UKC

Just been reading an article in the Yahoo Politics section and never realised how much conviction this woman has and how far she is prepared to go with that conviction/passion.

So, on a scale of 'one' to 'WTF', where would you put our Presumptive nomination for MP?

In reply to The Lemming:

The situation isn't good </understatement>
jk

In reply to The Lemming:

Somewhere between a mild case of Ebola and a Zombie Apocalypse.

In reply to The Lemming:

11... And never forget that she agreed to do this:

http://www.spearswms.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Theresa-May-strange-sta...

In reply to The Lemming:

Apparently Gove is more moderate.....F***!!!

In reply to Clauso:

Don't let Yanis Nayu see that!

In reply to The Lemming:

Somewhere between Margaret and Adolf, if we're lucky.

In reply to The Lemming:
Marina Hyde's article in the Guardian yesterday was rather good I thought and included this rather nice simile:


“Have you ever taken anything out of the dirty-clothes basket because it had become, relatively, the cleaner thing?” There is something of this to Theresa May’s leadership bid.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Too late...

In reply to Kimono:



I thought that was brilliant.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Is it too late for either Marina Hyde or Victoria Coren Mitchell to apply for the job?

In reply to The Lemming:
The way she treated no-EU migrants was disgraceful, causing very young children to be separated from their parents. Very scared at how she will treat EU migrant post brexit. 10/10

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I hope you have plenty of Compeed...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


As lovely as Mrs Coren Mitchell is, I don't think I could live with the waves of smugness radiating from the TV every time she was intervied.

In reply to The Lemming:

She's largely incompetent and rather deluded. She's presided over a 3x increase in immigration and a massive IT failure...as reported in this Telegraph article that has since been pulled from the web at the request of May's rather naive campaign team.

http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressu...

In reply to Shani:

She was good on hills borough and has tackled police vested interests. So 50/50.

Considering we had free movement of people within Europe she could hardly control migration

In reply to Shani:

All government IT projects are disastrous. I'm not sure this is TM's fault any more than her inability to cut migration from the EU.

What I can assure you it's much harder today for non-EU migrants than it was 5 years ago. We no longer can access highly qualified Indian software engineers because the new points system barely recognises the importance of the IT industry (by contrast with oil and gas or health).

If all IT projects are a disaster then it is encumbent on leadership not to repeat mistakes. SCRUM came from the ashes of two hugely expensive, consecutive IT failures for the FBI. We KNOW what fails in IT projects and we know how to fix it.


This doesn't sound like a success.

In reply to Shani:

It's a reduction in migration. Take Control

In reply to The Lemming:
Well after reading the above I googled her. Very interesting.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_May
Sounds like the kinda girl you d like to take a friends 40th but not to your grannies 90th .
Edit : slight possibility that the link is NSFW .

In reply to The Lemming:

Problem is, she seems like the moderate one.

In reply to DaveN:


Just learned that Gove, Fox and Leadsome all want to leave the single market while May is prepared to be flexible and try and negotiate a deal on free movement and the single market. Could be that she is the one candidate who might save us from catastrophe (never thought I'd say that)

In reply to neilh:



Well, she made a mess of non-eu migration, and been peddling lies about immigration in general, often contradicting the evidence from her own department.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-im...

In reply to Pekkie:

Agreed 100%. More pragmatic.

In reply to Pekkie:


I'm more concerned that if she leads the party and the country and the negotiations, then whatever the deal she gets, people, like me ,will forever think that we could have got a much better deal if a Brexiters had led it. ( granted she has said some Eurosceptic things in years gone by, and may have been swithering on being in the leave and remain camps)

But I might go with May as leader with Leadsom leading the negotiations.

No matter who gets in , they will be asked during the campaign by Brexiters to guarantee that they will honour the leave vote , and envoke article 50, their promises made during the campaign will be crucial, as will the person leading the negotiations.

In reply to jkarran:



You self-closing XML tag is incorrect. The / should appear at the end, <likethis />
Either that or you forgot the opening tag.

In reply to Helen Bach:


Its a bug in May's spysoftware. It was supposed to turn it into a compliment about her.

In reply to Jim C:



Just Wow.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I haven't even got the energy to say Wow. Just a deep sigh.

In reply to Pekkie:

The Tories only have a majority of 16. The Tories couldn't get laws about fox hunting through with their majority of 16, they would have zero chance with something as divisive as this if Labour did its job.

