Post # 1
So bees , if your from the UK or follow British politics…
what do you think to Andrea Leadsoms comments, referring to her perceived advantage as the future PM due to her being a mother?
Just curious of views, is it seen as a harmful view, or a comment blown out of proportion?
This topic was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by wanttobee.
Post # 2
Harmful view. Having children doesn’t make you care about the welfare of the country or future generations more.
She does not have my support for next PM, due to many other reasons also.
Post # 3
I think she was clearly stitched up. Which shows some naivety. Nothing she said wasn’t something you’d hear every day of your life talking to normal everyday people. So parents can be a bit self important about it sometimes.. Hardly shocking.
I don’t have kids and I’m not offended by it. There’s probably some truth in the idea that if you have kids you have a slightly greater stake in the future on the basis (as most would agree) the average person loves their own kids and would die for them more than they would for nieces and nephews.
My guess is that 90% of parents agree with the essence of what she said. We expect our politicians to be all things to all people and only make very bland statements, that’s the media game. She looks really stupid to fall into the trap the journalist was luring her into. How much it will hurt her? Not much. Most voters are parents and relate to what she said, however clumsy. The occasional no- PR managed interview may even help her by making her seem more human than many career politicians.
I was much more annoyed by Gordon Brown banging on about ‘hard working families’ which was a phrase that always seemed to ignore single people despite the fact they are amongt the hardest workers and highest net tax payers the nation has!
Post # 4
Totally harmful view. I’m really worried that she’ll win over May – we need someone experienced at the helm and May is actually credible internationally and known for keeping her promises ( though i abhor her views on human rights).
I agree with leonatigra re: hard working families too, although every politician seems to use this language – think it’s a way of trying to show that they are in touch with the sentiment of their electorate. It comes across as transparent and glib to me.
Post # 5
I think she was led down that route And it was blown out of proportion
i have no issue if she was explaining that having children motivates her and gives her a sense of perspective eg she thinks about her children’s children. She’s said herself she gets quizzed about her children and being a mother regularly
She also doesn’t say anywhere that being a mother makes her a better candidate or that not having children makes someone a worse candidate.
Post # 6
- Wedding: October 2016 - Painswick Church and the Falcon Hotel
I think it was blown out of proportion I can see what she was trying to say
Post # 7
It has impacted her brand negatively in my opinion. Either she believes it, which is small minded and offensive; or she is pandering to the masses who she thinks do believe it; or, if she was in fact set up, than she is foolish. I think most likely she does believe it and I think it’s a harmful thing to think and certainly to verbalise. I hope she doesn’t become the new leader
Post # 8
The first question we need to ask ourselves is why we haven’t had this discussion about male leaders.
William Hague – no children
Ian Duncan Smith – children
Michael Howard – children
Tony Blair – children
Gordon Brown – children
David Cameron – children
Michael Gove – no children
The second question we need to ask ourselves is why so many women in positions of authority have no children while men in similar positions do.
Theresa May – no children
Andrea Leadsom – children
Nicola Sturgeon – no children
Kezia Dugdale – no children
Ruth Davidson – no children
Angela Eagle – no children