Alf Bentley Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 Wonder why they've not said any of this before! Maybe because she'd not previously stood to be PM, based on an allegedly dodgy CV? To clarify: these are senior former colleagues from her days in the City, NOT colleagues/rivals in the Tory party.
The Guvnor Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 Maybe because she'd not previously stood to be PM, based on an allegedly dodgy CV? To clarify: these are senior former colleagues from her days in the City, NOT colleagues/rivals in the Tory party. That's correct Robert Stephens from Invesco, a remainer apparently, but would it have been possible for a phone call or two find a willing snitch, 'bingo' a result. Gove's senior allies wanting tactical voting to freeze out Andrea hang on it's all making sense.
Alf Bentley Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 That's correct Robert Stephens from Invesco, a remainer apparently, but would it have been possible for a phone call or two find a willing snitch, 'bingo' a result. Gove's senior allies wanting tactical voting to freeze out Andrea hang on it's all making sense. I thought you were suggesting that it was May's supporters who were up to shenanigans, not Gove's? That doesn't bother me, as politics involves a lot of shenanigans. I'm more interested in whether or not she lied and exaggerated on her CV - that would be a disqualification from office as PM, if she did, surely? Should be easy to prove one way or the other. There will surely be contemporary documents to show what posts and responsibilities she held during her career in the City?
Thracian Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 Maybe because she'd not previously stood to be PM, based on an allegedly dodgy CV? To clarify: these are senior former colleagues from her days in the City, NOT colleagues/rivals in the Tory party. Had the Tories quietly investigated May's CV and decided not to let her stand as an MP of become a minister we'd never have heard of her. But they didn't do that. She became an MP in 2005 having previously, climbed onto the Conservative A list and then became Economic Secretary to the Treasury and a minister - plenty of time to fall flat on her face due to incompetence. So why the sudden hail of bullets while she's standing to lead the party? Nothing to do with her CV, I'm sure Who have her ex-colleagues been talking to and who's rattled their cage out of jealousy or determination not to have a genuine Brexit supporter in charge of Brexit. It absolutely smacks of sour grapes and/or a strategy to put the brakes on Brexit. Perhaps, when the smoke settles, we should check every CV in the land and sack anyone who's sitting in a job under marginally false pretences. It does seem ironic on the day of the Chilcot report that the presumably admirably qualified Tony Blair is being pilloried for his role in the utter catastrophe of a war in Iraq with death and destruction everywhere while our media's fed garbage (or leads to garbage) about whether someone was a director or deputy director, a big shot or something less, someone close to sainthood or inclined to exaggerate. And that in the world of politics! What shock/horror! The hypocrisy is pathetic beyond words.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 Given it seems the whole nations lost its collective mind right now and is in angry, shouty, ranting at everyone mode, I get the horrible feeling Leadsom could end up getting the nod from the Tory membership. Mean apparently, musings about bringing back fox hunting and disquiet about the gay marriage bill are tonic for some Tory members, not a sad example of past views that the country has moved forward from.
Webbo Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 Given it seems the whole nations lost its collective mind right now and is in angry, shouty, ranting at everyone mode, I get the horrible feeling Leadsom could end up getting the nod from the Tory membership. Mean apparently, musings about bringing back fox hunting and disquiet about the gay marriage bill are tonic for some Tory members, not a sad example of past views that the country has moved forward from. The fact that she's prepared to admit such things rather than pretend says something about integrity imo.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 The fact that she's prepared to admit such things rather than pretend says something about integrity imo.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 The fact that she's prepared to admit such things rather than pretend says something about integrity imo. Well this is why I think she'll end up winning, because this blinkered attitude of flat denying things that shows she's not really leadership material is rampant. Perhaps I shouldn't be suprised, given people have "had enough of experts!"
Dr The Singh Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 For the likes of me, Davieg, Thrac and Webbo, this is a battle of the cleavage, and are hoping both ladies take the opportunity to strut there stuff and give the men what they want!!!!
Webbo Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 Well this is why I think she'll end up winning, because this blinkered attitude of flat denying things that shows she's not really leadership material is rampant. Perhaps I shouldn't be suprised, given people have "had enough of experts!" I don't get your point? I don't have a problem with gay marriage but if somebody has a genuine religious conviction I think they're entitled to believe that, doesn't mean she's planning to repeal the law, and I've never been anti foxhunting. People say all politicians are the same but when somebody says something outside of popular opinion it's said they're not leadership material. I'm neutral atm I wouldn't mind either candidate. Presumably they'll be a televised debate maybe I'll decide then, not that I've got a vote.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 @@Webbo The views she has expressed are marginal ones in terms of overall public opinion and starkly regressive - now I'm fine for someone to hold them personally, but as a leader of the country you need a balanced and broader position so you can govern for all.
