A foolish candidate for Prime Minister, Andrea Leadsom thought it would help her campaign to talk to the Times (of London).
No well-rehearsed platitudes for Leadsom! When interviewer Rachel Sylvester asked what the differences were between herself and leading candidate Theresa May (oh, those trick questions), Leadsom said “economic competence and family.”
I find that children are so TANGIBLE. (Leadsom, 2013.)
Family? Which candidate is the Mafiosa and is that good or bad for Britain?
No, that’s not what she meant by family, she meant “being a mum.”
What?
Sylvester (a parent herself) asked “Do you feel like a mum in politics?” Leadsom said yes; Sylvester asked “Why and how?”
“So, really carefully, because I am sure, I don’t really know Theresa very well but I am sure she will be really really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’ because I think that would be really horrible.
Theresa May could not care less what happens to this shrubbery in the future. ( 2007.)
“But genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.
“She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children, who are going to have children, who will directly be a part of what happens next.
“So it really keeps you focused on ‘what are you really saying?’ Because what it really means is you don’t want a downturn but ‘never mind, let’s look ahead to the ten years’ hence it will all be fine. My children will be starting their lives in that next ten years so I have a real stake in the next year, the next two.”
(The next year or two? That’s quite short-term planning, interesting in the light of the fact that in the recent Brexit vote Leadsom supported the “Leave” position, which is already creating considerable fallout.)
“Après nous, le Déluge” or, “After us, the Flood,” or “Don’t be upset about the Battle of Rossbach – any bad results will be in the future.” Madame de Pompadour was just cheering up a gloomy king. Who had ten children.
A few days before Leadsom’s remarks, May had spoken of her sadness that she and her husband had not been able to have children.
Leadsom’s views on who has a reason to care about the future and who doesn’t were headline news, to her annoyance. She was “disgusted” and said “the reporting was beneath contempt.” She demanded a retraction. She said “I want to be crystal clear that everyone has an equal stake in our society and in the future of our country.”
Leadsom apparently texted an apology to May. She told the BBC:
I’ve already said to Theresa how very sorry I am for any hurt I have caused.
She added:
that article said completely the opposite of what I said and believe.
Something that was undermined when the Times released the transcript and audio of the interview.
Anne Henriette de France, wondering why she has to take music lessons if there’s just going to be a Flood.
May’s aides said their boss was grateful and had texted back thanks.
No doubt. However, that’s a terrible apology. It’s basically a sorry-if, that despicable form of phony apology. Along with a defense that runs counter to the facts, it doesn’t succeed. ‘Sorry if you were hurt by anything that I DID NOT SAY ignore the tape.’
Many in her own party were cross. Ruth Davidson said “I am childless. I have nieces and nephews. I believe I – like everybody else – have a very real stake in our country.”
Former minister Sir Alan Duncan tweeted: “I’m gay and in a civil partnership. No children, but 10 nieces and nephews. Do I not have a stake in the future of the country? Vile.”
Leadsom withdrew from the race. May became Prime Minister today.
It seems that the issue of mumhood as an indicator of concern about the future has been dropped. Leadsom vanished from the public stage without explaining the nuances of her thought.
Some people plan for their kids to ride it out on the yacht. And to hell with the tigers.
For example, can you get the effect with a single child? Would someone with five children be more prudent than Leadsom, who has a mere three?
Does it have to be a biological child?
What if your child doesn’t plan to have children? Leadsom says her children will have children, but she could be wrong, as many frustrated wanna-be grandparents could tell her. Maybe all three of Leadsom’s kids winced in alarm when they learned she said that.
What if your child is always ignoring wise advice and getting into trouble, indicating total inability to fend for themselves in the future? Maybe it would be better if the world just ended so you wouldn’t have to worry about their destiny. Fire, ice, bring it on.
But the nasty truth is there are quite a few people who have children and are still doing things that are reckless of – destructive of – the future. Knowingly. People, corporations, and whole governments. My guess is that many such people have adopted the strategy of piling up as much money as they can on the premise that their children will be able to buy their way into the lifeboats/subterranean bunker cities/spaceships fleeing the planet. Kind of stupid, kind of evil.
Thanks to Wendy Grossman, our Senior Tennis Correspondent, for taking her eye off the courts for a minute to send this one along.
I felt so sorry for that foolish woman. THAT is one of the reasons I prefer to be interviewed for things via email; I literally break into a sweat and do not remember a WORD I’ve said otherwise. Anxiety produces such an effect — but I think I do know enough to NEVER make some comparison between myself and another person. THAT is a slippery slope, indeed… and in politics, honestly, is there any real difference between A. and B., at least within the same party? …not really. But NO ONE wants to admit that!