Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by David0015)
    When you're old enough to get a mortgage you will understand her hunting around for a good deal. That is not tax evasion, that's looking for the best deal.
    That's the daily mail for you:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-Osborne.html
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I am not an Oxbridge graduate, but it seems that the level of one's education in politics correlates with their success as leaders, and as Oxbridge are the top two unis, you'd expect the top PM candidates to have had any experience with either of them.
    That said, it ís incredibly shallow and stupid to judge a PM on the university they went to alone, and not their policies and actions.
    I wasn't being serious

    Anyway I don't particularly judge a politician by policies and promises, most promises made by politicians tend to be sweet/smooth talks and rarely ever comes to anything.

    As for judging them by their time in office, that isn't really that easy to do either,this is especially so when you have to follow orders from more senior party leaders in the cabinet.

    Anyway between the 2 choices, I'd rather not have either of them but if there needed to be a choice then May is less extreme of a leader and I believe she has a better chance of unifying the country, AL will be as divisive as having Margaret Thatcher in office.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Whats wrong with May graduating from Warwick? I'm rather tired of the idea that only the "elite" Oxbridge MPs are good enough............
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Whats wrong with May graduating from Warwick? I'm rather tired of the idea that only the "elite" Oxbridge MPs are good enough............
    You mean Leadsom. Well, obviously May's geography degree puts her in excellent stead to run the country
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Whats wrong with May graduating from Warwick? I'm rather tired of the idea that only the "elite" Oxbridge MPs are good enough............
    Jesus Christ on a Pedalo, elites elites elites elites elites, I am sick of this word!
    There is nothing wrong with Oxbridge elitism, they went there because they were intelligent and hardworking from day 1, what's wrong with that? Yea definitely don't limit the choice to Oxbridge graduates, but the idea that people who go to Oxbridge are some sort of elites that do not represent us is utter tripe.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The first job a PM has to do when she takes office is to write four Letters of Last Resort to the captains of our Trident submarine to give them orders in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK. Would all Leadsom supporters give reasons why they have confidence in the letters she would write?

    What confidence do you have that she would make the right decision when the US President is wanting our help to send British troops into action?

    What confidence do you have that she will do the right thing when the SAS seek authority to take oot a hostage situation with likely loss of innocent lives?

    You cannot have any confidence. She has never sat around the cabinet table. She has never been a privy councillor receiving security briefings as leader of the opposition.

    Being Prime Minister isn't about making a couple of popular remarks in a televised debate. It is about leadership of a nation. Leadsom may have all these skills and more, but none of you can know this. No British Prime Minister will have come to power with less political experience. Blair had been leader of the opposition for almost 4 years, MacDonald had been at the centre of political life for almost a quarter of a century; even Pitt at 24 had previously been Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sun_Bear)
    Please Leadsome, May looks ugly af does not have a prime minister's presence.
    They look pretty similar to me. Only difference is one looks like they've had the stress of a notable job in government, while the other hasn't done anything noteworthy at all.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The first job a PM has to do when she takes office is to write four Letters of Last Resort to the captains of our Trident submarine to give them orders in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK. Would all Leadsom supporters give reasons why they have confidence in the letters she would write?

    What confidence do you have that she would make the right decision when the US President is wanting our help to send British troops into action?

    What confidence do you have that she will do the right thing when the SAS seek authority to take oot a hostage situation with likely loss of innocent lives?

    You cannot have any confidence. She has never sat around the cabinet table. She has never been a privy councillor receiving security briefings as leader of the opposition.

    Being Prime Minister isn't about making a couple of popular remarks in a televised debate. It is about leadership of a nation. Leadsom may have all these skills and more, but none of you can know this. No British Prime Minister will have come to power with less political experience. Blair had been leader of the opposition for almost 4 years, MacDonald had been at the centre of political life for almost a quarter of a century; even Pitt at 24 had previously been Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Hold on a moment.

