New Prime Minister

Junker's worst nightmare. Terri agrees with Angie to go back to the voters with an improved reform package.

Junker's worst nightmare. Terri agrees with Angie to go back to the voters with an improved reform package.

Que? Who are Terri & Angie?

This is simply factually incorrect. As with all Brexiteers, I don't know whether you're saying this as a straight-faced lie or out of ignorance. Legally, this referendum result cannot trump parliamentary sovereignty.

 

Here's a helpful fact-check for you, written on the day of the referendum and before (obviously) the result was known.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-legally-binding-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliament

 

Interesting, too, that the idea of a second referendum was actually been floated by some leavers, because they (among them Johnson) saw the vote as a means of leveraging a better deal out of Brussels.

If you had bothered to read the post I was replying to before jumping in with your losers argument it would be better . The referendum is advisory but parliament WILL follow it . The time to say " we have a parliamentary system , not referendum " , which was basically Whiteys post , was when the referendum bill went through parliament , not after you lost .

BTW I thought you told us remain would win by a mile . Lol

If you had bothered to read the post I was replying to before jumping in with your losers argument it would be better . The referendum is advisory but parliament WILL follow it . The time to say " we have a parliamentary system , not referendum " , which was basically Whiteys post , was when the referendum bill went through parliament , not after you lost .

 

BTW I thought you told us remain would win by a mile . Lol

He also stated that there was no way that Corbyn would become the Labour leader

If you had bothered to read the post I was replying to before jumping in with your losers argument it would be better . The referendum is advisory but parliament WILL follow it . The time to say " we have a parliamentary system , not referendum " , which was basically Whiteys post , was when the referendum bill went through parliament , not after you lost .

 

BTW I thought you told us remain would win by a mile . Lol

Nope, still don’t know whether you’re lying or being plain ignorant. And now you’re trying to rewrite your earlier post to wriggle out of looking a bit of a pudding. You didn’t say “The referendum is advisory but Parliament WILL follow it” (an argument which is still in principle false). You said: “Parliament voted to hand its sovereignty over EU member to the people via a referendum.” Which is complete tosh.

And your contention that the time to have had that argument was before the Remain case narrowly lost is also plainly false. The referendum bill was whipped through Parliament and the other parties not only voted against it but campaigned against it in the 2015 general election. What’s wrong with you that you don’t remember this?

You merely echo by ill-informed accident the central contradiction in the Brexiteers’ case: you stormed in high dudgeon into the voting booth to demand among many other things a return of sovereignty to Parliament, and now you get upset when you realise that precisely that Parliamentary sovereignty trumps a referendum result.

And let’s be clear about what that Parliamentary sovereignty means. In the words of Edmund Burke (remember him?): “Your (elected) representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Burke's principle is fundamental to British parliamentary sovereignty (which, contrary to BoJo's serial lies, was not handed en masse to Brussels - Brussels has merely become the scapegoat for British governments' failures).

So you can’t complain when MPs, who are predominantly pro-Remain, exercise their judgement independently of the referendum result. It’s entirely possible that they’ll exercise that judgement to repeal the European Communities Act. Let’s wait and see, but don’t hold your breath. But there is certainly nothing that ensures, or should ensure, that Parliament (in your rather hysterical caps) WILL merely reflect the referendum result.

Underlying this all though is that the only people who wanted a referendum were the internecine warriors of the Tory party and the far right. No one else – certainly not me – has ever said it was a sensible or appropriate thing to do. Who else gives a **** about the Tories’ local difficulties?

