There are 90 comments.

1. Coolidge
   Al Sparks

   @AlSparks

   7:37 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   ToryWarWriter: And this is why Caucus is not allowed to make decisions like this in Canada.

   “Allowed?”  In both countries, the government is in place at the sufferance of the House of Commons.  And it’s actually the House of Commons that allows parties to elect party leaders outside the caucus.

2. Member
   Basil Fawlty

   @BasilFawlty

   

   7:37 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Marion Evans: The connection between having children and doing a better job has not been made by anyone.

   Of course, people who have children do a better job of having children than people who don’t have children.

3. Inactive
   Umbra Fractus

   @UmbraFractus

   7:38 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Valiuth:So here is a good question. What happened to all those famous chaps who fought for leave? Why did Johnson and Gove leave? They don’t seem to have put up much of a fight?

   I don’t know about Gove, but the consensus in the press (so take this with however many pinches of salt you desire) is that Johnson never expected to win, and was planning to run as a UKIP-lite insurgent. Actually winning the vote caught him off guard.

4. Inactive
   Douglas

   @Douglas

   7:40 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Mike LaRoche:I wonder if May can be trusted to actually go through with invoking Article 50.

   The chances that Parliament will try to welsh on Brexit (pun intended) just went waaaaay up.

5. Coolidge
   Al Sparks

   @AlSparks

   7:46 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Claire Berlinski, Ed.: I think she’ll be fine for the job. She’s unflashy, competent, and calm, which is what Britain needs right now. Your thoughts?

   I follow British politics lightly.  From what little I read, Leadsom is more conservative than May.  May seems to be the “compassionate conservative” type like George W Bush was.

   And Leadsom’s private sector experience would be a plus for me.  She did make a rookie mistake, however, and maybe she’s not ready for the big time.

   May might do well to appoint her Chancellor of the Exchequer.  Leadsom’s experience in the private sector was finance.

6. Inactive
   ParisParamus

   @ParisParamus

   7:48 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Why do I think BrExit will never happen?

7. Member
   Freesmith

   @

   7:49 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Did anyone else listening to Theresa May’s address see a familiar image conjured up?

   Bush.

8. Member
   Claire Berlinski, Ed.

   @Claire

   Post author

   7:50 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   BrentB67:Claire, do you think this will expedite the transition or will PM Cameron remain in office until fall?

   I think it is better for all concerned that she take officer sooner rather than later and get on with negotiating Britain’s new status with the EU. What are your thoughts?

   It will expedite it severely. “By the end of the day” means “within about an hour.” And no doubt this is a good thing.

9. Coolidge
   Al Sparks

   @AlSparks

   7:53 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Valiuth: Johnson

   Valiuth:So here is a good question. What happened to all those famous chaps who fought for leave? Why did Johnson and Gove leave? They don’t seem to have put up much of a fight?

   I’m not sure why Johnson didn’t fight harder.  The system in place right now for the Conservative Party is for the top two candidates to be picked by the caucus, at which point those two candidates go to the convention to be voted on.

   Gove lost that vote, probably in part because of the way he blatantly back stabbed Johnson, which to me wasn’t a bad thing.

   Apparently the caucus isn’t going to provide an alternative to Leadsom so Gove is still out.

10. Member
    Western Chauvinist

    @WesternChauvinist

    

    7:57 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Marion Evans:

    Western Chauvinist:WARNING: I’m about to make social commentary.

    It’s revealing that a career politician’s future is ended by telling the obvious truth that having children gives one (literal) skin in the game.

    The West is over if the truth is unspeakable and the rule of law only applies to the little people.

    I would tread carefully here. What if I have one child and you have three? Now you have more skin in the game? The connection between having children and doing a better job has not been made by anyone. Do you have evidence?

    “Treading carefully” is exactly what my comment references. We have to walk on eggshells or face the wrath of the “public.” This indicates how broken society is. There can be no “public trust” if the truth (of having a vested interest in the future of one’s country by having children) is unspeakable.

    The Left is winning by stifling the truth.

11. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.

    @Claire

    Post author

    7:59 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Western Chauvinist: It’s revealing that a career politician’s future is ended by telling the obvious truth that having children gives one (literal) skin in the game.

    I don’t think the comment was controversial because she was stating an obvious truth. It was controversial because it sounded so cruel and catty. Her opponent is a childless woman who spoke recently and publicly about the pain of childlessness. Even though she said, “It would be horrible to sound” as if she were lording her fertility over Theresa May, that’s just how it sounded.

    I think she was right to say that printing what she said was revolting gutter journalism. But the criticism that more experienced politicians would know better than to say it at all is warranted. The UK hardly needs an amateur in that job at a time like this.

12. Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter

    @ToryWarWriter

    8:00 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Al Sparks.  Im a provincial riding President in Canada.  I can tell you that when I say allowed I mean it.  By the political parties charters, leaders are chosen by the grass roots not by caucus.  What the MPs and MLA’s and MPPs do is completely related to party charters and with full force of the law from Corporate Canada.  Parliament has very little to do with that.

    Why does that system exist.  Take a look at Ontario.  Our caucus endorsed 80 percent for one candidate.  Almost no one in caucus voted for our current leader Patrick Brown.  But the ridings chose Patrick Brown often by up to margins of 80 percent, almost all the MPPs who endorsed his opponent there ridings voted for Brown.  I have dealt with enough politicians.  Most of them dont know how they get elected.

    I just got off the phone with my federal counterpart.  Hes in agreement with me. Disenfranchising 150000 grass roots members before a major conference is dumb.  How much of those grass roots consists of leave members.  Probably a lot more than caucus.  May and her cronies just through all of them under the bus.  Not to mention any reunification with UKIP is not going to happen.  They are going to see this as the raw deal it is.

    Imagine at the Republican Convention they disenfranchise Trump and throw them out his delegates.  This is the level of firestorm the MP’s have potentially unleashed.

13. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.

    @Claire

    Post author

    8:00 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Al Sparks:

    Gove lost that vote, probably in part because of the way he blatantly back stabbed Johnson, which to me wasn’t a bad thing.

    Definitely. He was viewed as a Judas and a backstabber.

14. Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter

    @ToryWarWriter

    8:21 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Politicians win there seats by the work of there grassroots.  When they do stupid raw deals like this, they lose the support of the grassroots.  Now they might be able to heal it, but if they were smart and realized the danger they have put themselves in they would have allowed May to run and legitimately beat her opponent.   She has now not done that.  And the environment minister was not her opponent.  The leave campaign is her opponent.

    And leave grassroots supporters have been just stabbed in the back.  They have had there vote stolen from them.  I wouldnt be happy if someone did that to me.  Would you?

15. Inactive
    Marion Evans

    @MarionEvans

    8:32 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Western Chauvinist:

    Marion Evans:

    Western Chauvinist:WARNING: I’m about to make social commentary.

    It’s revealing that a career politician’s future is ended by telling the obvious truth that having children gives one (literal) skin in the game.

    The West is over if the truth is unspeakable and the rule of law only applies to the little people.

    I would tread carefully here. What if I have one child and you have three? Now you have more skin in the game? The connection between having children and doing a better job has not been made by anyone. Do you have evidence?

    “Treading carefully” is exactly what my comment references. We have to walk on eggshells or face the wrath of the “public.” This indicates how broken society is. There can be no “public trust” if the truth (of having a vested interest in the future of one’s country by having children) is unspeakable.

    The Left is winning by stifling the truth.

    I was being diplomatic. I meant you are wrong :)

16. Member
    Rodin

    @Rodin

    8:50 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Marion Evans: I was being diplomatic. I meant you are wrong

    One can be right in general and wrong in particular. I am childless but passionate about the future of the country. Nevertheless I do not assume that I work as hard to secure a better future for the country than if I had offspring. If I did have children I would be even more heartsick and motivated than I currently am.

    Assuredly there are parents who could care less what kind of world their children experience. But I don’t believe that is the general experience.

    So Leadsom’s comment was not beyond the pale as a conversational item. As Claire points out the greater sin was trusting that she could make the comment. And @westernchauvinist correctly points out that it is this fact that is a sad commentary on the state of our society.

17. Inactive
    James Gawron

    @JamesGawron

    8:54 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Claire,

    If this is not a Remain coup d’etat I’ll be just thrilled. It seems very odd that someone who didn’t support Leave, now says she is the most qualified to carry it out. Cameron resigned because he supported Remain and decided himself that he wasn’t the person to carry Brexit out. Well, the British are very odd. They are extremely responsible. Perhaps Theresa will do it out of an overriding sense of responsibility. Why I find that a bit much I can’t tell you.

    If she doesn’t carry Brexit out, I’m going to say ‘I told you so’ in the loudest most obnoxious way that I can conjure up. You are warned.

    Regards,

    Jim

18. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    9:16 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Western Chauvinist: It’s revealing that a career politician’s future is ended by telling the obvious truth that having children gives one (literal) skin in the game.

    Do you not think it is a bit insensitive to denigrate those who cannot have children that do not want to experiment with modern fertility treatments?  Isn’t Leadsom’s argument just like Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” argument?

    I think people, especially women’s, extremely personal choices and challenges should not be used as an argument against their capacity to do a job in politics.