    Andrea Leadsom was Economic Secretary to the Treasury and is currently Minister of State for Energy. Her time in cabinet amounts to over 15 months all told and she has been an MP for over 6 years.

    David Cameron's experience on the front bench before becoming leader amounted to 21 months - but this becomes 7 months as Shadow Education Secretary if you exclude the dubious role of 'Conservative Policy Review Co-ordinator'; this was also all in opposition, meaning that while he had had experience of coming up with things to complain about in a pithy fashion and policy ideas which were attractive but unrealistic, he had had no experience of actual government. Additionally, he had only been an MP for 4 years and 6 months.

    I don't think you can credibly claim that David Cameron was significantly if at all more politically experienced before becoming leader than Andrea Leadsom is now, and if that record is good enough for Leader of the Opposition then it is also good enough for PM

    Did you vote for the Tories in 2010? Yes? But what confidence did you have that Cameron would make a good PM? From his wealth of political experience?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spatial_Void)
    They look pretty similar to me. Only difference is one looks like they've had the stress of a notable job in government, while the other hasn't done anything noteworthy at all.
    purlease... this is for the job of Prime Minister, not some fashion shoot. both ladies look like they have been around the block several times, as you would expect at their age.
    **
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    Hold on a moment.

    Andrea Leadsom was Economic Secretary to the Treasury and is currently Minister of State for Energy. Her time in cabinet amounts to over 15 months all told and she has been an MP for over 6 years.
    She is not a member of the cabinet and has never been a member of the cabinet. She does not even attend cabinet when Energy is under discussion.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers



    David Cameron's experience on the front bench before becoming leader amounted to 21 months - but this becomes 7 months as Shadow Education Secretary if you exclude the dubious role of 'Conservative Policy Review Co-ordinator'; this was also all in opposition, meaning that while he had had experience of coming up with things to complain about in a pithy fashion and policy ideas which were attractive but unrealistic, he had had no experience of actual government. Additionally, he had only been an MP for 4 years and 6 months.

    I don't think you can credibly claim that David Cameron was significantly if at all more politically experienced before becoming leader than Andrea Leadsom is now, and if that record is good enough for Leader of the Opposition then it is also good enough for PM
    Not at all. A leader of the opposition gets security briefings on privy council terms. In the year prior to a general election a civil service team works with the leader of the opposition and the shadow cabinet on preparing the opposition's policies for government. That is how within days of an election an opposition can present of Queen's speech for the first year of government of viable content and length. If you look back to 2010, it was the Lib Dems who were struggling to find their feet because they had come to coalition entirely cold.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    purlease... this is for the job of Prime Minister, not some fashion shoot. both ladies look like they have been around the block several times, as you would expect at their age.
    **
    The stuff about their looks is obviously satire. The real point was that May is more experienced in government, in case you missed that bit.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Hopefully Leadsom, she has a good CV and supported the winning campaign, so it follows that she should lead us out of the EU.
    Lol don't mention Leadsom and CVs

    I hope she doesn't win, she comes across as a very divisive character. I'm in agreement that there needs to be a eurosceptic, and luckily both candidates are.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    Hold on a moment.

    Andrea Leadsom was Economic Secretary to the Treasury and is currently Minister of State for Energy. Her time in cabinet amounts to over 15 months all told and she has been an MP for over 6 years.

    David Cameron's experience on the front bench before becoming leader amounted to 21 months - but this becomes 7 months as Shadow Education Secretary if you exclude the dubious role of 'Conservative Policy Review Co-ordinator'; this was also all in opposition, meaning that while he had had experience of coming up with things to complain about in a pithy fashion and policy ideas which were attractive but unrealistic, he had had no experience of actual government. Additionally, he had only been an MP for 4 years and 6 months.

