I picked up yesterday on the fact that Andrea Leadsom views gay folks as different to straight folks in terms of their rights to suffer the miserty of marriage. So she is a social conservative which will chime with many Tory party members and I've no problem with her coming out in this respect. These days, some leading Tory seems to come out as something or other about once a week. What is nauseating about Leadsom is that she lies about this issue. She says she believes in equality and then smailes inanely. Yet her stated views make it clear that she does not believe in equality. In the world of Leadsom it is one rule for the shirt lifters and one rule for the rest of us. Time to smile inanely again Andrea.
My biggest problem with Leadsom is thus not that she is a bigot, although she is, but that she cannot tell the truth about her bigotry on the issue of the pooftahs. And in seeking to hide that she digs herself deeper and deeper into whichever hole she has stumbled.
And thus we now know that her CV about her banking career was quite simply not true. She exaggerated her claims about what she did. Yet in an infamous interview wih the Times yesterday we read:
After explaining that, as a former banker, she understands “how the economy works and can really focus on turning it around” — unlike, by implication, the home secretary.
Andrea Leadsom managed the recruitment of teams of banksters. She was a manager of people. Theresa May manages a far bigger team at the Home Office. Neither means that they understand finance so well they can turn round the economy. Leadsom was a banker in the same way that May is a Policewoman.
What arrogance of Leadsom to claim that she can turn round the economy, especially when her CV (truthful version) shows no reason to back up the claim of specialist knowledge. And anyhow did not the banksters sort of help to get us into the mess of 2008 in the first place?
Leadsom goes on: back to The Times:
— she stresses that she is a “member of a huge family and that’s important to me. My kids are a huge part of my life, my sisters and my two half brothers are very close so I am very grounded and normal.” Mrs May, of course, has spoken of her heartbreak at realising that she could not have children.
In case the contrast is not clear enough, Mrs Leadsom goes on: “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’ 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.” There is also an empathy that comes from motherhood, she suggests, “when you are thinking about the issues that other people have: you worry about your kids’ exam results, what direction their careers are taking, what we are going to eat on Sunday”.
This is loathsome. It is vile. It is beneath contempt. There is no evidence for Mrs Leadsom's claims. Lady Thatcher had (awful) kids and was a brilliant PM. Mrs Gandhi also had kids and was a total disaster for India in every way. There is no data set to support the Leadsom claims it is just horrible comment from a horrible woman who wishes to rebrand the Tories as the "nasty party" once again.
Leadsom has now taken to twitter saying she was misquoted. But, sadly for her, the transcript of the interview has emerged and she was not misquoted at all. Accusing respected journalists of making up quotes just marks Leadsom out as the sort of silly bint who would sex up her CV. Leadsom is not fit for high office or indeed to be an MP at all.
Again my over-riding problem with Leadsom is not that she is a nasty person ( though she is) but that she is not telling the truth. Again.
About the only thing that can be said for Leadsom is the arrogance and patronising piffle written about her by the lefty, "Remainer" liberal media elite. If folks like Simon Scharma loathe her maybe she is not so bad after all? Scharma's patronising comment of yesterday is below:
@simon_schama
Isnt the real point that if she really cared abt her kids or anyone else's future Leadsom wouldnt have switched from proEU to Leave
That tweet was "liked" by hundreds of latte sipping London members of the comfortable affluent in crowd. They like patronising we thicko Brexiteers.
Gosh it is a tough contest to take sides on. Reading folks like Scharma, the Guardian Editorial Team and the most ghastly Tory in Britain, Amber Rudd MP tell us that it has to be May I think back about how the insurgents, including Leadson, won the vote on June 23rd. And May was on the other side with the establishment with folks like Scharma, ghastly Rudd, her brother Roland Rat and Polly Toynbee. The supporters of May drive me into the arms of Leadsom.
But on the other hand could I trust a woman who is happy to be so nasty, whose views on issues that I care about mark her out as a bigot and who above all - just seems, even by the standards of politicians, to have a real problem with just not telling the truth? The biggest reason to vote May, and it is becoming almost a compelling reason, is, quite simply, that the only alternative is Andrea Leadsom.