Teresa May or Andrea Leadsom?

[Toofondofcake]

So without starting anything too politically fraught I wonder if people would share with me who they prefer for conservative leadership out of the two.

The race is now down to them and so we will have a female PM again!

Opinions?

then She's appealing to the worst in the nature of grassroots voters. However seeing as she's so anti same sex marriage and pro fox hunting that's not surprising.

Oh it wasn't accidental. This is the only thing she's got on Theresa May - they are in most ways very similar. Both Tory women, both christian, both eurosceptic. Only May has LOADS more experience than her.

She's just pissed at the editorial the Times put on her comment - an editorial that I don't think was remotely unfair considering her own words.

Having listened to the audio I think she is incredibly naive and doesn't have the expertise or savvy to be PM. I also think she's outraged because she genuinely didn't mean to be nasty because her views are naturally prejudiced and her outlook as a mother is one of ingrained superiority. That said, she has played this card twice before so clearly has the sensitivity of a bull-dozer in not having learnt by now to shut up about it.

I'm far more concerned about her faked CV and shady business deals in Chile.

She's not appealing to the grass roots. Her target at the moment is the party membership. They are a very different animal to the grassroots voters.

Marina Hyde's article in today's Guardian ends with:
There are few neater indicators of quite how far we’ve travelled over the past 14 days than to find so many people, particularly non-Tory voters, now actively yearning for it to be Theresa May. “Christ,” muttered one friend with wry despair, “I now want this more than I did Obama.” Yup, we’re all realpolitikos now.
About sums it up for me!

And me, MotherofPearl.

Strange times.

I think I'd be rooting for Thatcher if she was up against Leadsom

Also this: www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/9-reasons-you-should-be-truly-terrified-andrea-leadsom-becoming-prime-minister

She has her eye on the grassroots though. The Ukip and wider Brexit votes.

Quite versatile when you think about it - the elite and the grass roots. I'm getting scared, personally.

Not sure about Leadsom. She supports a Heathrow third runway.

That's a pity, because I am TOTALLY opposed to the third runway at LHR. It's for hub traffic, and is just a money earner for the Spanish owners of Heathrow. I have phoned and emailed the airport to say that if they want more hub capacity so badly they can build another runway in fucking Malaga.

The following are excellent hub airports: Schipol, de Gaulle and Frankfurt. There's absolutely no necessity to have en route passengers flying across the European land mass into London only to change planes and fly out again. They will not be spending in the UK so we dont even get some money. Dont forget the extra carbon footprint of an aircraft flying across the North Sea and the English Channel to temporarily deposit passengers who are not leaving the airport.

And of course the bottom line is the quality of air has NOT been cleaned up in that locale, it is well above the danger limits set by the EU.

I heard that interview, Riverwalk.

She wasn't quite sure what she wanted, a runway or a terminal or possibly both. But she wanted it.
Same with on Gatwick.

Riverwalk, the UK does benefit financially from having planes stop by here rather than Paris. Each flight pays hefty landing fees, and needs to stock up on fuel, food etc, and while the top profit portion may go to a foreign company, most will percolate through the local economy. Heathrow is a HUGE employer for example.

disclosure I live near Heathrow, have nothing to do with the airport, and don't like flying. But many of my neighbours have Heathrow connected jobs.

Back to Leadsom: On other MNet threads and before this blew up she has been referred to as "Andrea 'as a mum' Leadsom". The remark about her children was entirely in character. The comment about May was loathsome, but also in character. (Everything I have seen of what Leadsom has said builds a picture of someone totally lacking in empathy. Possibly too many years pretending to be a City dickswinger.)

To my mind, her unsuitability for high office was more demonstrated by her outrage at the Times reporting what she said. On R4 news they played excerpts from the recorded interview, and then had a Leadsom spokesperson denying she had said what had just been played back!

But unless you are a member of the Tory party your views don't matter. She is appealing to the party membership, and the majority of them are over 65 (reported the BBC) and that is the cohort which voted in the main for Brexit. Leadsom's best card is that she is an enthusiast for Brexit, always has been, and enough Tory Brexit loving members may regard that as the only qualification required.

