Brexit fruits so ripe: Chick fight over Prime Minister seat

[dunksby]

Would-be British PM sparks row with remarks on rival's childlessness


Andrea Leadsom, one of two candidates to be the next British prime minister, has caused an uproar by suggesting that being a mother means she has a greater stake in the country's future than her childless rival Theresa May.

A little-known junior energy minister until she emerged as one of the most ardent voices in the campaign to leave the European Union, Leadsom is the outsider in the contest to succeed David Cameron as Conservative leader and prime minister.

Cameron, who had campaigned for Britain to stay in the bloc, announced he would quit after the June 23 referendum delivered a vote for Brexit. May, the interior minister who also advocated remaining in the EU, is the favorite to replace him.

"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," Leadsom told the Times newspaper, which has declared its support for May.

"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."

Leadsom denounced the Times article on Twitter as "gutter journalism" and "the exact opposite of what I said".

In a statement, she said she had made clear to the Times that "nothing I said should be used in any way to suggest that Theresa May not having children had any bearing whatever on the leadership election".

The Times stood by its story and released an audio recording of Leadsom making the comments, which was played on Saturday morning news bulletins on all the main radio and TV stations.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-politics-idUSKCN0ZP0A4?il=0
Brexit campaign full of moronic characters, what's new?

[NumberSix]

People who have children have more of a stake in the future than people who don't.

What a controversial statement.

[9erempiree]

It hasn't been a month yet and things will sort themselves out.

France is probably next.

[dunksby]

People who have children have more of a stake in the future than people who don't.

What a controversial statement.
Why did she backtrack on her own comments and bashed the Times then?

[NumberSix]

Why did she backtrack on her own comments and bashed the Times then?
I couldn't care less why. I'm defending the idea, not the person. Her first statement was perfectly reasonable. Why she's backtracking is not a concern of mine.

[Brunch@Five]

People who have children have more of a stake in the future than people who don't.

What a controversial statement.

it's probably considered some form of "-shaming" by some. Some will also say it's a symptom of sexist politics because no man has ever been accused of not being a dad.
I wouldn't bash her for the statement, but I also think it's not entirely accurate when you're talking about a politician. You don't need to have children of your own to are about the future of your country as a politician. Especially coming from a privileged background what's best for your country might not be best for your own children, looking at it in a narrow sense.

[dunksby]

I couldn't care less why. I'm defending the idea, not the person. Her first statement was perfectly reasonable. Why she's backtracking is not a concern of mine.
I had forgotten about your pretend innocence act, you are such an angel.

[dunksby]

it's probably considered some form of "-shaming" by some. Some will also say it's a symptom of sexist politics because no man has ever been accused of not being a dad.
I wouldn't bash her for the statement, but I also think it's not entirely accurate when you're talking about a politician. You don't need to have children of your own to are about the future of your country as a politician. Especially coming from a privileged background what's best for your country might not be best for your own children, looking at it in a narrow sense.
It's a stupid comment, plain and simple, having kids doesn't make one less patriotic nor caring; not being a mother has no bearing on how good of a leader one is. That's exactly why the same person who uttered it is now thrashing around and accusing a credible paper of "gutter journalism" and printing "the exact opposite of what I said". Hell she even explains why her statement was moronic too:
"nothing I said should be used in any way to suggest that Theresa May not having children had any bearing whatever on the leadership election".

[NumberSix]

It's a stupid comment, plain and simple, having kids doesn't make one less patriotic nor caring.
Campaigning AGAINST the sovereignty of your country, as Theresa May did, DOES make you less patriotic.

[Dresta]

So op is a fan of Theresa May and David Cameron now? If you knew anything about the former you wouldn't be defending her: she is a disgrace. Amazing how someone could single out Landsom as the "moron" out of those 3 :rolleyes:. Politics is "full of moronic characters", and more of those morons are big fans of the EU (far more, in fact). What is the point of this thread? Because you don't seem to make any point aside from going "hurr, durr, Brexiters, stupid, hurr, durrr" like a typically gullible idiot.

And yes, there is a very big and very real problem of politicians who only give a shit about themselves, their ambition, etc, and don't care what they're handing down to posterity. Theresa May is one of them. She is also a rather sinister, authoritarian character and an advocate of everything the people voted against:

http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign/

You should be complaining about this, about how the people voted out the current establishment only for it to shove into power another Blairite robot, not this petty nonsense. May is a genuinely dangerous leader for the UK to have, and would not even guarantee EU nationals currently living and working in the UK.

What's been funny to me about Brexit is that it has proven how incredibly insular Americans are, and yet how loudly and arrogantly they still proclaim their opinions about other countries: hence why Brexit has been absorbed into the childish left/right narrative in America where liberals are supposed to dislike it and conservatives like it; it shows what a bunch of f*cking sheep you are because this was never a right/left question in the UK. 70% of Labour constituencies voted to Leave--these are the facts of the matter.

