There are 90 comments.

1. Thatcher
   No Caesar

   @NoCaesar

   

   10:16 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   My top choice, Michael Gove, is out.  I don’t have a strong opinion on Ms. May.  I recognize that her being a soft Remainer, who has forcefully stated that the people’s will to exit must be honored, may be very useful given the relatively close vote (52-48).  It was a decisive win, but not an overwhelming one.  (As opposed to the overwhelming 10 point victory by Scots for Scotland to Remain in the UK, which definitively negates any argument for another referendum there.)

   I would be prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, but on a short leash.  She strikes me as a John Major type.  However, she’s not following a Thatcher by any means.  However, Cameron, for all his myriad faults, does deserve credit for helping bring the Tories back to dominance.  Of course, I’m not British, just a spectator.

2. Member
   Misthiocracy

   @Misthiocracy

   

   10:19 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Will Daniel Hannan be able to win a seat in the Commons, or will he stay in the backwaters of Brussels?

3. Contributor
   Titus Techera

   @TitusTechera

   10:28 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Mendel:

   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 [another] version of this comment?

   I’m sorry I did not speak clearly. Since Mrs. Thatcher was betrayed by her party, the UK national consensus was pro-EU; it was supposed to broaden; it has not. The collapse of Mr. Blair & the rise of UKIP shifted the balance somewhat–moving the Tories slightly–not decisively nor very publicly, as revealed by the narrow Leave victory. The major change in British politics is a crisis of confidence among the political classes. This is the dog that didn’t bark. I do not know why this is not now discussed: Consider Miss Berlinski’s attitude: Mum’s the word.

4. Contributor
   Titus Techera

   @TitusTechera

   10:31 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Misthiocracy:Will Daniel Hannan be able to win a seat in the Commons, or will he stay in the backwaters of Brussels?

   I am not sure why the party has insisted on keeping him at arm’s length. I think it would be useful to figure that out & think it through, because of what he is as opposed to who he is. What he is–the most eloquent British politician; one of the most cosmopolitan; foolishly solid on free trade; dangerously confident on a generous immigration policy; loyal to the Tories. My suspicion is that he is marked as ‘loyal to the Tories’ & that this has marred his future; possibly, indelibly.

   I still have high hopes for him; but I cannot give a good reason for them–I can only say, there is no obvious reason against him.

5. Member
   Dave Sussman

   @DaveSussman

   10:51 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Claire, imo this will be good for England and it may even temporarily satiate the identity politic focused left who mostly voted against Brexit.

   My observation of TM is on a wider scale. I can’t help wonder how her ascension to 10 Downing Street will impact American voters’ perception of Hillary. There are likely 2 generations of voters who barely if not at all remember Lady Thatcher.

   Would a woman of a certain age becoming the figurehead of England increase or reduce certain American’s zeal to place Hillary into the WH simply because of her gender?

6. Member
   Rodin

   @Rodin

   10:52 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Josh Farnsworth: 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.

   When I read about Leadsom’s comment my thought was “That’s not going to work out well.” But it makes me sad for all the reasons @westernchauvinist outlined.

7. Member
   Josh Farnsworth

   @

   11:22 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Rodin: When I read about Leadsom’s comment my thought was “That’s not going to work out well.” But it makes me sad for all the reasons @westernchauvinist outlined.

   I think there is a reason we have political correctness.  Politics involves convincing people who hate you and what you stand for things you disagree with to work with you some of the time.  That involves being polite.

   The fact that one woman accused another of being less qualified because of her lack of children, in my view, disqualifies the person who uttered the statement.  She needs more polishing, hence she dropped out of the running.

8. Member
   Josh Farnsworth

   @

   11:23 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Dave Sussman:Claire, imo this will be good for England and it may even temporarily satiate the identity politic focused left who mostly voted against Brexit.

   My observation of TM is on a wider scale. I can’t help wonder how her ascension to 10 Downing Street will impact American voters’ perception of Hillary. There are likely 2 generations of voters who barely if not at all remember Lady Thatcher.

   Would a woman of a certain age becoming the figurehead of England increase or reduce certain American’s zeal to place Hillary into the WH simply because of her gender?

   I think it has minimal impact.

9. Member
   Basil Fawlty

   @BasilFawlty

   

   11:45 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

   Josh Farnsworth: The fact that one woman accused another of being less qualified because of her lack of children, in my view, disqualifies the person who uttered the statement.

