to think that Andrea Leadsom should not be prime minister?

[sorbetandcream1]

She is against gay marriage.
She has hugely exaggerated aspects of her CV numerous times in the past (she lied).
She has said some awful comments relating to Theresa May, indicating that Andrea will be a better pm because shes a mum.
She seems to have incredibly strong, extreme Christian views. I very much doubt she can fairly represent the views of the country.
She just to be a strong supporter of remain campaign but changed her mind for this election. Unclear why.
She can't win, can she?

We'll still be a parliamentary democracy, motions will still have to be voted through parliament. I'm not pro AL at all, or TM either (although I would prefer TM to AL). But should AL become prime minister she won't suddenly be able to bring back fox-hunting and stop abortion and gay marriage.

I think the world is a crazy place at the moment but it's not that crazy that prime ministers can run rough shod over the laws of this country and change them to suit their personal inclination.

It won't be just Civil Servants "guiding" her, Im also worried that Ian Duncan Smith is one of her main supporters. He will be jockeying for a plum job.

As will Boris!

Andrea is interviewed by the Times, one of the UK's respected newspapers, then doesn't like it that what she said got reported? How extremely naive. IF she gets to be PM, she will be slaughtered by the 'gutter press' within days. Silly woman.

Leadsom is proving herself a liar in many departments already. Untrustworthy, backstabbing, bitchy, and nowhere near enough experience for the job.

The issue of bringing back fox hunting is the last thing that should be worrying the people of this country at the moment.

Having either of these women as our PM is scary but Leadsom would be completely out of her depth when what we need is someone who is prepared to go in and negotiate with Europe with a cool head and get the best deal for us. May is more likely to achieve that. I don't particularly like her but one thing she isn't is a walk over.

The idea that the Conservative party faithful is going to chose our next PM is just crazy and it would be reasonable to expect to have a general election as soon as the CP has their new lead installed, but having said that, looking at what's on offer by the opposition perhaps that's not such a good idea.

Pidgeon I agree its a huge hurdle to fall at in her position and with her dream to be PM.

The issue of bringing back fox hunting is the last thing that should be worrying the people of this country at the moment

The horror and carnage that Blair wrecked on the UK and Iraq and yet the topic to keep the plebs in line was fox hunting, Fox hunting dominated parliament and the news.

If another government dares to make it such a huge issue again...

If you have to have been a member of the Conservative Party for three months to vote - there at last is one area where they show more sense than Labour who allowed vast numbers to join just to vote for Corbyn.

Leadsom seems out of her depth to me. I saw her being questioned on the news and she just doesn't have that gravitas I think you need to be PM. She doesn't have the strength or the experience of May and I feel disappointed that the Torys couldn't produce some better candidates. But this is where we are.

Don't hunt foxes. Hunt Brexit-voters. Rip 'em to shreds.

Andrew, take your bloody meds!

Anna Soubry, minister for small business, industry and enterprise, has put it nicely;

the interview “shows Andrea Leadsom is not PM material".

"She should do us all a favour including herself and step aside ... we need a PM [with] real experience at the highest level, proven competence, a safe pair of hands, a compassionate on nation Tory… AL [Andrea Leadsom] way out of her depth," she tweeted.

She has also made derogatory comments about single parents

Is no-one else concerned that this is one of the Murdoch papers spinning against her? (The Times is supporting May)
The journalist said on the BBC earlier that AL brought up motherhood while they were asking about differences such as leave/remain, etc yet the transcript seems to show differently. The journalist asks directly about her saying "as a mum" to explain her position in some of the debates. I suspect this is the level of spin Murdoch rags apply to influence the decisions they want

May is very unpopular for not dealing with immigration and deporting foreign criminals.

I disagree, in high-profile cases she was over-ruled by the ECHR

Not sure what difference it makes Kummerspecks. She said what she said, no one forced her.

...so, obviously, if you're AL being interviewed by a hostile 'Murdoch rag', you don't dig yourself into quite such a fuckwitted hole, Kummerspeck.

Of course they were out to nobble her. The fact that she was too dim to sidestep it nicely demonstrates her lack of experience, but also her inability to think on her feet. In fact, not even that - it was an entirely predictable line of questioning which she apparently didn't anticipate.

She's just not bright enough for the job.

Kummer I agree about the media spinning it, but she should have known this and simply declined to bring her family into it.

I understand during the debates why she kept pushing the family because the other side did so.

" For our childrens futures vote remain" so she countered with " but I am a mum too, and I am voting OUT for my dc futures"

I get that. But I dont get this latest fudge.

I am not a politician, I would have known to have steered clear of this now.

This is why I really dislike MN sometimes. The group think is relentless.

My Facebook, twitter and RL friends were all aghast that Leave had ruined their children's futures. This was without thought for any of the childless amongst us. It's just an angle isn't it? Children are another thing to worry about in the whole future of the U.K. debate.
She also specifically says she doesn't want to get into it with TM and she doesn't know her and doesn't want to upset her.

Children of politicians get dragged into many debates including state or private education, care provision, SN provision etc. It doesn't mean one without children can't have a valid opinion. It does mean that one with them will have experienced some of those issues first hand.

Exactly what CrowyMcCrowFace said.

Shes a misogynist.

I read the transcript. She was asked about the "mum" thing but nobody forced her to bring May's childlessness into it. It's not groupthink to think its a low blow against someone who has likely suffered from the heartbreak of infertility .

Yes BigTrouble she was over-ruled by the ECHR in some cases so why on earth does she still want to be part of it?

The Italians in some situations were also told they couldn't deport criminals but put them on a plane anyway. I think they were fined about £12,000.

Then she said that she would deport illegal immigrants and they could appeal from their countries of origin. That hasn't happened either.

I listened to the transcript on R4 this morning and the way AL brought the subject up was particularly poisonous and disingenuous.

A bit like when people say "I don't mean to be offensive but..." and then go on to be incredibly offensive.

Perhaps AL should have been more honest and said "I don't mean to be an utter bitch but..."

Is no-one else concerned that this is one of the Murdoch papers spinning against her? (The Times is supporting May)

I've listened to the transcript and this isn't spin. She said it, she meant it, and now she's trying to wriggle out of it. It's not the first time either.