Author Topic: Who will be the next leader of the Conservative Party and by default, the PM?  (Read 60528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelo222


Someone who represents whose views?

As stated, the views of the Tory membership who have already revealed a 60% preference to Brexit.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Leadsom might be short in experience but at least she isn't an abject failure like May!

Reproduced in full below is a Daily Telegraph article by Jonathan Foreman which was pulled after pressure from Theresa May’s leadership campaign.


Theresa May Is A Great Self-Promoter, But A Terrible Home Secretary



In the run-up to the 2015 election, one of the handicaps David Cameron had to finesse was the fact that net migration to the UK was three times as high as he had promised it would be. Remarkably, none of the opprobrium this failure provoked brought forth the name of Theresa May, the cabinet minister actually entrusted with bringing migration down. Then, as now, it was as if the icy Home Secretary had a dark magic that warded off all critical scrutiny.

The fact that her lead role in this fiasco went unnoticed and unmentioned likely reflects Mrs May’s brilliant, all-consuming efforts to burnish her image with a view to become prime minister.

After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been little better than disastrous – a succession of derelictions that has left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which mean that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.

People find this hard to credit because she exudes determination and strength. Compared to many of her bland, flabby cabinet colleagues, she has real gravitas. And few who follow British politics would deny that she is a deadly political infighter. Indeed Theresa May is to Westminster what Cersei Lannister is to Westeros in Game of Thrones: no one who challenges her survives undamaged, while the welfare of the realm is of secondary concern.

Take the demoralised, underfunded UK Border Force. As the public discovered after a people-smugglers’ vessel ran aground in May, it has has only three cutters protecting 7,700 miles of coastline. Italy by contrast has 600 boats patrolling its 4722 miles.

Considering the impression Mrs May gives of being serious about security, it’s all the more astonishing that she has also allowed the UK’s small airfields to go unpatrolled – despite the vastly increased terrorist threat of the last few years, the onset of the migration crisis, and the emergence of smuggling networks that traffic people, drugs and arms.

Then there is the failure to establish exit checks at all the country’s airports and ports. These were supposed to be in place by March 2015.

Unfortunately the Border Force isn’t the only organisation under Mrs May’s control that is manifestly unfit for purpose. Recent years have seen a cavalcade of Home Office decisions about visas and deportations that suggest a department with a bizarre sense of the national interest.

The most infamous was the refusal of visas to Afghan interpreters who served with the British forces in Afghanistan – as Lord Guthrie said, a national shame.

Mrs May has kept so quiet about this and other scandals – such as the collapse of the eBorders IT system, at cost of almost a billion pounds – that you might imagine someone else was in charge the Home Office.

[It’s not just a matter of the odd error. Yvette Cooper pointed out in 2013 that despite Coalition rhetoric, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down.]

The reputation for effectiveness that Mrs May nevertheless enjoys derives from a single, endlessly cited event: the occasion in 2014 when she delivered some harsh truths to a conference of the Police Federation.

Unfortunately this was an isolated incident that, given the lack of any subsequent (or previous) effort at police reform, seems to have been intended mainly for public consumption.

In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread overreliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots, and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.

There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.

When considering her suitability for party leadership, it’s also worth remembering Mrs May’s notorious “lack of collegiality”.

David Laws’ memoirs paint a vivid picture of a secretive, rigid, controlling, even vengeful minister, so unpleasant to colleagues that a dread of meetings with her was something that cabinet members from both parties could bond over.

Unsurprisingly, Mrs May’s overwhelming concern with taking credit and deflecting blame made for a difficult working relationship with her department, just as her propensity for briefing the press against cabinet colleagues made her its most disliked member in two successive governments.

It is possible that Mrs May’s intimidating ruthlessness could make her the right person to negotiate with EU leaders. However, there’s little in her record to suggest she possesses either strong negotiation skills or the ability to win allies among other leaders, unlike Michael Gove, of whom David Laws wrote “it was possible to disagree with him but impossible to dislike him,”

It’s surely about time – and not too late – for conservatives to look behind Mrs May’s carefully-wrought image and consider if she really is the right person to lead the party and the country.