Nor does your actual point here make any sense: having children is an absolutely transformative human experience, and changes people in very profound ways--are you actually trying to deny this? Are you trying to deny that a woman of pure ambition and power-lust might have pushed aside the question of children? Most people don't grow up and take adult, responsible opinions, until having children forces them to do so. Ask any person with children whether those children affected how they think and look at the world; your answer most often will be that it changes everything.

[DonDadda59]

France is probably next.

After seeing the shit show go down in the UK AKA Great Haiti, the EU is now Number 1 with a Bullet (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/09/after-the-brexit-fallout-europeans-are-suddenly-not-so-eager-for-more-referendums/).

And Angela Merkel's approval rating skyrocketed to a 10 month high (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-07/merkel-s-poll-support-rises-as-germans-confront-brexit-turmoil) post Brexit referendum.

[dunksby]

So op is a fan of Theresa May and David Cameron now? If you knew anything about the former you wouldn't be defending her: she is a disgrace. Amazing how someone could single out Landsom as the "moron" out of those 3 :rolleyes:. Politics is "full of moronic characters", and more of those morons are big fans of the EU (far more, in fact). What is the point of this thread? Because you don't seem to make any point aside from going "hurr, durr, Brexiters, stupid, hurr, durrr" like a typically gullible idiot.

And yes, there is a very big and very real problem of politicians who only give a shit about themselves, their ambition, etc, and don't care what they're handing down to posterity. Theresa May is one of them. She is also a rather sinister, authoritarian character and an advocate of everything the people voted against:

http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign/

You should be complaining about this, about how the people voted out the current establishment only for it to shove into power another Blairite robot, not this petty nonsense. May is a genuinely dangerous leader for the UK to have, and would not even guarantee EU nationals currently living and working in the UK.

What's been funny to me about Brexit is that it has proven how incredibly insular Americans are, and yet how loudly and arrogantly they still proclaim their opinions about other countries: hence why Brexit has been absorbed into the childish left/right narrative in America where liberals are supposed to dislike it and conservatives like it; it shows what a bunch of f*cking sheep you are because this was never a right/left question in the UK. 70% of Labour constituencies voted to Leave--these are the facts of the matter.

Nor does your actual point here make any sense: having children is an absolutely transformative human experience, and changes people in very profound ways--are you actually trying to deny this? Are you trying to deny that a woman of pure ambition and power-lust might have pushed aside the question of children? Most people don't grow up and take adult, responsible opinions, until having children forces them to do so. Ask any person with children whether those children affected how they think and look at the world; your answer most often will be that it changes everything.
You just wrote an essay based on assumptions that I'm a fan of Cameron or May, or that I'am a liberal American , seriously do you ever argue with another party without calling them, leftie, liberal, sheep, ignorant and so on?but hey that's how you operate you cannot do without antagonisation.
Your baseless allegations and insults aside, your whole theory about motives and effects of having children is outdated and full of holes. You think just because somebody becomes a mother they become the epitome of caring and a Madonna? Your world view is so narrow and old it breaks down even as you spell it, mothers are as flawed and could be as violent and selfish as anybody. Mothers murdering their children over petty and everyday shit doesn't surprise anybody, nor abusive mothers or prostitutes who **** their clients in the same room as their kids and so on.
And back to your countless assumptions, seems like you cannot stop yourself, how can you be sure that May didn't have children out of sheer power lust? I could apply the same rationale and claim that Leadsom had children just to be more repeatable and look like a family woman in order to be more successful.
To make this clear, I don't support Cameron, May, Leadsom or any other party in this matter, what I'm trying to point out is that Brexit has taken the worst out of the UK and added nothing but uncertainty and it has birthed another needless campaign for a seat that was decided after a GE just a year before. Hate crimes have increased alarmingly since the vote cause as we all know the majority of those who voted to leave are just mad at the immigrants, a lot of them Polish expats or of Polish descent like yourself. You pretend Brexit was the will of the people while ignoring the fact that only 52% voted in favour. London and Scotland voted 60%+ to remain, safe to say the most important parts of the Kingdom wanted to stay.
PS: to take a leaf out of your book, I have to say, it's so funny to me that you are wrong on all your accounts about me, and your over confidence in the accuracy of your profiling based on a post on the Internet just bolsters your image as a cartoon keyboard philosopher.

[falc39]

Article 50 hasn't been invoked. You can't really say Brexit hasn't brought anything when it didn't start yet. The benifits of a brexit seem to be more for the long-term. 52%-48% isn't a large margin, but it's not a small one either. Obama beat Romney with that.