So while I agree she is awful, and May for all her faults is miles better, this is far from a one horse race.

"And of course the bottom line is the quality of air has NOT been cleaned up in that locale, it is well above the danger limits set by the EU."

Priceless comment by Riverwalk!! Good job we'll soon be done with the EU and their pesky rules, eh?

So while I agree she is awful, and May for all her faults is miles better, this is far from a one horse race.

Spot on: among this very narrow (in many ways) electorate, she is seen as the favourite.

You would hope so, Tiggytape. The evidence isn't encouraging though.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/16/tim-loughton-sarah-teather_n_3935818.html

Tim Loughton is Leadsom's campaign manager.
He made a dig about a childless minister in 2013 at a Conservative activist event.

Galdos - Most of my neighbours work at LHR, I have worked there as well. If the hub runway does NOT go ahead nothing bad will happen to Heathrow. There will not be job losses, or companies whose livelihoods are connected to it going out of business, the warehouses and bond houses disappearing etc etc. Everything will stay as it is. That is scare-mongering.

The only reason the 3rd runway is on the agenda is to make money for the owner and brown envelopes for those who allow it to go ahead.

Decision has been delayed again, because - in my view - Govt is waiting for us to properly Brexit when they can then ride roughshod over the high pollution, which currently exceeds EU danger limits. Having said that though, even if we were not Brexiting the inability to improve air will not stop the runway going ahead.

Do you honestly think anything will percolate thru to the local economy, because I don't?

A third runway would have a damaging effect on the A4 as well, which is the Great West Road. It will be gridlock and higher pollution.

Riverwalk - I haven't a clue, but the Sunday Times today says that "the Independent Airports Commission ... estimates that [adding a third runway] will contribute up to £211bn in economic growth, and 180,000 new jobs." I don't know if a second runway at Gatwick (or elsewhere) would have the same or similar predicted effect, and of course it is a prediction and those are always reliable (not). My point is that if at Heathrow, it is not only the airport's owners who will benefit economically.

Personally a third runway would affect me badly. I live under what would be the most likely new flightpath. Air quality (as you observe) is already shite (I can't leave washing out to dry except on very rare occasions, and have developed a persistent dry cough) and the traffic is already grim pretty much all the time. I wouldn't benefit economically myself (except in the facile 'a rising tide lifts all boats' sense). But overall I don't think my personal circumstances should be the only factor in my thoughts on the subject.

Is it me or does AL have a worrying maniacal glint in her eye ? Just saying...

Don't really care as hell would freeze over before I made any kind of vote for a Tory.

Oh, and I agree that the Tories (in particular) may use the 'bonfire of the regulations' to overlook worsening air quality, but it should be remembered that clean air legislation in Europe was pioneered by the UK (a Tory Government) in the Clean Air Act 1956, prompted by the Great Smog of 1952 which killed thousands of people.

In today's more democratic age, and when so much more information is so much more widely available, I suspect any government would tread warily in encouraging the worsening of voters' lives.

So yes, like you I am suspicious, but not without a measure of hope.

As for the alternatives, I recall a pre Boris version of Boris Island in the Thames Estuary was bruited in the late 1960s/early 1970s, but abandoned because it would destroy/adversely affect a bird breeding ground. The cost then, if I recall aright (and I may not - it was a long time ago) was considered astronomical at something like £100m. Nowadays, would we willingly agree to shorten human lives in favour of seabirds?

Marilyn, yes. Have you seen Terminator?

Galdos That is always what we are told by various entities and authorities - that there will be economic growth. But I always ask myself 'has it enriched me in some way or my local area.'

As regards the estuary airport proposed by BoJo - I was thoroughly against that too. It would have wiped out an important habitat for wild birds, an area some returned to annually. Yes, wildlife is important and I personally would never approve wiping out a habitat. Remember all those idiots who would complain about bees and try to swat them .... well now we are at the tipping point of losing them just like China did theirs. So twice a year you have vast amounts of Chinese walking around shaking trees to help pollination, because they have killed the bees who did that for them.

We cannot go on and on and on expanding to the detriment of people's quality of life, even if a development produces more jobs. It's all so shortsighted.