There’s a vast gulf between being effective in office, and being effective at promoting yourself; it’s not one that Theresa May has yet crossed.

Reproduced with kind permission of Jonathan Foreman
« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 03:55:49 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

stephen25000

  • Guest
As stated, the views of the Tory membership who have already revealed a 60% preference to Brexit.


What about who they would vote for  ??

Offline Angelo222

Contrary to Angelo's claim that Leadsom is the People's choice, it seems she is the choice of less than 30% of the populace according to this Sky poll

http://news.sky.com/story/sky-poll-public-wants-theresa-may-as-pm-10495349?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

And we all know what use Sky polls are.   %56&  @)(++(* 
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

stephen25000

  • Guest
And we all know what use Sky polls are.   %56&  @)(++(*



So you think Leadsom has overwhelming support ? %&5%£

Offline Angelo222

Quote
Can we REALLY trust her? A CV that's falling apart. Murky tax affairs. Yes, she's a talent - but is Mrs Leadsom fit for No. 10?

By Guy Adams for the Daily Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678061/Yes-s-talent-Mrs-Leadsom-fit-No-10.html

I would say neither of them is fit to be PM.  Even if Leadsom wins a majority of Tory Party members she will not carry the Parliamentary members with her thus she would struggle to implement any new legislation.

What a mess!!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 12:28:43 AM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Alfie

  • Guest
I would say neither of them is fit to be PM.  Even if Leadsom wins a majority of Tory Party members she will not carry the Parliamentary members with her thus she would struggle to implement any new legislation.

What a mess!!
Weren't you bigging her up earlier this week?  What's changed???

stephen25000

  • Guest
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/andrea-leadsoms-charity-is-bankrolled-by-her-offshore-banker?utm_term=.yi38qdZrN#.cc5Pn0doB

Andrea Leadsom’s Charity Is Bankrolled By Her Offshore Banker Brother-In-Law

Charity Commission filings examined by BuzzFeed News have raised fresh questions for the Tory leadership contender over her ties to her Guernsey-based brother-in-law’s companies.

James Ball

Special Correspondent, BuzzFeed UK


A charity launched by Andrea Leadsom has received its main financial support from a foundation run by her sister and funded by her brother-in-law, a major Conservative donor and offshore investment banker, BuzzFeed News can reveal.

With the energy minister’s financial affairs under intense scrutiny as she bids to become the new Conservative leader – and therefore prime minister – attention has focused on her ties to the offshore industry and companies run by her Guernsey-based brother-in-law, Peter de Putron.

The companies have made major donations to the Conservative party – more than £520,000 since she was selected as a candidate, £80,000 of which went to Leadsom’s office and constituency party – and have employed Leadsom’s husband, Ben, in senior roles.

Leadsom has said she was “not aware” of the size of the contributions and that none of them had benefited her own career.

But new analysis of Charity Commission records by BuzzFeed News shows that de Putron and his wife, Hayley, Leadsom’s sister, were also the major backers of Leadsom’s charitable pursuits, launched two years into her career as an MP in 2012.

Leadsom is the founder of Parent Infant Partnership (PIP) UK, a charity aimed at helping create “a society of emotionally secure children who grow up to become socially responsible adults” by focusing on early-years intervention for children and support for parents. The charity acts as an umbrella group, providing support to local parent/infant groups.

In a speech announcing her candidacy for leader on Monday, Leadsom drew on these same ideas as a central plank of her leadership platform.

A company controlled by de Putron – via a foundation controlled by Leadsom’s sister – contributed a total of more than £670,000 to Leadsom’s charity.

PIP UK’s major funder from 2013 to 2015, the three years for which it has filed accounts, was the Ana Leaf Foundation, a UK-registered charity that has Hayley de Putron as one of its two trustees.

