Leadsom/UKIP.

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt the Tories will be in for much longer jeremy but I don't have a crystal ball.  Who knows?  Theresa May (if she wins) - may-  turn out to have a lot of things up her sleeve and capture the imaginations of the voters.  Interesting times ahead.  Labour have to get their act together.

Well if they stay till they need to hold an election, that's 2020 and in the interim carry out the intended boundary changes, then they are going to be very difficult to beat in 2020.

[Harrowby Hall]

LA

Your characterisation of First Past the Post is spot on, but I'm recalling the last general election a year ago when Labour's potential success was wrecked partly by "Tribal Labour" giving UKIP a couple of million votes or so.

If there is continued confusion and uncertainty it is this section of the electorate - together with its Conservative equivalent - which may perceive UKIP as a legitimate repository for its vote.

[L.A.]

LA

Your characterisation of First Past the Post is spot on, but I'm recalling the last general election a year ago when Labour's potential success was wrecked partly by "Tribal Labour" giving UKIP a couple of million votes or so.

If there is continued confusion and uncertainty it is this section of the electorate - together with its Conservative equivalent - which may perceive UKIP as a legitimate repository for its vote.

If disillusioned Labour voters switched to UKIP that might give UKIP a handful of seats but the Tories would probably be the overall beneficiaries.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh dear - it appears that Leadsom's claims to huge experience prior to entering parliament are crumbling as her cv is revealed to be just a wee bit 'economical with the truth'.

So her claims to have managed big teams, little teams and huge funds has been flatly denied by one of her ex colleagues at Invesco, Robert Stephens who has said 'she did not manage any teams, large or small, and she certainly did not manage any funds'. And apparently the other experience she claimed, working as managing director at De Putron Fund Management Ltd is also untrue - apparently she was just a marketing director, and also the company is run by her sister's husband!!!

And just to cap it all she hasn't published her tax returns (unlike May and Gove) amid claims of using aggressive tax avoidance schemes.

Hmm

[L.A.]

Oh dear - it appears that Leadsom's claims to huge experience prior to entering parliament are crumbling as her cv is revealed to be just a wee bit 'economical with the truth'.

So her claims to have managed big teams, little teams and huge funds has been flatly denied by one of her ex colleagues at Invesco, Robert Stephens who has said 'she did not manage any teams, large or small, and she certainly did not manage any funds'. And apparently the other experience she claimed, working as managing director at De Putron Fund Management Ltd is also untrue - apparently she was just a marketing director, and also the company is run by her sister's husband!!!

And just to cap it all she hasn't published her tax returns (unlike May and Gove) amid claims of using aggressive tax avoidance schemes.

Hmm

The UKIP connection would be more than enough to put me off.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The UKIP connection would be more than enough to put me off.

I think even the Telegraph are getting a bit unindulgent with her suggesting that a candidate without the backing of the PCP would find it worse than Corbyn.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think even the Telegraph are getting a bit unindulgent with her suggesting that a candidate without the backing of the PCP would find it worse than Corbyn.

Blimey all sorts of skeleton's coming out of her closet now - latest being rather offensive linking of the death of baby P to unmarried couples - eeek, she'd a nightmare.

Also she has flat out refused to release her tax returns as other candidates have. Hmm, wonder why she might have done that!

[jeremyp]

Also she has flat out refused to release her tax returns as other candidates have. Hmm, wonder why she might have done that!

I don't have to publish my tax return, why should she have to publish hers?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leadsom, TorKIP candidate now on shortlist with May.

[Dicky Underpants]

Blimey all sorts of skeleton's coming out of her closet now - latest being rather offensive linking of the death of baby P to unmarried couples - eeek, she'd a nightmare.

Also she has flat out refused to release her tax returns as other candidates have. Hmm, wonder why she might have done that!

Andrew Marr (or was it Andrew Neil) finally got a 'Yes' out of her on Sunday, BBC1, when he asked her if she would release the said commodities.

[SusanDoris]

Leadsom said to Edward Sturton that she would publish tax returns if she was in the last two - which she now is.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't have to publish my tax return, why should she have to publish hers?

Because she is trying to become PM, which I don't believe you are.

There are all sorts of expectations of people running for, for holding, high public office which aren't applied to the general public for obvious reasons.

Now I don't believe she is obliged to publish them, of course, but if she fails to do so, when others have it will leave a very clear impression that she has something to hide.

[Jack Knave]

The whole point of a thread is to create debate - what's your point?

[ProfessorDavey]

The whole point of a thread is to create debate - what's your point?

Sorry JK what comment are you responding to?