The referendum demonstrates how undemocratic this form of decision-making really is. And it’s no accident that plebiscites and referendums are popular with dictators. Although this referendum was about a single question – Leave/Remain – it was about a whole host of issues, some explicit, some lurking beneath the surface. They included: sovereignty, immigration, economic decline, hatred of London’s success, issues of independence (Scotland), hatred of an unpopular government and ‘elites’, raging at experts, ‘global capitalism’ (for the Corbyn cultists), and so on. Yet for all those issues, we get a simple binary result: the winner (so the Brexiteers fervently hope) takes absolutely all. And it’s undemocratic because if you apply this principle to a general election, the party winning by a national vote of 4 percent would take all 650 seats. The 48 percent of voters who went for other options would have no voice whatsoever – zero Parliamentary seats. That is about as undemocratic as it gets.

Oh, and one more bit of bad news and evidence of your failing memory: I predicted a Brexit win. Go and have a look on the referendum thread if you’re really that obsessed. The prediction was made in response to that great defender of Jew haters, Wes “A Jew” Tender.

But ultimately this isn’t about what you want or what I want.

The reason you’re going to struggle to get your way, no matter how big your tantrums, isn’t because of noises from the disenfranchised 48 percent. It’s because the British establishment is actually quite skilled in steering things round to its way. And its way is to remain. That’s why the Tory leadership contest is the set up as it is. The two most powerful Leavers have imploded – the Gove/Johnson dream team, which would have swept the party membership, is ignominious history. An establishment pillar in Theresa May is facing exactly the candidate the British establishment would have wanted: a comedy candidate with so many skeletons in her cupboard there’s enough material to trash her for the entirety of the next nine weeks (including, I hear, some huge hostages to fortune in recent TV interviews, which are about to be exposed, as well as tax arrangements from hell). If Theresa May wins, she is in no hurry to trigger Article 50 – and won’t until the damage to the British economy of Brexit is fully evident. At which point – well, let’s say this is an unfair contest.

Theresa May 'must be really sad' to not have kids, says Leadsom. ****ing hell, what's it to do with her?

Brexit won't mean much to the eu, in itself. But if it triggers an ongoing response in other members, it will start a problem. And if one of those members is in the eurozone and votes to leave that's when the real trouble will start.

Theresa May 'must be really sad' to not have kids, says Leadsom. ****ing hell, what's it to do with her?

 

Don't be such a tart, I'm not a fan at all but I'm realistic enough to understand politics.

It's just not necessary to even comment on, and I don't see how it makes a difference.

It's just not necessary to even comment on, and I don't see how it makes a difference.

Mate, it depends whoever did that interview wants to 'spin' it, sometimes you have to read between the lines...as you well know.

Theresa May 'must be really sad' to not have kids, says Leadsom. ****ing hell, what's it to do with her?

 

In that picture she looks like somebody has partially melted the Maggie T puppet from Spitting Image.

In the interest of balance: Leadsom denies it.

Tape, transcripts and presumably legal action all set to follow if that's the case...

Mate, it depends whoever did that interview wants to 'spin' it, sometimes you have to read between the lines...as you well know.

And Leadsom wants people to read between the lines as well. That's why she said what's she's quoted as saying.

These are direct quotes there so if she's denying it then let's see what the journo has got in his notebook/tape.

Nope, still don’t know whether you’re lying or being plain ignorant. And now you’re trying to rewrite your earlier post to wriggle out of looking a bit of a pudding. You didn’t say “The referendum is advisory but Parliament WILL follow it” (an argument which is still in principle false). You said: “Parliament voted to hand its sovereignty over EU member to the people via a referendum.” Which is complete tosh.

 

And your contention that the time to have had that argument was before the Remain case narrowly lost is also plainly false. The referendum bill was whipped through Parliament and the other parties not only voted against it but campaigned against it in the 2015 general election. What’s wrong with you that you don’t remember this?

 

You merely echo by ill-informed accident the central contradiction in the Brexiteers’ case: you stormed in high dudgeon into the voting booth to demand among many other things a return of sovereignty to Parliament, and now you get upset when you realise that precisely that Parliamentary sovereignty trumps a referendum result.

 

And let’s be clear about what that Parliamentary sovereignty means. In the words of Edmund Burke (remember him?): “Your (elected) representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Burke's principle is fundamental to British parliamentary sovereignty (which, contrary to BoJo's serial lies, was not handed en masse to Brussels - Brussels has merely become the scapegoat for British governments' failures).