19. Member
    Rodin

    @Rodin

    9:27 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Josh Farnsworth: I think people, especially women’s, extremely personal choices and challenges should not be used as an argument against their capacity to do a job in politics.

    As Claire has pointed out Leadsom expressed a thought in a conversation she did not expect would be publicized and that was couched by an evident attempt to be sensitive to May’s circumstance. It was not an argument about May’s capacity to do a job in politics, it was more a differentiation between how Leadsom and May saw Brexit leading up to the vote. May was managing a current relationship while Leadsom was (at least in her mind) thinking about where the EU would take Britain over the next several decades. In Leadsom’s mind thinking about her children gave her a focus and urgency that she did not see in May.

20. Inactive
    James Gawron

    @JamesGawron

    9:29 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Claire,

    Did you see this?

    Theresa May Set To Be PM On Wednesday

    This is all getting creepier and creepier. Perhaps it’s just that I’m an American but all of this since the Brexit victory is just too weird.

    All is well if it ends well. I hope.

    Regards,

    Jim

21. Member
    Misthiocracy

    @Misthiocracy

    

    9:36 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    ToryWarWriter:And this is why Caucus is not allowed to make decisions like this in Canada.

    Quibble: There is no law regulating how a new Leader is chosen when the previous one resigns (or dies). How the Leader is chosen is governed by a party’s constitution, not by government legislation. If a party wanted to amend their constitution to allow caucus to choose the next Leader, there is no legal impediment preventing the party from doing so.

    Each party has its own rules for choosing a Leader. The constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada happens to stipulate that there must be a leadership election, with each party member getting one vote, “at the earliest convenient date” after the resignation of the Leader.

    Other parties do not have this same “one-member-one-vote” system, instead choosing Leaders via delegated conventions and giving the votes of some preferred groups (women, students, vizmins) more weight then non-preferred groups.

    Also: Upon the resignation (or death) of the Leader, the CPC caucus chooses the Interim Leader, to lead until the Leadership Election can take place. The current (Interim) Leader of the CPC, Rona Ambrose, was chosen by caucus. Even though she was chosen by caucus, she still gets to serve as the Leader of the Official Opposition, with all the rights and privileges thereof.  Similarly, it is legally conceivable that in very extraordinary circumstances an Interim Leader chosen by caucus could serve as Prime Minister.

22. Inactive
    Mendel

    @Mendel

    9:38 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    What I find perhaps more astonishing than the ascendance of a (nominally) pro-Remain PM is the fact that May will be assuming the leadership of one of the most powerful democracies in the world uncontested.

    But I’m not surprised. To me, this is just the logical consequence of trying to stage a revolution with only lukewarm support. The people of the UK elected a slate of generally anti-Leave MPs to Parliament, so they shouldn’t be shocked when that same slate can’t produce a pro-Leave consensus leader. No conspiracies required.

    This is why non-binding referenda on drastic (and complex and sensitive) issues are a bad idea.

23. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    9:42 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Rodin: In Leadsom’s mind thinking about her children gave her a focus and urgency that she did not see in May.

    And again, you can’t say “you’re childless, you just don’t get it, you don’t understand our country.”  Whether or not May has a child or adopts a child is May’s business, end of story.

    Leadsom should be smart enough to integrate the themes of motherhood into her stump speech without saying another woman competing for the same job is at a disadvantage because of being childless.

    Does everyone forget all of the infertility and pain in Bible stories?  Infertility can be one of the most painful things in life, and using the ability to have children as a reason why you are better suited to a job is sheer poppycock.

    There are positive ways to highlight the lessons of motherhood without denigrating those who are not mothers.  For example, talking about your own parents’ concerns, and your concerns for your children, and why those concerns motivate you and inspire you to work for what you seek to achieve.

    After couching your parental experience as both child and parent, when the press says “May doesn’t have children, what are you saying, are you saying female prime ministers must have children?” you attack the press for insinuating that you (Leadsom) are attacking May on account of not having children.

    Leadsom should have couched her argument in terms of family generally, turned any pushback immediately towards a “gotcha” press, and again turned the press back to her own personal story.   And, most importantly, by talking about the lessons of your own experience, you don’t come off as being insensitive and personal, you focus the press back on the issues of why you are running in the first place.

    In other words, when you are introducing yourself to the general public, you want to talk about you, let people learn about you, and let people draw their own conclusions about how your personal story contrasts with the story of your opponent.

24. Contributor
    Titus Techera

    @TitusTechera

    9:44 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Mendel:What I find perhaps more astonishing than the ascendance of a (nominally) pro-Remain PM is the fact that May will be assuming the leadership of one of the most powerful democracies in the world uncontested.