   Are political candidates who appear at events with spouse and kiddies in tow guilty of accusing their unwed and childless rivals of being less qualified than they?  Or are they simply touting what they hope the voters will see as their own positive qualities and life experience?

10. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    11:51 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Basil Fawlty: Are political candidates who appear at events with spouse and kiddies in tow guilty of accusing their unwed and childless rivals of being less qualified than they? Or are they simply touting what they hope the voters will see as their own positive qualities and life experience?

    This is my argument – that is how Leadsom should have proceeded.  You can parade your family before voters as a tactic, but attacking the families of others or the family choices of others should be off-limits.  It’s not polite, I don’t think it’s right, and it shows a lack of confidence that Leadsom would so forcefully play the card.

    However, the Times should not have published it if it was off the record.  That chills their ability to get scoops.  Perhaps the Times figured, given its position, it could weather the storm in the long-run.

11. Inactive
    Umbra Fractus

    @UmbraFractus

    11:55 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Josh Farnsworth:This is my argument – that is how Leadsom should have proceeded. You can parade your family before voters as a tactic, but attacking the families of others or the family choices of others should be off-limits. It’s not polite, I don’t think it’s right, and it shows a lack of confidence that Leadsom would so forcefully play the card.

    She didn’t “play the card.” She thought she was speaking off the record, and never intended it to get out.

12. Member
    Misthiocracy

    @Misthiocracy

    

    11:57 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Umbra Fractus: …She thought she was speaking off the record…

    This, all by itself, should disqualify someone for the highest office in the land, on competency grounds.

13. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    12:00 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Misthiocracy:

    Umbra Fractus: …She thought she was speaking off the record…

    This, all by itself, should disqualify someone for the highest office in the land, on competency grounds.

    If it’s too juicy to keep off the record, it will come onto the record, damn the consequences.  That’s why you must always be guarded around the press, unless you want to develop a Trump-like reputation of spewing so much nonsense that the press, and all of us, are awash in the flood.

14. Member
    Basil Fawlty

    @BasilFawlty

    

    12:06 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Josh Farnsworth: You can parade your family before voters as a tactic, but attacking the families of others or the family choices of others should be off-limits.

    From the brief summary provided, it seemed to me that Leadsome was promoting her own qualifications rather tham attacking May’s lack thereof.  A fine distinction to be sure, but a distinction nonetheless.

15. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    12:09 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    in which she said that while she didn’t want to be horrible about it — because she was sure Theresa May must be sad not to have had children — she thought she’d be a better prime minister because having children meant she had “a very real stake” in Britain’s future.

    If you have to preface something with “I don’t want to be horrible about it, but . . .” you are better off thinking of another way to phrase what you  are about to say.

    Like I said in previous comments, Leadsom could have put the words in the mouth of the reporter, contradicted them, and continued to highlight her experience as a parent and why those experiences help prepare her for the challenges facing Britain.

16. Inactive
    Mendel

    @Mendel

    12:10 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    I think it’s sufficient to say that the overarching rule is whenever a candidate for executive office wants to involve their children in their campaign in any way, they need to tread very lightly and with great care.

    Sarah Palin is a good example. She certainly made several exemplary decisions in her child-rearing and those who attacked her for them should be perpetually ashamed. But she also placed them a little too much in the spotlight, and was justifiably bitten when some of her other children made several inadvisable decisions.

    In this case, I think common sense should have prevailed: if you’re running for the highest office in your country, and you feel the need to preface a statement with “I need to be very careful in phrasing this because it might be completely misunderstood”, then don’t make that statement.

    And also, don’t deny you said it when you know the tape was rolling.

    It’s sad that candidates for the highest offices are forced to have their game face on 24 hours a day, but it’s also the simple reality of life.

17. Inactive
    Mendel

    @Mendel

    12:15 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Titus Techera: Since Mrs. Thatcher was betrayed by her party, the UK national consensus was pro-EU; it was supposed to broaden; it has not. The collapse of Mr. Blair & the rise of UKIP shifted the balance somewhat–moving the Tories slightly–not decisively nor very publicly, as revealed by the narrow Leave victory. The major change in British politics is a crisis of confidence among the political classes. This is the dog that didn’t bark.

    Thank you. It still strikes me that in an atmosphere of ambiguity toward the EU and distrust of elites, a non-binding referendum was always bound to make matters worse, not better, in the case of a Leave majority (especially a fairly slim one).