 

So you can’t complain when MPs, who are predominantly pro-Remain, exercise their judgement independently of the referendum result. It’s entirely possible that they’ll exercise that judgement to repeal the European Communities Act. Let’s wait and see, but don’t hold your breath. But there is certainly nothing that ensures, or should ensure, that Parliament (in your rather hysterical caps) WILL merely reflect the referendum result.

 

Underlying this all though is that the only people who wanted a referendum were the internecine warriors of the Tory party and the far right. No one else – certainly not me – has ever said it was a sensible or appropriate thing to do. Who else gives a **** about the Tories’ local difficulties?

 

The referendum demonstrates how undemocratic this form of decision-making really is. And it’s no accident that plebiscites and referendums are popular with dictators. Although this referendum was about a single question – Leave/Remain – it was about a whole host of issues, some explicit, some lurking beneath the surface. They included: sovereignty, immigration, economic decline, hatred of London’s success, issues of independence (Scotland), hatred of an unpopular government and ‘elites’, raging at experts, ‘global capitalism’ (for the Corbyn cultists), and so on. Yet for all those issues, we get a simple binary result: the winner (so the Brexiteers fervently hope) takes absolutely all. And it’s undemocratic because if you apply this principle to a general election, the party winning by a national vote of 4 percent would take all 650 seats. The 48 percent of voters who went for other options would have no voice whatsoever – zero Parliamentary seats. That is about as undemocratic as it gets.

 

Oh, and one more bit of bad news and evidence of your failing memory: I predicted a Brexit win. Go and have a look on the referendum thread if you’re really that obsessed. The prediction was made in response to that great defender of Jew haters, Wes “A Jew” Tender.

 

But ultimately this isn’t about what you want or what I want.

 

The reason you’re going to struggle to get your way, no matter how big your tantrums, isn’t because of noises from the disenfranchised 48 percent. It’s because the British establishment is actually quite skilled in steering things round to its way. And its way is to remain. That’s why the Tory leadership contest is the set up as it is. The two most powerful Leavers have imploded – the Gove/Johnson dream team, which would have swept the party membership, is ignominious history. An establishment pillar in Theresa May is facing exactly the candidate the British establishment would have wanted: a comedy candidate with so many skeletons in her cupboard there’s enough material to trash her for the entirety of the next nine weeks (including, I hear, some huge hostages to fortune in recent TV interviews, which are about to be exposed, as well as tax arrangements from hell). If Theresa May wins, she is in no hurry to trigger Article 50 – and won’t until the damage to the British economy of Brexit is fully evident. At which point – well, let’s say this is an unfair contest.

Well put, Verbal, and apologies to everybody for quoting the lot.

A thought had occurred to me that maybe the grandees arranged for May to maintain a somewhat unenthusiastic stance during the campaign so that she would be well placed to act as a long-stop in case the vote went the wrong way. Or maybe I'm just overthinking things.

 

Underlying this all though is that the only people who wanted a referendum were the internecine warriors of the Tory party and the far right. No one else – certainly not me – has ever said it was a sensible or appropriate thing to do. Who else gives a **** about the Tories’ local difficulties?

.

I see this quite a lot but only the SNP's opposed the EU referendum bill. Every tory, leftie, liberal and ukip mp voted for it. or am I missing something???

Emma Tucker - Deputy Editor of The Times - has tweeted that part of the transcript having listened back to the tape.

Nobody from Leadsom's camp recorded the interview.

I see this quite a lot but only the SNP's opposed the EU referendum bill. Every tory, leftie, liberal and ukip mp voted for it. or am I missing something???

Don't confuse verbal , because he didn't want one , we shouldn't have had one .

