa May's lack of children. It's not 'a bit foolish'. It's classic stuff and it's right out of the Donald Trump playbook of 'I really don't want to say this but...' before saying it anyway. In any case, if it's to be considered as 'a bit foolish' then the evidence seems to be pointing to the fact Leadsom couldn't be trusted to lead my dog round the park without making a stupid comment, let alone be the figurehead for British negotiations in what could prove to be an utter catastrophe, if handled incorrectly. I'm going to bed, I've got to be in work early and I really can't be bothered to waste my breath on her comments anymore. Horrible, uncalled for comment. She wanted the transcript, there it is. Question with no reference to May, answer brings May straight into it. Headline is perhaps a stretch but they're getting people to read, the actual comments and the transcript in black and white is damning enough. She said it was 'the exact opposite' of what she had actually said. Well, errrrr... Andrea, it isn't. I don't see how she can be defended. Night all, I've got to be up in six hours and on a train. Hopefully the weather holds out.
Oh well, everything's going to be fine and dandy in 10 years. Well what the hell was I worried about then.? After all, it isn't as if everything was fine and dandy now was it. No indeed. But we just thought we'd make it worse for 10 years so that the young people of today who need it to be fine and dandy now miss out and get passed over in 10 years time. ****ing idiot.
Going on the recent voting track record it seems as if she is the perfect candidate for a Tory Prime Minister. The last few weeks have gone from tragedy, to laughable, and they're about to go back to tragedy again. I have wondered whether I will wake up one morning and find that the whole sorry episode of the last month will have been a bad dream.
She's a fool and her lack of experience as an MP is telling. Never liked the woman from the start. The only reason she has got this far in the contest is because Gove lost popularity within the party after the whole Johnson saga.
So, your late nights are to blame for all this. I told you to get some sleep. I now see the Leadership choice as Bad vs Mad. Sometimes I'm not sure which is witch.
If she wins, I wonder if the media will come to our village and ask the locals about her as she's our MP? I wonder what I could say?