[Dresta]

You just wrote an essay based on assumptions that I'm a fan of Cameron or May, or that I'am a liberal American , seriously do you ever argue with another party without calling them, leftie, liberal, sheep, ignorant and so on?but hey that's how you operate you cannot do without antagonisation.
Your baseless allegations and insults aside, your whole theory about motives and effects of having children is outdated and full of holes. You think just because somebody becomes a mother they become the epitome of caring and a Madonna? Your world view is so narrow and old it breaks down even as you spell it, mothers are as flawed and could be as violent and selfish as anybody. Mothers murdering their children over petty and everyday shit doesn't surprise anybody, nor abusive mothers or prostitutes who **** their clients in the same room as their kids and so on.
And back to your countless assumptions, seems like you cannot stop yourself, how can you be sure that May didn't have children out of sheer power lust? I could apply the same rationale and claim that Leadsom had children just to be more repeatable and look like a family woman in order to be more successful.
To make this clear, I don't support Cameron, May, Leadsom or any other party in this matter, what I'm trying to point out is that Brexit has taken the worst out of the UK and added nothing but uncertainty and it has birthed another needless campaign for a seat that was decided after a GE just a year before. Hate crimes have increased alarmingly since the vote cause as we all know the majority of those who voted to leave are just mad at the immigrants, a lot of them Polish expats or of Polish descent like yourself. You pretend Brexit was the will of the people while ignoring the fact that only 52% voted in favour. London and Scotland voted 60%+ to remain, safe to say the most important parts of the Kingdom wanted to stay.
PS: to take a leaf out of your book, I have to say, it's so funny to me that you are wrong on all your accounts about me, and your over confidence in the accuracy of your profiling based on a post on the Internet just bolsters your image as a cartoon keyboard philosopher.
What a load of bullshit. You can see right there that you've simply taken an argument I didn't make and spent a paragraph trying to destroy it. People like you take blatant political positions and then like to pretend you haven't got any; that is disingenuous, and it is cheap. I'm happy to admit that i'm conservative in inclination, and instinctively anti-modern, whereas you're completely in denial about the fact you are a raging left-winger, in love with progress, and every latest fad that passes your way. You parrot left-wing chants like calling other people's opinions "narrow and old" or "outdated" as if that were some validation of your oh-so-advanced understanding of the human condition. You gallantly cheer and support a radical left-wing cause like the European Union, not understanding its intellectual roots.

You know nothing of the UK or of its history and yet you rush to conclusions based on the consistently negative media coverage of the whole thing; you've proven that by declaring London and the welfare dependency of Scotland as to be the most important parts of the country. Nearly the entirety of England voted to Leave, by a significant margin, and yet you don't think you have a bias or agenda here in proclaiming it "safe to say the most important parts of the Kingdom wanted to stay"--err, no, that's not even close to being "safe to say."

Nobody said mothers are perfect; nobody said mothers don't commit heinous crimes; but it is a fact plain as day that having children, for most people, is an utterly transformative experience, one that changes any remotely responsible person for the better. See here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=414416

Not one person in that thread who has experienced parenthood agrees with your bullshit, your fanatical belief that being a parent doesn't affect the human individual (i mean: how utterly ludicrous!). The scientific evidence regarding the plasticity of the brain during early parenthood supports my view on this, and rubbishes your supposedly modern and up to date one.

And what "hate-crimes?" You absorb media spin like a sponge. People insulting each other over the internet is not some drastic increase in xenophobic "hate crimes"--this is meaningless drivel, and just another cheap and dirty ad hominem argument, and indeed has long been the caricature of your radical leftist moraliser, stomping his feet, and calling everyone who disagrees with him a fascist, or some other outdated slur (yes, these arguments are so old, and have been made ad nauseam by left-wing people over the past few hundred years, that it's astounding you don't even recognise them as being left-wing).

So yes, you've made a bunch of assumptions about life that I would say are rather thorough parts of the left-wing worldview; you, unfortunately, are so ignorant that you don't even know the root of your ideas, and think you've somehow escaped the time, circumstances and perspectives that shape a person's prejudices. Essentially, you think you have come to some magical "modern" truth about questions that are thousands of years old, questions that we have centuries of experience regarding that you've completely dismissed: civilisational decline and decay is well correlated with falling fertility rates; periods in history where people aren't having children are riddled with corruption, a lack of public will and public spirit, and a short-term, pleasure obsessed outlook (seen western debt levels lately? seen their fertility rates? denying these things have any relation is foolish).

In summa: i'll call you whatever I damn well please, and you'd do better not to be so delusional about where the ideas you believe in come from--it makes you look silly, and shows you to be rather ignorant, a bit like an enthusiastic child/teenager.