All the nonsense about Remain MPs ignoring the result , is just that , nonsense . There's some doubt as to whether Parliament will get a vote on article 50, but just suppose they did , it'll go through . The Tories have a majority and it'll be a 3 line whip issue . How many Tories are going to oppose the will of the nation and in most cases the will of their constituents ? Maybe a handful of EU head bangers like Clarke , but not many . Let's say a dozen , well there were ( off the top of my head ) 17 labour leavers , plus the Unionists , plus Carswell. There will also be many Labour reluctant remainers like Corbyn and also northern labour MPs whose voters voted 60%+ to leave , are they really going to go against their voters, the will of the majority and create a constitutional crisis , they won't have the stomach for it . They'll be a lot of handwringing and bed wetting but it'll carry , no problem . That's even supposing it even gets voted on and that's doubtful

If the Remain losers are pinning their hopes on it not getting through parliament they're even more deluded than they were the morning of June 23rd.

Don't confuse verbal , because he didn't want one , we shouldn't have had one .

 

All the nonsense about Remain MPs ignoring the result , is just that , nonsense . There's some doubt as to whether Parliament will get a vote on article 50, but just suppose they did , it'll go through . The Tories have a majority and it'll be a 3 line whip issue . How many Tories are going to oppose the will of the nation and in most cases the will of their constituents ? Maybe a handful of EU head bangers like Clarke , but not many . Let's say a dozen , well there were ( off the top of my head ) 17 labour leavers , plus the Unionists , plus Carswell. There will also be many Labour reluctant remainers like Corbyn and also northern labour MPs whose voters voted 60%+ to leave , are they really going to go against their voters, the will of the majority and create a constitutional crisis , they won't have the stomach for it . They'll be a lot of handwringing and bed wetting but it'll carry , no problem . That's even supposing it even gets voted on and that's doubtful

 

If the Remain losers are pinning their hopes on it not getting through parliament they're even more deluded than they were the morning of June 23rd.

While you are absolutely right, the challenge will be on what are they actually voting on and when.

If the vote is on May coming back from Brussels with - say - we're in the single market but it's going to cost us £150m a week and it's free movement - then it ain't yer Ken Clarke voting it down you've got to worry about, it's your mates IDS, Carswell, Hoey and Denis Skinner. Then what.

The Leadsom transcript is up from the journalist on Twitter and she said it. Dopey cow.

The Leadsom transcript is up from the journalist on Twitter and she said it. Dopey cow.

I don't see what defence she has. She was asked a question about the fact that she keeps bringing up the fact she is a mother.

She then flies straight into the question (which doesn't ever reference May) with 'well Theresa doesn't have children' before heading for the classic 'I don't want to say something that can be construed as nasty, BUT, I'm going to do it anyway!' approach.

Nope, still don’t know whether you’re lying or being plain ignorant. And now you’re trying to rewrite your earlier post to wriggle out of looking a bit of a pudding. You didn’t say “The referendum is advisory but Parliament WILL follow it” (an argument which is still in principle false). You said: “Parliament voted to hand its sovereignty over EU member to the people via a referendum.” Which is complete tosh.

 

And your contention that the time to have had that argument was before the Remain case narrowly lost is also plainly false. The referendum bill was whipped through Parliament and the other parties not only voted against it but campaigned against it in the 2015 general election. What’s wrong with you that you don’t remember this?

 

You merely echo by ill-informed accident the central contradiction in the Brexiteers’ case: you stormed in high dudgeon into the voting booth to demand among many other things a return of sovereignty to Parliament, and now you get upset when you realise that precisely that Parliamentary sovereignty trumps a referendum result.

 

And let’s be clear about what that Parliamentary sovereignty means. In the words of Edmund Burke (remember him?): “Your (elected) representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Burke's principle is fundamental to British parliamentary sovereignty (which, contrary to BoJo's serial lies, was not handed en masse to Brussels - Brussels has merely become the scapegoat for British governments' failures).