The Ana Leaf Foundation’s sole donor in the two years for which it filed accounts, 2011 and 2013, was Gloucester Research Ltd (later renamed GR Software & Research Limited), a company owned by Peter de Putron that counted Ben Leadsom among its board of directors until 2014.

Soon after its founding, PIP UK began activity in Westminster, hiring a part-time public affairs officer in its second year of activity and taking a secretariat role supporting a new all-party parliamentary group, i.e. an informal network of MPs based on a particular cause or agenda.

Leadsom’s website notes that she co-founded the group – named “Conception to age 2: first 1001 Days” – with Labour MP Frank Field late in 2013.

A clinical psychologist who was involved with the network of PIP charities as they were being established expressed concern in a 2014 blog post that they were serving to further Leadsom’s political career.
The post, by Dr Miriam Silver, said:

I felt, cynically perhaps, that there was a second agenda designed to
promote the MP who founded the project and her political party which was
of more importance than our clinical goals, although this was never
explicit.

Silver added she’d had concerns with the organisation’s approach to early-years care, which she was worried risked stigmatising parents.

“Although our tiny pilot had kept 5 children out of 6 at home with parents successfully, despite them being referred on the edge of care, we had feedback from service users and user groups that they felt stigmatised by some of these messages,” she said. “I couldn’t match my views up with the politics of the organisation. I felt that to stay would conflict with my professional ethics, and my desire to honour the evidence base and respect the people who needed the service, so I quit before the launch.

“My colleague decided it would be unsafe to practise in my absence and left at the same time, leaving the charity with no clinical staff. Nonetheless, they decided to make a very big launch event, that I could only describe as one third professional conference, one third stately home wedding and one third party political broadcast for the blue party.”

Leadsom resigned as a trustee of the charity, according to its filings, in December 2014, eight months after getting her first ministerial job. Her colleague Tim Loughton MP, who is supporting her bid for leadership, now serves as the charity’s chair.

BuzzFeed News asked Andrea Leadsom’s office a series of questions about her work with the charity and the contents of Silver’s blog post. Asked about whether the charity had served as a vehicle for Leadsom’s political career, her spokesman told BuzzFeed News:

“Mrs Leadsom did this because she’s passionate about the cause. There’s an overlap, it’s unavoidable…Did she do this to become an MP? Absolutely not. She did not do work on child mental health for political reasons. Has Andrea abused her political position? Absolutely not.”


He said Leadsom had resigned so she could focus on her role as a minister.

Leadsom has previously said she was “unaware” her brother-in-law’s company, where her husband was employed, was a major Conservative donor.

When asked by BuzzFeed News whether Leadsom was aware de Putron was also the major funder of her charity, the spokesman said he would look into this.

The Guardian disclosed in 2014 that companies connected to de Putron – including Gloucester Research – had donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Conservative party since Leadsom became an MP, an arrangement Tom Watson likened at the time to risking the appearance of a “cash for political office” arrangement.

De Putron’s companies also contributed directly to Leadsom’s election campaign and helped fund staff in her office. De Putron’s company was also the major funder of the Eurosceptic think tank Open Europe, which campaigned for Britain to reform its relationship with the EU. Leadsom spoke at several Open Europe events and praised its research in public speeches.

De Putron, as a Channel Islands resident, is not personally eligible to donate to UK political parties, but his UK-based companies are entitled to be donors under the rules.

In 2014, Leadsom’s spokesman said she had gained no benefit from her family’s generosity to the Conservative party.

“Andrea was not aware of the size of donations made by UK companies controlled by Peter de Putron to the Conservative party, and has never been involved in any way,” her spokesman told The Guardian.

“She has not benefited personally from these donations and does not believe they have affected her career in any way…no member of her family has ever sought to promote her political career.”

Asked whether Leadsom would consider accepting funding from de Putron’s companies for her leadership campaign, a spokesman told BuzzFeed News:

“She’s aware there are lots of organisations hoping to donate, especially if she goes to the country. If this does happen they would all be carefully vetted and logged, as the rules require.”