Whoever replaces Corbyn needs to stand up and say:
a. Labour believes that parliament has to endorse any deal before the Article 50 letter is sent.
b. Labour will call a no-confidence motion if they try and send the Article 50 letter without consulting parliament.
c. Labour will not vote for any deal which involves leaving the single market or restricting freedom of movement.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

They could. Unfortunately their current "leader" at best doesn't care and probably wants us out with no freedom of anything.

In reply to Shani:



I saw that link on another forum, and although I'm no fan of May and her authoritarianism, wondered if there was an agenda other than just 'public interest'. Order-order is a right-wing libertarian blog that has some very immoderate right-wing followers whose opinions go unchallenged, if not even 'approved'. To an item there on the death of Jo Cox, one 'recommended' reader comment ...

>>>>>>"HUNDREDS of British Citizens raped and murdered by Refujihadis and all the MSM cares about is ONE bleedingheart BIMBO whose mental illness caused her to care more about Savages then about Her own People ...... because she could feel SUPERIOR in gracing them with her BOUNTY

Pleas note --- she was REAL "charitable" with OTHER PEOPLE'S money.and always careful to make sure people knew how "WONDERFULLY HELPFUL" she was ......
a regular PROFESSIONAL SAINT."<<<<<<<<<<<<

See also ... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jo-cox-was-wrong-to-help-muslims-says-bnp...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The Tories won't be happy until they completely break Britain, or at least turn it into UK.PLC.

In reply to spotter1:


Just one flip-flop? Weirdo!

;~))

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well given that May is the clear favourite , ( although I might be premature in crowning her) what is your best guess who she would pick to lead the negotiation? ( and again this is my best guess of what would happen if she was)

May has said on Peston that she would trigger article 50 (once she knew what the best negotiating position is, and as has been pointed out on Sunday Politics just now that you have to look at how the EU would be boosted if a remainer was leading the opposition, which would make it difficult for her to do do it herself.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I was just having a look to see if I could find out how many of the 29 initially accused of electoral fraud are still under investigation. It may yet emerge that they stole that election. (Or, rather bought it, in violation of the rules on campaign spending.)

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:




There won't be any deal to endorse before the letter is sent as negotiations can't even be started before then.

In reply to Jim C:

I don't follow the logic that a Brexiter should lead the negotiations. Surely the best option is someone broadly balanced between the camps, commited to exit but able to judge what is best for Britain in the round.

What the negotiator said before the referendum is pretty much irrelevant in my view. It's the quality of their negotiating that should be paramount.

In reply to BnB:

I was going to say the same thing - although I might go further. Given a resolute "leaver" will have scant appreciation for anything EU, isn't that dogmatism likely to make for a worse negotiating stance?

In reply to The Lemming:

Not even approaching the danger posed by Cummings...he'll be operating in the long shadows of Westminster, without a doubt. Be afraid.

In reply to BnB:



The clear logic is, that you put the country at a distinct disadvantage of getting the best deal if the EU get to negotiate with someone who is on their side. It is not too hard to understand that to be clearly the case.

Following on from that, whatever deal a remainer comes back with, as I said earlier, will always be seen ( by the majority of people who voted out) as not as good as as could have been got by a committed leaver.

I can see that as a remainer you might consider the best deal as one that keeps us in the EU ( as Blair is trying to do)

In reply to andyfallsoff:

But, as a trade off of getting elected leader( if she does) May might need a compromise to have a resolute leaver to give some kind of confidence that there is no stitch up. ( as Blair is trying to do right now)

I appreciate that they are not obvious bedfellows, but if the bookies give me odds on it, I might put a few quid in it.

Stranger things have happened, and as I said I am only guessing, I did after all predict that the remainers would win, so what do I know, and I'm no expert on the Tory party personalities.

In reply to Jim C:


It's a straightforward argument but also fairly naive because it ignores the economic damage caused by uncertainty and contention. If you want to get the 'best possible deal' the first thing you need to do is show you are willing to walk away from anything less. As soon as you do that the other side needs to take the same approach so you get the UK saying it's willing to leave completely and the EU shouting on you go then and both sides waiting for the other to blink while business grinds to a halt. That is a stupid situation to be in when the negotiations are massively complex and detailed and the EU is 20 something countries with differing views and the UK itself has multiple views and a parliament which may not endorse whatever the government negotiates.