 

So you can’t complain when MPs, who are predominantly pro-Remain, exercise their judgement independently of the referendum result. It’s entirely possible that they’ll exercise that judgement to repeal the European Communities Act. Let’s wait and see, but don’t hold your breath. But there is certainly nothing that ensures, or should ensure, that Parliament (in your rather hysterical caps) WILL merely reflect the referendum result.

 

Underlying this all though is that the only people who wanted a referendum were the internecine warriors of the Tory party and the far right. No one else – certainly not me – has ever said it was a sensible or appropriate thing to do. Who else gives a **** about the Tories’ local difficulties?

 

The referendum demonstrates how undemocratic this form of decision-making really is. And it’s no accident that plebiscites and referendums are popular with dictators. Although this referendum was about a single question – Leave/Remain – it was about a whole host of issues, some explicit, some lurking beneath the surface. They included: sovereignty, immigration, economic decline, hatred of London’s success, issues of independence (Scotland), hatred of an unpopular government and ‘elites’, raging at experts, ‘global capitalism’ (for the Corbyn cultists), and so on. Yet for all those issues, we get a simple binary result: the winner (so the Brexiteers fervently hope) takes absolutely all. And it’s undemocratic because if you apply this principle to a general election, the party winning by a national vote of 4 percent would take all 650 seats. The 48 percent of voters who went for other options would have no voice whatsoever – zero Parliamentary seats. That is about as undemocratic as it gets.

 

Oh, and one more bit of bad news and evidence of your failing memory: I predicted a Brexit win. Go and have a look on the referendum thread if you’re really that obsessed. The prediction was made in response to that great defender of Jew haters, Wes “A Jew” Tender.

 

But ultimately this isn’t about what you want or what I want.

 

The reason you’re going to struggle to get your way, no matter how big your tantrums, isn’t because of noises from the disenfranchised 48 percent. It’s because the British establishment is actually quite skilled in steering things round to its way. And its way is to remain. That’s why the Tory leadership contest is the set up as it is. The two most powerful Leavers have imploded – the Gove/Johnson dream team, which would have swept the party membership, is ignominious history. An establishment pillar in Theresa May is facing exactly the candidate the British establishment would have wanted: a comedy candidate with so many skeletons in her cupboard there’s enough material to trash her for the entirety of the next nine weeks (including, I hear, some huge hostages to fortune in recent TV interviews, which are about to be exposed, as well as tax arrangements from hell). If Theresa May wins, she is in no hurry to trigger Article 50 – and won’t until the damage to the British economy of Brexit is fully evident. At which point – well, let’s say this is an unfair contest.

Parliament is sovereign but this government was elected on the promise of holding a refurendum, in their judgement this was an issue that the people should decide and the people chose to leave.

The question was simple, the positives and negatives of both options clear and the peoples decision was clear. In theory the government could ignore the result but that would be a very dangerous route to take in a country where huge amounts of people are obviously already ****ed off.

Just heard the audio of this

pretty amazing how this is some sort of mega-political storm.

BBC really pushing this one today

Just heard the audio of this

pretty amazing how this is some sort of mega-political storm.

 

BBC really pushing this one today

It's not a mega political storm.

But it throws doubt on this woman's ability to deal with the job she's applying for. Not that difficult to navigate around that line of questioning. She seems to be a bit of a serial fibber too.

It's not a mega political storm.

 

But it throws doubt on this woman's ability to deal with the job she's applying for. Not that difficult to navigate around that line of questioning. She seems to be a bit of a serial fibber too.

The other real news from that interview is that she thinks its going to take 10 years to get out of the economic downturn Brexit causes.

She does appear to have a problem with the truth.

The other real news from that interview is that she thinks its going to take 10 years to get out of the economic downturn Brexit causes.

 

She does appear to have a problem with the truth.

Project fear talking down our great country etc etc etc.

One important point to make. If Leadsome wins, Porky Penny gets a cabinet post...

