Two days in and already it is turning very nasty. For those who thought that by removing men from the equation and thus testosterone fuelled debate here is the alternative.
Andrea Leadsom really is a disgusting woman. Yesterday she made a claim in The Times that somehow because she had children of her own she was more suited to being Prime Minister than someone who didn't. Is that an idea which would even crop up if the candidates were both men? I really don't think so, so she's off to a rocky start.
Quite how the functioning of her uterus and her husband's testes has a bearing on how well she can lead the country I have absolutely no idea. What next? Natural birth versus caesarian? Natural birth versus induced birth? Bed versus birthing pool? Episiotomy or no episiotomy?
Maybe where these children were conceived also has a bearing on fitness to run the country. Here or abroad (are they truly British)? Town or country? Indoors or out?
If there wan't a real danger of her becoming the next Prime Minister she could be dismissed as silly and ignored. Not a 'silly woman' you note, because if a man made such an irritating claim he would be equally silly.
But there is a danger. Her electorate, the membership of the Conservative Party, denizens of golf clubs and shooting syndicates throughout the land may find her more to their taste than Mrs May. They are so far removed from me and from my way of seeing the world that I literally have no idea how they think and how they might choose. As a thinking person I cannot understand why anybody except perhaps the very rich would even support the Tory Party anyway but that's not what I am addressing here today.
Let's examine exactly what Mrs Leadsom actually said in her interview with Rachel Sylvester.
Rachel Sylvester: "Do you feel like a mum in politics?"
Andrea Leadsom: "Yes. So...
RS: "Why and how?"
AL: "So really carefully because I am sure, I don't really know Theresa very well but I am sure she will be really really sad she doesn't have children so I don't want this to be 'Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't' because I think that would be really horrible.
"But genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.
"She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children, who are going to have children, who will directly be a part of what happens next.
"So it really keeps you focused on 'what are you really saying?'. Because what it means is you don't want a downturn but 'never mind, let's look ahead to the ten years', hence it will all be fine. My children will be starting their lives in that next ten years so I have a real stake in the next year, the next two."
So there you have it. Her 'children will be starting their lives in that next ten years'. Odd.
Anyway you decide, but clearly nobody asked her to compare her fecundity with the barren loins of Theresa May or her husband. She decided to do that off her own bat. It sounds like that typical English way of being very rude to somebody but prefacing it with 'No offence but...'.
Is this how she is going to conduct the Exit negotiations if she becomes PM? I think there are three ways of looking at this:
- She really didn't mean to insult Mrs May, who had made public the fact that she and her husband would have liked to have had children but couldn't, but was so crass she didn't realise what she was saying would be hurtful.
- She did realise what she had said was probably a mistake and decided to brazen it out by denying she meant it but was nevertheless incredibly clumsy in what she said.
- She intended to strike a blow at Mrs May and it was part of a cynical ploy to sow seeds of doubt in the electorate's mind even if she retracted it later.
None of these the is a characteristic I would like to see in a Prime Minister charged with negotiating our way out of Europe. How the woman now has the temerity to say she has been misquoted shows how little grasp on reality she really has, because people can see what she said and make their own minds up.
Does this all mean I favour Mrs May? Of course not. I would love it if they both spontaneously dropped out of the contest and a general election was called for some time in August. At least it would clear the air but that ain't gonna happen.
Before I go just one more point. I would like to echo comments made by Ian Hislop on Question Time this week. He pointed out that just because the result of the referendum had been published it didn't mean that those on the leaving side had to stop believing that their cause was right. You can watch it here: https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/07/watch-ian-hislops-bbc-qt-rant-on-whether-remainers-should-shut-up-is-just-spot-on/
One thought I had as I was driving to town this morning was that many of those who took part in the referendum have confused it with some sort of football match when of course it was nothing of the sort. In a football match fans have no real bearing on the outcome of the game and have no responsibility for the result. In a football match the result will have no real impact on the winning or losing fans except on their pride. In a football match there is always another match, another season when you get another chance. Part of this misunderstanding came from the fact that it was a binary vote. In or out. 'We won, get over it' is not a valid response. The actions of the half of the electorate who voted out will have a direct effect on the lives of both themselves and those who voted the other way. They made one simple decision, it is important that everybody is allowed a say in how they think that decision should be implemented and if that is by posting on social media, nobody should complain.
Coffee time!
Love Tim xx
No comments:
Post a Comment