Neither side has full negotiating authority and neither side can even comprehend the full scope of the negotiation.
Which means the only chance of negotiating anything useful within two years and not have the economy fall apart in the process is to have someone in charge that can collaborate with the EU, start from an established template like Norway which changes as little as possible and make incremental changes.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Which means the only chance of negotiating anything useful within two years and not have the economy fall apart in the process is to have someone in charge that can collaborate with the EU, start from an established template like Norway which changes as little as possible and make incremental changes.

And your choice is who for Prime minister, and who for leading the negotiations ?
( I trust when you say 'collaborate, with the EU' , you don't mean someone who will be seen as a soft touch, as that will raise the EU's their expectations of what they can get)

In reply to Jim C:




I think you got it the wrong way around, the negotiations are not going to be about what the "EU can get. It's about what concession we are wiling to make in exchange of free trade.

In reply to Jim C:


If it was my choice we wouldn't be in this mess. Given that the only options for the next Tory leader are Gove, May and Leadsom then I'd go with May. But that's like choosing between gonorrhea and syphilis .

Assuming Tony Blair doesn't get arrested next week they should ask him to run the negotiations and listen to him when he comes back in a year and tells them leaving is a stupid idea.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tony-blair-second-eu-r...


The EU is going to offer us the EEA deal like Norway and Switzerland. We should either not leave or take it. This isn't like engineering where you are looking for the best possible option and can take your time and move things around at will to get there. It is like medicine where you have to keep the patient alive and healthy while you are trying to change things: if you get too ambitious the patient won't survive.

Our terms of trade with the US and other countries throughout the world are now based on trade deals negotiated by the EU. If we are out the EU we don't just need a new deal with the EU we need to talk to all those other countries as well. Maybe some of them won't offer a nation of 60 million the same terms as a trading block of 250 million. And all this when the UK has not done trade negotiations on its own behalf for decades, the trade negotiators we have currently work for the EU. Maybe they will come back to the UK to help the Tories or maybe some of them will prefer to stay in Brussels. The whole thing is just not manageable in two years unless we pretty much leave everything alone.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

With Tony Blair there will be no negotiation ( or democracy ) I have just listened to him on R4 , he quite clearly wants to ignore the referendum completely .

In reply to RomTheBear:


If you have low expectations view going into a negotiation, you will get what you negotiate , the other side will make sure of that.
And that is what you will get if you put a remainer in charge.

You can just see the opening day of any negotiation with the EU and a remainer 'negotiator' there will be a nod and a wink, and in that blink of and eye , the democratic vote will be overturned.

In reply to Jim C:


And you think noone would notice if we just didn't leave the EU? It will be fairly clear if we've left or not, it's a binary question. Thanks to the utter lack of a plan from the exit crowd, there can be no argument that an EEA deal is not a reflection of the popular vote.

In reply to The Lemming:

Could the EU BREXIT and Bremainers

please p1ss off?

You have enough threads for which to ramble on and naval gaze, without having to play on this OP as well.

In reply to The Lemming:



Err, no. perhaps you could you do that and leave the grown-ups to discuss grown-up stuff?

In reply to The Lemming:

Will try but it's a bit difficult to ignore though, given its one of the biggest considerations about the tory leadership contest (and the reason we're having it).

In reply to The Lemming:

What are her convictions and how far will she go?

In reply to Jim C:

I don't think we are in any danger of running out of high expectations.



There is nothing to be overturned really, the referendum is not binding. You would think the newly self-appointed champions of parliamentary sovereignty would understand.

In reply to Pekkie:


Show me a grown up on this site then?

Now go play somewhere else. As it is there are far too many post referendum threads and I'd like to discuss or learn something different and new.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Don't think that there are not divisions on the EU side.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/685671/EU-referendum-Poland-Angela-M...


Very true I made that very point myself around the same time I predicted a remain win.
( And it will not be binding until we vote the 'right way' )

In reply to Jim C:



Did you really just linked to the Express ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you will find that the Lemming asks the questions on his threads. Annoyingly.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

No.

Many of my op's evolve and morph into many and varied directions but on this occasion, why morph into another brexit tit for tat rant.

In reply to The Lemming:

What about PPs question?

In reply to The Lemming:


May is rather tied up with Brexit, you know.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You don't expect a pre Europe newspaper to carry any story that does not confirm the narrative that we are all doomed and we will have no allies, do you.

