Andrea Leadsom

[minestrone]

"Bloody difficult woman" without children (due to infertility). A few more of those "accidental" remarks, and she can officially put on a halo and call herself saint.

It happened at Sky ("bloody difficult"), yes? Unlikely a politician that seasoned wouldn't have expected being filmed in a blippin studio. May turned that promptly around for her advantage ("country needs more bloody difficult women"). Smells like setup, looks like setup, probably is a setup. Sky Plc is owned by Murdoch via 21st Century Fox.

The Times had this interview where Leadsom made the remarks regarding May not having kids? Oh, coincidentally also Murdoch owned via News UK / News Corp.
Leadsom goes nuts on Twitter immediately after. #LeadsomFacts is trending. Everybody's having a go. Can almost feel sorry for her.

It's funny how everybody focusses on Leadsom, while you hear virtually nothing negative about May. Nobody actually knows what she really believes in or stands for. (I know what she doesn't believe in, and that's privacy... embodied by the IPBill.)
Doesn't matter though, as the scapegoat (Leadsom) has been pre-selected by the MPs to run against her. Also quite surprising just how much effort the media put into this, given that only the Tory members even get to vote.

Leadsom was never meant to win this, and she won't. (I don't care; both won't last longer as PM than 2020; campaigning starts in 3 years. Very limited opportunity to cause more harm than has already been done in such a short time.)

Leadsom won't win because a bag of warm mince could outwit her.

[SueEllen]

She's asked The Times to retract the article.

[Hobosapien]

you hear virtually nothing negative about May

That's because we're all under surveillance as part of her home office efforts.

[minestrone]

She makes Corbyn sound like JFK.

Imagine JFK older, white-haired and British - and you've got Jeremy Corbyn | The Canary

A few week in the news and she bloody well did it.

[xoggoth]

Agree with JFK. Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, ISIS etc. come and go. The reality is that they were just extreme examples of those in power. While their actions differed quantitatively from those of "democratic" governments there is no qualitative difference. All seek to control the common man in one way or another and conceal the truth from them.

Their motives? Who cares? No idea why people seek to excuse things according to supposed intentions. For all we know, Adolph, Joseph, Pol Pot etc. may have genuinely believed that what they did was for the good of their people. The intentions of our leaders mean nothing, the fact remains that they are the beliefs of a few imposed on the beliefs of the many.

It matters not iota that they are more intelligent or "better educated", the only thing that makes societies work is acting according to the belief of the majority in those societies. Ordinary people need to know what is going on and they need to make the important decisions.