At current rate of progress cant see Leadsom lasting until the ballot. I doubt her CV or personal affairs are squeaky clean enough to withstand the microscopic scrutiny they're going to get.

One important point to make. If Leadsome wins, Porky Penny gets a cabinet post...

Well put, Verbal, and apologies to everybody for quoting the lot.

 

A thought had occurred to me that maybe the grandees arranged for May to maintain a somewhat unenthusiastic stance during the campaign so that she would be well placed to act as a long-stop in case the vote went the wrong way. Or maybe I'm just overthinking things.

I'm loving the conspiracy theory that you believe that the Tory grandees might have deployed a strategy to have May keep a low profile so that she could be their insurance in the long game. The only flaw in that position, is that the obvious candidate to have deployed that position, was David Cameron. Also, it presumes that they were happy to have another woman Prime Minister.

The more likely scenario, is that May herself reasoned correctly, as it turned out, that she would be well placed in any leadership contest if she kept her powder dry by keeping a low profile.

The audio is now available. She said it. #project denial #littlefibberforPM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36753692

i dont know if it's just me but Leadsom reminds me of John Redwood. May isnt ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but she's been round the block a bit. But is this the best the tories can come up with?

Sad state of affairs when the country needs strong leadership.

i dont know if it's just me but Leadsom reminds me of John Redwood. May isnt ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but she's been round the block a bit. But is this the best the tories can come up with?

 

Sad state of affairs when the country needs strong leadership.

Gove is a more accurate comparison to Redwood imo. May is a safe pair of hands, a manager rather than visionary. The Labour party has the same problem - the best candidates aren't putting themselves forward for leader.

The audio is now available. She said it. #project denial #littlefibberforPM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36753692

there are far worse things for the media to bash May with, far worse.

but, May is the Media favourite, so........

The audio is now available. She said it. #project denial #littlefibberforPM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36753692

http://newsthump.com/2016/07/09/angela-leadsom-disgusted-by-accurate-report-of-things-that-she-said/

It's pretty obvious The Times is anti-Leadsom (the "My Week by Tony Blair" piece this morning references her a lot - it is very funny tho), but you need to show a little more political nouse than this

Gove is a more accurate comparison to Redwood imo. May is a safe pair of hands, a manager rather than visionary. The Labour party has the same problem - the best candidates aren't putting themselves forward for leader.

Fair comparison. Maybe they just have the same smarmy smile.

Right now this country needs strong government and a strong opposition. We have neither.... a safe pair of hands may act as a stop gap but in this period of uncertainty, i look to the politicians to sort ther sh it out.

Of the two Teresa May is clearly the better qualified, more consensual, and altogether superior candidate for the job. But we live what has been described as 'post rational' times, so none of that may matter very much.

Not that the vast majority of the British people are even going to be asked who their next PM will be of course.

Of the two Teresa May is clearly the better qualified, more consensual, and altogether superior candidate for the job. But we live what has been described as 'post rational' times, so none of that may matter very much.

 

Not that the vast majority of the British people are even going to be asked who their next PM will be of course.

I can see the blue rinse golf glub brigade voting Leadsom in all day long. They lapped up IDS who was nearly Corbyn levels of appalling as a leader.

Everything Leadsom says is tailored perfectly to her audience and she will blow that dog whistle all summer.

Just when you think it couldn't get more depressing.

there are far worse things for the media to bash May with, far worse.

Like what? I didnt think much of her stint as Home Secretary but her failings there - not delivering what Cameron promised - isnt the same as lying about CVs or interviews.

Like what? I didnt think much of her stint as Home Secretary but her failings there - not delivering what Cameron promised - isnt the same as lying about CVs or interviews.

like sending a van around the streets telling foreigners to go home

like sending a van around the streets telling foreigners to go home

I can only begin to imagine how much that disgusted you, Nick Clegg.

I can see the blue rinse golf glub brigade voting Leadsom in all day long. They lapped up IDS who was nearly Corbyn levels of appalling as a leader.