In reply to Jim C:


Actually that is not the central narrative of that piece. Also there is an interesting version in the DT which says that Merkel, who is at odds with Juncker and the Franco-Itlian alliance over their predictabe push for "more Europe", is trying to create an aliance with the East Europeans to prevent this and possible create room for negotiation with UK as a result.

A bit bloody late now, some may say.....

In reply to The Lemming:

she's the only candidate I'd consider any where near reasonable

In reply to Postmanpat:


Listen to this previous harbinger of doom
youtube.com/watch?v=-qE3x0dw9xI&

And they say the Brexiters are backtracking.

As it happen, I agree with him he is saying exactly what I have been saying, look forward and forget all the previous 'emotional' comments
on both sides

In reply to Jim C:




I like Marr's description, "piffle"

In reply to Jim C:


What are you trying to say here? It's not like it's hard to find an anti EU paper which isn't the express.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

One question per thread as well. Rarely any follow up queries.

In reply to wercat:


Her ideas about IT security are nuts. She does seem skilled at dodging the blame as well. It's interesting how low key she was in the campaign.

In reply to Jim C:

Ok, if you actually think a joke tabloid is a source of information you can refer to, that explains a lot.

In reply to BnB:

I heard about somebody from Brazil being deported because the company he worked/works for was recently bought out, and the name of the company didn't match the company name on his VISA any longer, and even though all the people involved in the process of deporting him recognised it was an administrative error, due to the policies of the current (soon to be previous?) government, there wasn't any flexibility in terms of allowing him to stay long enough to get things straightened out. He and his wife and small child could only take what they could carry, meaning they had to leave their rented home, and give away or sell the furniture, a lot of clothes and most of their little son's toys, too. It's essentially a loss to the UK economy because in the UK he's been talented guy working in a profitable company, and is now pondering working in another country instead.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It has gone quiet after this link of the Business Secretary , I wonder why? Has the penny dropped ?

( awaits personal attack, racist, xenaphobe, ignorant and stupid , uneducated

Fixed that for them

In reply to Jim C:

You would think the penny has dropped

It could be that he didn't want to be 'talking down the economy' ?

In reply to Timmd:
>
There are lots of cases along these lines. It's what happens when governments set themselves unattainable targets. Basically they went for the low hanging fruit ie. often visible and honest immigrants caught out by minor administrative oversights. The real dodgy ones fly under the radar. Doesn't reflect well on May, who must have known. But targets are targets and foreigners can't vote.

In reply to Timmd:



Of course, funny that , it's what I ( and other's ) have been saying from day one, that is what I meant by the penny has dropped.
( if you read back various threads)

No, insults, no name calling , I was just saying don't get involved with self fulfilling prophesies get behind the UK, and show a united front in future negotiations .
No more recriminations, just make the best of where we are.

Here is another voice of reason without insults.
youtube.com/watch?v=zTex2lRHbok&

In reply to Jim C:

Was just joshing, will have a look/listen.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It doesn't reflect well on the country. It will make (valuable, productive, wealth generating) people less likely to come here. And now we are about to extend this approach to EU citizens. In fact it already has. I have had numerous conversations already with European colleagues who are reassessing their plans for the future. No doubt some will make no changes but others certainly will. It's madness.

In reply to Timmd:

And the French are out to punish us too. ( aren't they ?)
youtube.com/watch?v=OZJGNP5Z0Dc&

In reply to MG:
>
In the UK's case I suspect a large part of the problem was that the system was not designed for the pressures it suddenly became subject to : unprecedentedly large numbers of applications followed by a sudden clampdown. It doesn't stop Canada, Australia and the US etc attracting and accepting large number of migrants.

Jon Stewart is the man to ask. He has strong views in the topic!

In reply to Jim C:

Nobody is punishing anybody, it just seems pretty clear that we won't be in the single market unless we accept freedom of movement.

Appart from that I think we can probably have free trade of goods, and some services (probably excluding finance).

In reply to Postmanpat:

Do they almost arbitrarily deport people too?

In reply to Postmanpat:

And yet we attract a higher proportion of skilled worker through freedom of moment than they do (only Canada does lightly better I think).
Visa systems are a pain and clearly don't work that well at attracting skilled people, we would have been better of working at extending freedom of movement with Australia and Canada for example, there is public support for it, and would have reduced net migration, whilst giving more freedoms instead of restricting them.

In reply to The Lemming:


Your two times table? Or maybe you could try without the nappy tonight?