    I don't think you can credibly claim that David Cameron was significantly if at all more politically experienced before becoming leader than Andrea Leadsom is now, and if that record is good enough for Leader of the Opposition then it is also good enough for PM

    Did you vote for the Tories in 2010? Yes? But what confidence did you have that Cameron would make a good PM? From his wealth of political experience?
    This is a different situation. They will go straight into number 10 after this leadership election and we are in unbelievably turbulent times.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    Not Leadsom. Her CV is not that impressive, she tried to evade tax in the past and opposed gay marriage because it would "hurt the Christians", the last thing we want for PM is a religious tax-evader.
    We had one for 10 years, and he sent the forces to war without the proper equipment.

    I would prefer a Prime Minister from the Green Party, but as we will have a Tory one, would prefer Theresa May.*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Leadsom superficially comes across as very likeable, but I do think she is very inexperienced compared with May. Therefore, I think May would be the better candidate to win.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    This is a different situation. They will go straight into number 10 after this leadership election and we are in unbelievably turbulent times.
    These are not 'unbelievably turbulent' times, that's ridiculous. Brexit will take several years, much of the current EU infrastructure will be effectively retained and the economic situation is comparable if not preferable today than in 2010 when we were in recession and were just emerging from the worst financial crash in decades. DC walked in with no experience of government whatsoever and only four and a half years experience as an MP. Leadsom has been an MP for over 6 years and has been in government for over a year.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    Hold on a moment.

    Andrea Leadsom was Economic Secretary to the Treasury and is currently Minister of State for Energy. Her time in cabinet amounts to over 15 months all told and she has been an MP for over 6 years.

    David Cameron's experience on the front bench before becoming leader amounted to 21 months - but this becomes 7 months as Shadow Education Secretary if you exclude the dubious role of 'Conservative Policy Review Co-ordinator'; this was also all in opposition, meaning that while he had had experience of coming up with things to complain about in a pithy fashion and policy ideas which were attractive but unrealistic, he had had no experience of actual government. Additionally, he had only been an MP for 4 years and 6 months.

    I don't think you can credibly claim that David Cameron was significantly if at all more politically experienced before becoming leader than Andrea Leadsom is now, and if that record is good enough for Leader of the Opposition then it is also good enough for PM

    Did you vote for the Tories in 2010? Yes? But what confidence did you have that Cameron would make a good PM? From his wealth of political experience?
    He spent five years on the Privy Council as leader of the opposition receiving the sort of security briefings we are making an issue of here.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    These are not 'unbelievably turbulent' times, that's ridiculous. Brexit will take several years, much of the current EU infrastructure will be effectively retained and the economic situation is comparable if not preferable today than in 2010 when we were in recession and were just emerging from the worst financial crash in decades. DC walked in with no experience of government whatsoever and only four and a half years experience as an MP. Leadsom has been an MP for over 6 years and has been in government for over a year.
    Yes, and DC and Osborne woefully mismanaged the recovery, choking it with austerity. They were wet behind the ears, unlike the Labour top team who had all had 20 years of experience with the state finances and advanced qualifications in economics.

    Thatcher was also quite a neophyte and she did the exact same thing 1979-81.

    The sort of economic dogmas Tories believe in make them completely unfit to lead the country, particularly when times are tough.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The first job a PM has to do when she takes office is to write four Letters of Last Resort to the captains of our Trident submarine to give them orders in the event of a nuclear attack on the UK. Would all Leadsom supporters give reasons why they have confidence in the letters she would write?

    What confidence do you have that she would make the right decision when the US President is wanting our help to send British troops into action?
    I wonder if that thought went through various MPs minds when they considered Michael Gove as PM.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    He spent five years on the Privy Council as leader of the opposition receiving the sort of security briefings we are making an issue of here.
    And how many of those meetings did he attend? Not an excessive number to be sure

    I really do not see how attending privy council meetings makes someone more suited to making these sorts of decisions. If MPs are good enough to be making and voting on legislation, of things like going to war in the first place, then they should also surely be good enough to select one of three sensible directives in the event of a nuclear holocaust. I think the gravity of that eventuality belies the simplicity of the decision PMs have to make in response to it
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.