On Tom Watson’s comments, the spokesman merely laughed and said: “Good old Tom…so?”


The buy-to-let properties of Leadsom’s immediate family have also attracted coverage since her first ministerial job in 2014. Leadsom founded a company, Bandal Ltd, with her husband in 2004 – both giving their job as “investment banker” on the paperwork. The two were equal shareholders.

The company became the owner of three properties in Oxford, each with a mortgage from the offshore bank Kleinwort Benson. In 2006, shareholdings were given to “settlements” – a form of trust – for the couple’s children, while in 2014 Leadsom’s shareholding was signed over to her husband.

The use of trusts to hold assets for children is one legal way high-new-worth individuals minimise inheritance tax when passing on assets, though they also serve other purposes.

BuzzFeed News asked Leadsom’s spokesman if she had ruled out ever using the settlements in this way. The spokesman did not have a reply on this point before publication, but said he would find out. This story will be updated when we receive a response.

Leadsom has said she will release her latest tax return if she becomes one of the final two candidates in the leadership contest.



Offline Carana


Leadsom has previously said she was “unaware” her brother-in-law’s company, where her husband was employed, was a major Conservative donor.

When asked by BuzzFeed News whether Leadsom was aware de Putron was also the major funder of her charity, the spokesman said he would look into this.



Erm....

stephen25000

  • Guest
Leadsom has previously said she was “unaware” her brother-in-law’s company, where her husband was employed, was a major Conservative donor.

When asked by BuzzFeed News whether Leadsom was aware de Putron was also the major funder of her charity, the spokesman said he would look into this.



Erm....

Methinks you don't believe her Carana.  8)--))

Offline Carana

Methinks you don't believe her Carana.  8)--))


I'm trying to find this plausible... but I'm not sure that I'm succeeding.

If she really wasn't aware of such actions conducted by her nearest and dearest... what else is she "unaware" of that could be of import in determining whether she is the person to fulfil the function of the UK's top job?


On the other hand, once the media decide to do a hatchet job on someone, it's hard to work out what's actually true or not...

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Leadsom has previously said she was “unaware” her brother-in-law’s company, where her husband was employed, was a major Conservative donor.

When asked by BuzzFeed News whether Leadsom was aware de Putron was also the major funder of her charity, the spokesman said he would look into this.



Erm....

Yeah, whod a thunk it...*slaps forehead*

So we are all agreed PM will win due to how much money they can bring to the party coffers..OH Fck help us all. I don't think any names in the pool are any good. That goes for both main parties!
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Carana

Didn't she agree to produce her tax returns if she was one of the two remaining candidates, or did I dream that?  &%+((£

Offline puglove



So you think Leadsom has overwhelming support ? %&5%£

There once was a Tory called Leadsom
Whom sensible liberals found dreadsome.
She hated Ms. May
And anyone gay
And her CV overstated her cred some.

AL's nickname at Warwick Uni was TW. Apparently it stood for The Winner, but all I could think of was Tit Wank.   8(8-))

She looks like an angry dinner lady with bad eyebrows.    ?8)@)-)
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 11:43:57 AM by John »
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline Holly Goodhead

A journalist quoted a moderate Tory as likening AL to Sarah Pallin without the brains!

One things for sure there's nothing modest about AL.  Keir Starmer was urged by party activists to stand for leader of the Labour party in the 2015 election, but he ruled out doing so citing his lack of political experience.  And yet the contrast between AL's dubious roles on her cv and KS's high profile roles  couldn't be greater. 

Anna Soubry MP (@Anna_Soubry) Today’s @thetimes interview shows #AndreaLeadsom is not PM material. She should do us all a favour including herself and step aside...

I'm sure AL is an ok woman but a PM in waiting she ain't.

It's a huge embarrassment for the country that someone of AL's calibre even gets the opportunity to run for leader and by default PM.  And a real insight that Tory grandees like Bill Cash and Norman Tebbitt are such rabid eurosceptics they would vote for AL simply on the basis she was a Brexiteer.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?