In reply to MG:


I don't know. Define "arbitrarily"

In reply to Jim C:



First time anyone has linked to the Express on here to try to prove a point in the EU debate? Owned by an offshore tax dodger, front page lie about the EU every day, affectionately known as 'The Forger's Gazette'. Congratulations Jim C!

In reply to Jim C:


Even if things work out okay, it doesn't change the 'manner' in which the Leave Vote was won. That remains a sticking point for me.

youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI&

This is from a legal professor. It is 20 minutes long, but that perhaps shows the extent of the dishonesty from those in the Vote Leave group.

As far as possible, integrity and truthfulness are essential in a democracy. Even if one doesn't agree with his final analysis about what might be to come, that doesn't alter the untruths he highlights.

youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y&

Here's something on the legal and consitutional implications if Brexit does go ahead. It's very complex and quite sobering.

Full negotiations will take ten years or more.

In reply to Timmd:

In reply to Pekkie:


I am curious as to the relationship between the two times table and the nappy? Might explain why the various education ministers get so excited about the times tables.

In reply to Timmd:





Well argued. Thanks for posting

In reply to Helen Bach:



Probably the latter as a self closing tag would've been in the form of:
<understatement comment="The situation isn't good" />

Ahh, every Monday should start with a coding joke lol

In reply to Jim C:


In terms of the negotiating dynamic i think the quality of the person sitting in front of them matters more than whether they were a clear brexiter or remainer. After all, of the campaign front-runners would you trust Johnson, Gove or Farage to bring back a better deal that May?


I think this is true (in the same way that a Democrat could never have opened talks with China in the way that Nixon did.). But it can cut both ways. A Remainer will have a harder time selling concessions to the British public than a hardline Brexiter would so, counter-intuitively, a remainer may end up having to push harder for concessions.

Nevertheless, i think your suggestion of May + a brexiter on the negotiating team is probably the smart choice.


The best deal is no longer about whether it keeps the UK in or out of the EU. It is about getting maximum access to the single market vs maximum control over immigration vs reduction in EU budget contributions. The interesting thing will be which of the lower-profile elements get traded away to ensure that both sides can crow about their victorious negotiations.

In reply to The Lemming:

I certainly wouldn't give her '1'.......def. the upper end of the scale..

In reply to The Lemming:

On a scale of 1 to 10 how dangerous is Theresa?

Depends what height she's dropped on you from.

In reply to Timmd:


Eh...

In reply to aln:


I spoke to his employer about it.

In reply to Bob Hughes:



( I seem to remember some odd comments when I suggested this)
Gordon said :-
" I haven't even the energy to say wow. Just a deep sigh"

In reply to Jim C:




I really worry about Leadsom as the negotiator. From all I've seen of her, she's stubborn but not that clever. She denies that there is a trade off between free movement and access to the single market (which is fairly clear from any sensible understanding of how the fundamental freedoms of the EU are intended to operate, and demonstrated by the deals with Norway, Switzerland etc) and also thinks that access to the single market is just the same as tariff free trade, which is an outdated view of world trade.

In reply to andyfallsoff:
Not disagreeing with the percieved failing of any or all of the candidates, I was never endorsing anyone, I was mearly putting my betting hat on, and reading the politics best I could. It looked to me the the two women would end up front runners, ( which seems to have come to pass) and I guessed that if May got the PM job she might have to take Ledsom as lead on the negotiations so that folk like me would not cry foul.

As it happens May has said some Eurosceptic things in the past, and Leadsom has apparently said that we are better in a reformed EU
(before she concluded that the EU is unreformable)

Putting my betting hat on again, I think(hope) that the EU WILL reform to an extent and offer everyone in the EU a share of those reforms (to head off any further referendums. But , again just my guess. )
That would also be a way of arguing that that the UK alone were not getting preferential treatment.

(Or they might go hardline, and offer us , nor anyone else, any concessions on free momement and if they do that , in my view they will self destruct the EU in time. )

In reply to Bob Hughes:
The interesting thing will be which of the lower-profile elements get traded away to ensure that both sides can crow about their victorious negotiations.

As always you have to have straw issues that you can talk up as red lines , then trade them off against what you really want.

Both sides, will have plenty of these, I have no worries of that, both sides know the score, they know a political deal still has to be sold (spun ) once it is 'agreed'.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You are conceeding that point already, that is not a negotation position that we want to have.