    But I’m not surprised. To me, this is just the logical consequence of trying to stage a revolution with only lukewarm support. The people of the UK elected a slate of generally anti-Leave MPs to Parliament, so they shouldn’t be shocked when that same slate can’t produce a pro-Leave consensus leader. No conspiracies required.

    This is why non-binding referenda on drastic (and complex and sensitive) issues are a bad idea.

    Mr. Mendel, I think you describe the situation well so far as you go, but without going as far as needed, & therefore inadequately. There is no other England. There is no other way now for Britain. There was none other before the previous elections or in 2010. This train of events was set in motion by the Tory treason of 1990. That was a case of class prejudice & national prejudice marrying. There was no harmony there, but the divorce is not easy & cannot be sudden.

    There was a possibility for the Leave campaign to start a conspiracy. They have failed, which was likely. Now Britain must go on being Britain, which has never worked out well in difficult times. All decent men are agreed that normalcy is desirable; all secretly believe it their right; they are wrong-

25. Inactive
    The Whether Man

    @TheWhetherMan

    9:46 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Western Chauvinist:“Treading carefully” is exactly what my comment references. We have to walk on eggshells or face the wrath of the “public.” This indicates how broken society is. There can be no “public trust” if the truth (of having a vested interest in the future of one’s country by having children) is unspeakable.

    The Left is winning by stifling the truth.

    That’s because it’s not actually truth. It’s a sentiment many express, but there’s no way to actually prove it.  And there are too many exceptions in both directions to think of. Instead, it’s an opinion and those who do not share it – myself included – criticize her for it.

26. Member
    Rodin

    @Rodin

    9:51 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Josh Farnsworth: Leadsom should be smart enough to integrate the themes of motherhood into her stump speech without saying another woman competing for the same job is at a disadvantage because of being childless.

    ***

    Leadsom should have couched her argument in terms of family generally, turned any pushback immediately towards a “gotcha” press, and again turned the press back to her own personal story.

    @joshfarnsworth, I think you are missing the point. Leadsom was not making an argument, she was expressing a thought in a “private” conversation. Was she naive? Yes. Was she too naive to be PM? Possibly but we will not now know. Was she touting superiority of people with children over those without? No, she was identifying a catalyst for her concerns over the future of Britain which (in her mind) May may not have shared to the same extent.

27. Contributor
    Titus Techera

    @TitusTechera

    9:54 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Rodin:Leadsom was not making an argument, she was expressing a thought in a “private” conversation. Was she naive? Yes. Was she too naive to be PM? Possibly but we will not now know. Was she touting superiority of people with children over those without? No, she was identifying a catalyst for her concerns over the future of Britain which (in her mind) May may not have shared to the same extent.

    She certainly misunderstands modern politics. Private conversation? If she wanted to make a profession of faith, she should have gone to the British equivalent of Oprah, peace by upon her name-

28. Inactive
    James Gawron

    @JamesGawron

    10:04 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Claire & all,

    FTSE 100 Up And Pound Spikes As PM Emerges

    I think the British Rocket is lifting off.

    Regards,

    Jim

29. Inactive
    Mendel

    @Mendel

    10:04 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Titus Techera:

    Mendel:What I find perhaps more astonishing than the ascendance of a (nominally) pro-Remain PM is the fact that May will be assuming the leadership of one of the most powerful democracies in the world uncontested.

    But I’m not surprised. To me, this is just the logical consequence of trying to stage a revolution with only lukewarm support. The people of the UK elected a slate of generally anti-Leave MPs to Parliament, so they shouldn’t be shocked when that same slate can’t produce a pro-Leave consensus leader. No conspiracies required.

    This is why non-binding referenda on drastic (and complex and sensitive) issues are a bad idea.

    Mr. Mendel, I think you describe the situation well so far as you go, but without going as far as needed, & therefore inadequately. There is no other England. There is no other way now for Britain. There was none other before the previous elections or in 2010. This train of events was set in motion by the Tory treason of 1990. That was a case of class prejudice & national prejudice marrying. There was no harmony there, but the divorce is not easy & cannot be sudden.

    There was a possibility for the Leave campaign to start a conspiracy. They have failed, which was likely. Now Britain must go on being Britain, which has never worked out well in difficult times. All decent men are agreed that normalcy is desirable; all secretly believe it their right; they are wrong-

    Could you please give me the English for Dummies version of this comment?

30. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    10:15 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Rodin: Was she touting superiority of people with children over those without? No, she was identifying a catalyst for her concerns over the future of Britain which (in her mind)

    And my point is Leadsom could make this point well without pointing the finger at May.  The fact that she off-the-record said that May’s lack of children limited her ability to be PM is a frontal attack where no attack is warranted.  If she wanted to play up her motherhood, she should have done it in a way where voters could draw their own conclusions.  If she had, she’d still be in the running.