[Jack Knave]

Sorry JK what comment are you responding to?

The OP.

[jeremyp]

Now I don't believe she is obliged to publish them, of course, but if she fails to do so, when others have it will leave a very clear impression that she has something to hide.

Which is why I don't think any of them should publish their tax returns.

[floo]

Apparently Leadsom has made a very b*tchy comment about May being childless according to The Times!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apparently Leadsom has made a very b*tchy comment after May being childless according to The Times!

Tape apparently reveals she did make statements......source Guardian.

[floo]

Well hopefully people will see what Leadsom is really like. She makes statements then backtracks, not what we want in a PM!

[Brownie]

Which is why I don't think any of them should publish their tax returns.

I don't either.  Everyone is entitled to some privacy.  If Ms Leadsom or anyone else has done something dastardly illegal, the powers that be will find out eventually if not sooner and presumably, then, so will we.   Other than that, what they earn and what tax is paid is strictly their business.

[SweetPea]

Apparently Leadsom has made a very b*tchy comment about May being childless according to The Times!

"Apparently".... Floo. She is also furious that The Times has reported her out of context.

Once again, the media has the knives out for the underdog.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't either.  Everyone is entitled to some privacy.  If Ms Leadsom or anyone else has done something dastardly illegal, the powers that be will find out eventually if not sooner and presumably, then, so will we.   Other than that, what they earn and what tax is paid is strictly their business.

This isn't about privacy as much as confidentiality. Privacy usually relates to things which are none of our business, and by our I mean the state as well as us as individuals. So whether someone likes something a tad kinky in the bedroom is something that is private.

How you organise your tax affairs isn't like that at all. You have to reveal this to HMRC, but that information is kept confidential under normal circumstances. However I believe it is in the public interest to know how those who aspire to be PM and therefore are responsible for raising and spending tax arrange their own tax affairs - specifically that they aren't aggressively avoiding paying a reasonable amount themselves. If I am expected to pay my fair share I think it is only reasonably that those in government do too and therefore to expect that to be demonstrated to the public by publishing tax returns isn't unreasonable.

[ProfessorDavey]

"Apparently".... Floo. She is also furious that The Times has reported her out of context.

Once again, the media has the knives out for the underdog.

Except that you can listen to the whole interview as it was recorded - and there was no spin or reporting out of context from the Times, they reported her comments exactly.

She really isn't helping herself here because we can all simply go and listen to her exact answers to the questions. And she wasn't even few leading questions - she unprompted brought up the issue of May not having children.

[SweetPea]

Except that you can listen to the whole interview as it was recorded - and there was no spin or reporting out of context from the Times, they reported her comments exactly.

She really isn't helping herself here because we can all simply go and listen to her exact answers to the questions. And she wasn't even few leading questions - she unprompted brought up the issue of May not having children.

What she meant though, from what I can gather, is she has children and is thinking of their future and Theresa May, although she doesn't have children, has nieces and nephews.... so will also care about their future. It's just newspapers trying to make something out of nothing.... to sell papers and cause upset..... it's their job!

[Dicky Underpants]

What she meant though, from what I can gather, is she has children and is thinking of their future and Theresa May, although she doesn't have children, has nieces and nephews.... so will also care about their future. It's just newspapers trying to make something out of nothing.... to sell papers and cause upset..... it's their job!

"From what you gather"

If you listen to the actual recording of the interview, you will hear her making a very clear distinction between her own position as a mother (with her assertion that this makes her more "grounded" than May, because she is thinking about her children's immediate future) etc, with the clear implication that this is one aspect of her life that makes her a better option for leadership.

It really is quite astonishing to hear this woman sounding off about "being disgustingly misrepresented by the press"  - didn't she realise she was being recorded? All who have heard the recording know exactly what she said, and in what context. Spin-doctoring is one thing, but this seems like straightforward reality denial - which doesn't make her a too attractive proposition for party leadership, I'd say. And as for her dopey acolyte who appeared on the Today programme this morning to stand up for Leadsom - this stupid dork hadn't even heard the recording of the interview before she started mouthing off about Leadsom being grossly misrepresented. I must say, I thought that John Humphries kept his cool very well when faced with this transparent attempt to distort the truth, especially when he had heard the recording, and had the transcript right in front of him.
Furthermore, according to the journalist who did the interview, these matters of 'family affairs' were first raised by Leadsom herself, and the journalist never initially mentioned them at all.
One possibility is that Leadsom suffers from severe short term memory loss, which again is no great attribute in a future leader. But I suspect the real problem is her serious lack of judgment, and a propensity to open gob before brain engages.