Webbo Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 @@Webbo The views she has expressed are marginal ones in terms of overall public opinion and starkly regressive - now I'm fine for someone to hold them personally, but as a leader of the country you need a balanced and broader position so you can govern for all. In that case nobody can lead because no one has views everyone can agree on.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 Potentially part of Leadsom's campaign strategy.
The Guvnor Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 I thought you were suggesting that it was May's supporters who were up to shenanigans, not Gove's? That doesn't bother me, as politics involves a lot of shenanigans. I'm more interested in whether or not she lied and exaggerated on her CV - that would be a disqualification from office as PM, if she did, surely? Should be easy to prove one way or the other. There will surely be contemporary documents to show what posts and responsibilities she held during her career in the City? Thats true Alf im sure you can qualify positions held with a little effort but it does not have the same impact does it as an old aquaintance muddying the waters. Gove seemed determined to rid Andrea of reaching the final two and prepared to take two months of thrashing from Theresa if thats what it takes so Gove / May on this occasion appeared to be working hand in hand. Makes it all a bit more intriguing when Gove was a brexiteer.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 In that case nobody can lead because no one has views everyone can agree on. Your are of course free to misinterpret what I've put if you wish to, but let's be clear I've not suggested that a leader should have views that everyone can agree with have I?
Thracian Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 I don't get your point? I don't have a problem with gay marriage but if somebody has a genuine religious conviction I think they're entitled to believe that, doesn't mean she's planning to repeal the law, and I've never been anti foxhunting. People say all politicians are the same but when somebody says something outside of popular opinion it's said they're not leadership material. I'm neutral atm I wouldn't mind either candidate. Presumably they'll be a televised debate maybe I'll decide then, not that I've got a vote. I'm with you entirely. I find it refreshing for a politician to stand by their views rather than being a deceitful Bullshit Blair. Nor am I naive enough to believe I'll agree with all the views of any politician or to even believe my own views are necessarily the best ones overall and certainly not for people who have different needs to look out for . But I'd sooner vote for a politician whose word and arguments I can trust, than someone like Blair who couldn't be trusted.
Dr The Singh Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 I agree, she dies seem the type that, if she is going to put out, she will put out
Webbo Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 Your are of course free to misinterpret what I've put if you wish to, but let's be clear I've not suggested that a leader should have views that everyone can agree with have I? . I don't see how her views mean she can't govern for all.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 . I don't see how her views mean she can't govern for all. That's fine, you're just proving my earlier point really.
Webbo Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 That's fine, you're just proving my earlier point really.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2016 Posted 7 July 2016 @@Webbo The views she has expressed are marginal ones in terms of overall public opinion and starkly regressive - now I'm fine for someone to hold them personally, but as a leader of the country you need a balanced and broader position so you can govern for all. I agree in the main but a population will also support people who have a vision for their nation. And a credible argument for trying to deliver on that vision in a manner which shows respect for other people's rights and makes the least negative impact on those rights. No Prime Minister or political party can satisfy all the people always, materially or philosophically. Much philosophy centres around rights but what often seems to be forgotten is the impact of one person's rights on the rights of another. To me everyone should be as protective of other people's rights as their own and respect the fact that those other people are individuals with the freedom and right to make their own choices within a basic protective framework rather than having those rights dictated by someone else.
Robin JD Popley Posted 8 July 2016 Posted 8 July 2016 I have decided to support Mrs May for my Party leadership and therefore, our next Prime Minister. I believe she has experience of dealing with complex matters which we need during the Brexit negotiation process. Whilst Mrs Leadsom may have banking expertise to her name, it is a very different proposition dealing with 27 EU states. I already envisage Mrs May walking into that room (firmly) to fight our corner but in a considered and fair way. Whoever wins, I shall of course support, but I think the Conservative Party needs a new direction now and I look forward to helping create that.
Finnaldo Posted 8 July 2016 Posted 8 July 2016 Should of put some bloody money on Theresa May in the end then! Decent odds as well as I recall.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.