 

Everything Leadsom says is tailored perfectly to her audience and she will blow that dog whistle all summer.

 

Just when you think it couldn't get more depressing.

Leadsom is f**king dangerous in a Sarah Palin way.

I can only begin to imagine how much that disgusted you, Nick Clegg.

if tim is getting excited about Leadsom bigging up being a parent. I would think a van going round town (on the orders of of the home secretary) would help him achieve wood

if tim is getting excited about Leadsom bigging up being a parent. I would think a van going round town (on the orders of of the home secretary) would help him achieve wood

 

I'm worried the Conservative party might not be for you. Have you considered the Socialist Workers?

I'm worried the Conservative party might not be for you. Have you considered the Socialist Workers?

im not bothered. but some are getting a tad excited about one of them bigging up motherhood

if tim is getting excited about Leadsom bigging up being a parent. I would think a van going round town (on the orders of of the home secretary) would help him achieve wood

Im more excited by the Great White Hope of Brexiteers not knowing that when you say stuff to a journalist in an interview there is a good chance they will print it. She's a car crash, which - as others have said - was doubtless the plan all along. May's track record of telling foreigners to go home is just going to take some of the headbanging vote from Leadsom.

im not bothered. but some are getting a tad excited about one of them bigging up motherhood

You're quite right. Leadsom, Louise Mensch, fat Penny Mourdant and lots of people on social media ae getting hysterical about a newspaper reporting exactly what someone said in a recorded interview. They should stop getting excited.

I'm loving the conspiracy theory that you believe that the Tory grandees might have deployed a strategy to have May keep a low profile so that she could be their insurance in the long game. The only flaw in that position, is that the obvious candidate to have deployed that position, was David Cameron. Also, it presumes that they were happy to have another woman Prime Minister.

 

The more likely scenario, is that May herself reasoned correctly, as it turned out, that she would be well placed in any leadership contest if she kept her powder dry by keeping a low profile.

Oy vey, be a mensch and have another go at drafting this, would you? Try to reorder it to make sense.

It says something, though, that even with your posts the standard of debate on Saintsweb is actually higher than that coming from the Leadsom camp (and 'camp' is by no means a reference to gay marriage or anything that may offend Leadsom's loathsome all-encompassing 'Christians').

Next excitement from Leadsom HQ - her tax returns, which were promised five days ago. Wonder why they're so late?

And the next opportunity for head-exploding apoplexy and threats of Brexiter violence comes up in a few days, with this preliminary hearing:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/legal-attempt-prevent-brexit-preliminary-hearing-article-50

The first of many. Enjoy!

I like when Marina gets catty.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/09/andrea-leadsom-tory-leadership-am-dram-peasant-revolt

As a non Tory voter myself watching that party return to its pre-Cameron 'nasty party' roots has a certain gruesome appeal - almost like watching a blood sport in a way. For Theresa May however having your inability to produce either children, or indeed insulin, employed against you in the same week must be somewhat upsetting to put it mildly.

But politics is notoriously rough business, so if she wants to climb to to top she will have to get used to it.

Oy vey, be a mensch and have another go at drafting this, would you? Try to reorder it to make sense.

 

It says something, though, that even with your posts the standard of debate on Saintsweb is actually higher than that coming from the Leadsom camp (and 'camp' is by no means a reference to gay marriage or anything that may offend Leadsom's loathsome all-encompassing 'Christians').

 

Next excitement from Leadsom HQ - her tax returns, which were promised five days ago. Wonder why they're so late?

 

And the next opportunity for head-exploding apoplexy and threats of Brexiter violence comes up in a few days, with this preliminary hearing:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/legal-attempt-prevent-brexit-preliminary-hearing-article-50

 

The first of many. Enjoy!

You labelled me as a UKIP supporter and you were wrong. You accuse me of anti-semitism and you are wrong again. But think what you like; it doesn't bother me if you have to indulge in childish insults in order to make you feel good about yourself.