    Now there is a crisis in confidence together with the need for unwilling politicians to carry out very delicate and consequential negotiations that half of the country doesn’t want. The UK might still pull through thanks to the sheer incompetence and disunity of the rest of the EU, but in any other circumstances I would say the Brits have exacerbated, not remedied, their leadership issues through using a referendum.

18. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    12:16 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Mendel: I think it’s sufficient to say that the overarching rule is whenever a candidate for executive office wants to involve their children in their campaign in any way, they need to tread very lightly and with great care.

    I agree.  You are running, not your family, unless they sign up too.

    Mendel:In this case, I think common sense should have prevailed: if you’re running for the highest office in your country, and you feel the need to preface a statement with “I need to be very careful in phrasing this because it might be completely misunderstood”, then don’t make that statement.

    And also, don’t deny you said it when you know the tape was rolling.

    If it is recorded, it can be scrutinized.

19. Inactive
    Eric Hines

    @EricHines

    12:23 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    If The Guardian is reporting accurately, this piece is indicative of a huge betrayal of her party and of liberty generally.

    Eric Hines

20. Inactive
    Mendel

    @Mendel

    12:24 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Josh Farnsworth: If it is recorded, it can be scrutinized.

    I would go one further: in the context of an national leadership race, if it’s recorded, it’s going to see the light of day sooner or later.

    All that being said, I have sympathy for Leadsom. I’m getting the impression that she was something of a third-stringer who got suddenly and unexpectedly thrown into the big game after the starters all went on the DL.

    It sounds like she just didn’t yet have the experience in the limelight to deal with the rough-and-tumble world of cutthroat politics. While that may be disqualifying for the highest office, it also makes her a better person.

21. Inactive
    Eric Hines

    @EricHines

    12:29 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Mendel: It sounds like she just didn’t yet have the experience in the limelight to deal with the rough-and-tumble world of cutthroat politics.

    I have a hard time believing somebody who’s senior in as scrutinized a cabinet as Energy had no experience dealing with a mendacious press.

    She trusted a newspaper man to keep off the record remarks off the record.  That makes her judgment questionable.

    Eric Hines

22. Member
    Basil Fawlty

    @BasilFawlty

    

    12:31 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Josh Farnsworth: Like I said in previous comments, Leadsom could have put the words in the mouth of the reporter, contradicted them, and continued to highlight her experience as a parent and why those experiences help prepare her for the challenges facing Britain.

    Saying your opponents are less qualified than you are because they lack qualification X is an attack.  Saying you’re more qualified than your opponents because you possess qualification X is traditional politics.

23. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    12:34 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

     

    Mendel: I’m getting the impression that she was something of a third-stringer who got suddenly and unexpectedly thrown into the big game after the starters all went on the DL.

    This is almost certainly true.  Her decision once the information was released was sound.  I daresay we have not heard the last from her.

24. Member
    Josh Farnsworth

    @

    12:36 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 11, 2016

    Eric Hines:

    Eric Hines

    Mendel: It sounds like she just didn’t yet have the experience in the limelight to deal with the rough-and-tumble world of cutthroat politics.

    I have a hard time believing somebody who’s senior in as scrutinized a cabinet as Energy had no experience dealing with a mendacious press.

    She trusted a newspaper man to keep off the record remarks off the record. That makes her judgment questionable.

    Eric Hines

    Going from Energy to PM candidate is worlds apart in terms of media scrutiny.  She does deserve sympathy, and she showed alacrity in choosing to withdraw her name from this race and live to fight another day.

25. Inactive
    dukenaltum

    @dukenaltum

    7:06 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 12, 2016

    May is not the person for the job that Britain needs to have done after the vote.  She is possibly the worse choice.

    She is an islamophile Merkel without the attractive pseudo-conservative veneer.

    p.s. Hillary Clinton made a similar comment as Andrea Leadsom about being a Mother being a qualification for high office while running for the Senate.  Controversy is never a fixed point for the Left.

26. Coolidge
    Al Sparks

    @AlSparks

    11:40 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 12, 2016

    ToryWarWriter:

    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.

    Canada has been selecting party leaders with electors outside the parliamentary caucus for a few decades. In Britain, the Labour Party was the first major party to do this. As recently as the 1980’s, the Conservative Party still elected their leader by caucus. Margaret Thatcher was removed as party leader by the caucus. I’ll add that as recently as the 1950’s the Conservatives didn’t even hold a formal caucus vote. When Antony Eden suddenly resigned in 1957, Harold Macmillan was chosen by an ad-hoc committee that mysteriously developed a consensus.