The EU will say that is the case, and we will (should ) say otherwise.

However, at least one French minister (that I linked earlier) HAS said everything will be on the table.

In reply to Jim C:


Which part do you want them to honour the £350m a day for the NHS, 'cos I think that one's already sailed

In reply to Jim C:


Sorry but it is delusional.
I've seen his interview and I think you very much misunderstood what he said (maybe due to bad translation).

You have to go in a negotiation with a realistic negotiating position, otherwise you get nowhere.
There is absolutely no way we would get the same access to the single market without freedom of movement, and it's been made pretty clear repeatedly by all EU leaders.
And BTW that's already been tried when we had time and a position of strength, now we will be negotiating from a weak position within a two year timeframe.

I think all the Tory leadership candidates have accepted that there would be a trade off between freedom of movement and access to the single market, the crux will be to maximize the trade off to our advantage, unfortunately I don't think they could get a "freedom of movement light" passed the electorate.

In reply to krikoman:

The 350 million figure was so high up there in spotlights and challenged with such publicity , that if anything it was a negative to the leave campaign .

There could hardly have been any,one by the end of the campaign , who thought that this was an accepted nett contribution figure. so it should have been ( as was intended to become , by the remain camp) a vote loser to the leave camp .A nett gain to remain.

In reply to Jim C:


Are you saying it was a lie? and if so why is this promise so easy to write off?

If so what other promises can be written off with the same gusto.

You either want them to keep they promises or you don't, or do you just want them to keep the promises YOU think they should?

In reply to Jim C:

Top marks for an imaginative argument. Not only are you accepting that the Leave campaign lied, but you claim the lies were so blatant that those who wanted remain as an outcome should thank you for it...

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Isn't that what Westminster is about at the moment, "we should just be thankful", never mind trying to get a fair society or honest MPs.

In reply to krikoman:

This would at least help make claims credible, if not promises enforceable -
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/154617

In reply to MeMeMe:



Nice one, I wrote to my MP- my point has been raised with the minister for constitutional reform.

Quite what this means I don't know but it's a bit better than the usual response.

In reply to The Lemming:

On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say that Andrea is 10 and Teresa is 6

In reply to Pete Pozman:

I think that's about right. May is pretty callous, but leadsom is clueless but seems to have unshakeable confidence - a really dangerous combination. She has shown a complete lack of grasp of basic economics and refused to accept her CV was misleading (although when asked before this issue blew up, she changed it).

Don't like!

In reply to andyfallsoff:

What appals me is that the fact that she is unintelligent, and it's a blindingly obvious fact, may well increase her appeal with the Tory rank and file. After all we've had enough of experts; isn't it time we gave the stupid and foolish a go behind the wheel.

If they do elect Leadsom then it will perhaps be a matter of a short while before she utterly cocks up and we have to watch them go through the whole business again and finally give us Boris.
The Lord protect us and save us!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
My only hope with May is she might recognise that not going quickly to article 50 would be a good move as Germany is having a general election soon and Angela Merkel has to gear up the EU in such a new fashion as to enable her to defeat a growing anti-EU group in her own country and to recognise and support the importance of UK to German economy. May may see this. Leadsom won't - It could be a different EU anyway to negotiate with- so our position relative to EU could be UNanticipated as of yet. That's my only hope of May.

In reply to MargieB:

I think May does realise that triggering article 50 quickly would be a mistake but not for the reasons you suggest. May is talking about triggering by the end of the year. The key reason to delay is that we don't have any idea what our detailed negotiating position should be; nor do we have anything like enough experts on trade negotiations. The German elections - which should be held sometime between August and October - can cut both ways. Arguably we can use the timing to our advantage but we don't want to pull the trigger on the 2-year deadline only to find that Angela Merkel has more important things to do than negotiate with us for the first six months. Having said that, personally, it doesn't seem feasible to wait until October 2017.

All of the above seems to have completely escaped Leadsom.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Why do you say May is callous. Even the Guardian of all papers recognised that she has been excellent at dealing with issues like Hillsborough and stop and search issues with the police?She had a very sympathetic ear to those in dispute with the police - hardly signs of callousness.

Personally ( even though I have not voted Tory for the last few elections) I am impressed that the Tory party has narrowed it down to two women candidates.

The Labour party has alot to learn from that ( especially considering the fuss a few motnths ago when there were barely any women MPs in major positions on JC's shadow cabinet - well when he had all the posts filled ).