    You’re obviously in favor of this. I think it has the effect of taking power away from the backbenchers. And that has resulted in Prime Ministers being held less accountable to people who are better positioned to keep an eye on the PM and the cabinet.

    One of the recent complaints about PM’s is that they act more “presidential” as opposed to first amongst equals in the cabinet that they used to be a part of. For Canada, this probably started with Pierre Trudeau. In Britain, you started seeing it with Margaret Thatcher, but it really came into its own with Tony Blair.

    And taking effective power away from the caucus to elect their leader has had a lot to do with that.

    Look at the spectacle in the British Labour Party with Jeremy Corbin, where he has no confidence amongst his own caucus, but the general membership (which was loosely defined) probably supports him. It’s tearing the party apart, and the fundamental problem is the dichotomy of letting people outside parliament choose leadership, while legally and effectively, it’s the House of Commons, and only the House of Commons that chooses the government.  That is less of an issue here because the Labour Party is in opposition.

    In the United States a big complaint about our government is that Congress has given up its power to the executive.  In your parliamentary system, something similar has happened.

27. Coolidge
    Al Sparks

    @AlSparks

    12:08 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 13, 2016

    Eric Hines:

    Mendel: It sounds like she just didn’t yet have the experience in the limelight to deal with the rough-and-tumble world of cutthroat politics.

    I have a hard time believing somebody who’s senior in as scrutinized a cabinet as Energy had no experience dealing with a mendacious press.

    Is it scrutinized?  Can you name the Secretary of Energy in the United States without looking it up?  I can’t.  Nor does she head up the Department of Energy and Climate Change.  Ledsom’s title is Minister of State, and she reports to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.  Rumor has it that May will give her a promotion but not to one of the big four positions.

    Probably the big four cabinet minsters in Britain are Chancellor of the Exchequer (treasury), Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary (in charge of the national police force), and Defense Minister.  After that, things start to get fuzzy.

28. Member
    Rodin

    @Rodin

    7:37 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 13, 2016

    This thread is highlighting important differences between the US electoral and British parliamentary systems, as well as organization of government. Unless I missed something, Britain has an independent Civil Service which makes government offices a little less tractable to their political leadership than is true in US agencies. This, I suspect, makes the persons heading smaller agencies fairly minor policy makers of little interest to the press except for more specialized trade publications. Someone holding such a position may not get the kind of broad scrutiny that prepares them for a PM bid.

29. Inactive
    James Gawron

    @JamesGawron

    7:54 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 13, 2016

    dukenaltum:May is not the person for the job that Britain needs to have done after the vote. She is possibly the worse choice.

    She is an islamophile Merkel without the attractive pseudo-conservative veneer.

    p.s. Hillary Clinton made a similar comment as Andrea Leadsom about being a Mother being a qualification for high office while running for the Senate. Controversy is never a fixed point for the Left.

    duke,

    First, I agree that blowing the ‘children’ thing up into a major concern is absolutely bizarre. Leadsom was smeared by a gender-bending press that is frankly anti-family. Second, although experienced and capable, May’s previous political stances do not engender a great deal of confidence. I am concerned, and will continue to be concerned about a Remain Coup D’etat. She has stated emphatically that Brexit means Brexit. She is British so that often means a forthright responsible approach. Hopefully, this will be enough. I think many are warming to the idea of Britain free again to prosper on the World Market. I suspect that not only will it not hurt Britain but Brexit will be a smashingly good economic success.

    Regards,

    Jim

30. Coolidge
    Al Sparks

    @AlSparks

    9:48 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 13, 2016

    Rodin:This thread is highlighting important differences between the US electoral and British parliamentary systems, as well as organization of government. Unless I missed something, Britain has an independent Civil Service which makes government offices a little less tractable to their political leadership than is true in US agencies. This, I suspect, makes the persons heading smaller agencies fairly minor policy makers of little interest to the press except for more specialized trade publications. Someone holding such a position may not get the kind of broad scrutiny that prepares them for a PM bid.

    There’s probably no way to measure whose civil service is more or less tractable.  Both have civil servants with job protections with the biggest characteristic that civil servants outlast particular political department heads.  One thing these civil servants have in common is that as a group, they are more hostile towards politicians that want to cut their budgets, and reduce their work force.  But they rarely confront, but quietly obstruct.

    Both Britain and the United States have departments that get little scrutiny, some small and some large.  Like the United States Department of Commerce.

    One of the problems both countries have is the civil service they have is undemocratic.