We reflect on the controversy surrounding an article in The Times today about Andrea Leadsom, one of the two candidates for leader of The Conservative Party and thus for Prime Minister of the UK. The headline of the article read, “Being a mother gives me edge on May – Leadsom”. Having scoured the article I cannot find where Ms Leadsom actually says this.
Further, the second paragraph of the article states, “In comments showing how personal she is prepared to make the Tory leadership contest, Ms Leadsom said in an interview with The Times that the home secretary must be, “really sad not to have children.”
Ms Leadsom’s response to the article was one of anger. She tweeted, “Truly appalling and the exact opposite of what I said. I am disgusted.” The journalist who wrote the article, Rachel Sylvester, appeared on the BBC this morning and stated that she was “slightly baffled” by Ms Leadsom’s response. That in fact it was Ms Leadsom, “who raised Mrs May and the fact that she doesn’t have children”. And, that Ms Leadsom introduced Ms May into the whole discussion; “I didn’t mention her”, and, “She drew the contrast” said Ms Sylvester. Ms Sylvester then duly released an excerpt from the taped interview (taped by her) which indeed shows Ms Leadsom raising her family as one of the two differentiating factors between her and Ms May; the other being optimism. The question of what differentiates her from May was posed by Ms Sylvester.
Ms Sylvester has so far not released the entirety of the transcript so we cannot know if the responses involving family were prompted by earlier questions. Further we cannot know who indeed raised the question of Ms May, as it were, in the first place. Or, why Ms Leadsom felt it necessary to include reference to Ms May in her response to the question of, “Do you feel like a mum in politics?” To which Ms Leadsom replied (which we hear on the released audio excerpt), “Yes. I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’ because I think that would be horrible but genuinely I feel that being a mum means you have a very real take in the future of our country, a tangible stake.”
It seems obvious except to the most uncharitable person that Ms Leadsom went out of her way to avoid what she felt might be implied by any answer that did not include an explicit statement expressing her wish not to make comparisons that might inevitably be drawn by others. The other alternative requires us to ascribe wholly malign motives to a women who has, from the interviews I have seen, deliberately avoided making any negative comments about colleagues or anyone else for that matter.
The only other explanation I can think of is that she is an incredibly canny political operator who in order to garner support with the Tory grassroots deliberately contrasted her family credentials with those of Ms May. What is the more likely explanation? You decide. However what we can say is when a journalist says,”it’s completely legitimate to report these comments; she said it I didn’t.” That may not always be true. Ms Leadsom didn’t actually say “it gives me an edge” and she didn’t, “make it clear that she intended to highlight the difference over children in the campaign.”
I personally don’t feel Ms Leadsom’s comment will in fact be fatal to her Prime Ministerial ambitions, especially given the electorate in this contest. Ms Leadsom appears to be guilty of naivety at the very worst. In fact Ms Sylvester said as much in her interview with the BBC. This unfortunate incident does however raise broader questions of experience and qualification for the position of Prime Minister: should leaders learn their trade on the job? Or, should we expect them to arrive fully formed, as it were; perfect statesmen and women?
The leadership election process for The Conservative Party doubtless never envisaged the scenario the country finds itself in today but should only ‘experienced’ and ‘tested’ candidates be permitted to stand for the election?
It’s an interesting question and one which Daniel Finkelstein of the Times considers here. He believes that it would be illegitimate for an ‘untested’ MP such as Ms Leadsom to become Prime Minister and not call a general election. He lists those Prime Ministers in modern political history who came to office without an election; quite a list it is too. All experienced politicians. He states that no one as inexperienced and ‘untested’ as Ms Leadsom has ever become Prime Minister. His belief is that if elected as leader of The Conservative Party she will be uniquely illegitimate where Theresa May and Michael Gove would not. So, an election would be needed to give her the legitimacy required given she did not serve in a high enough position in Cameron’s Government. Further, as she is campaigning on a ‘change’ ticket she has no mandate as Prime Minister because she would follow different policies to those followed by Cameron.
Several observations can be made to his objections to her potentially becoming the next Prime Minister without a general election. First, we are a parliamentary democracy; parties not leaders are elected. The largest party is entitled to govern. The Tories were the largest party just a year ago and would likely be the largest party were another election held today. What would be the point in repeating the exercise?
Second, the fact that there has never been anyone as inexperienced as he believes Ms Leadsom to be as Prime Minister is not an argument against an ‘inexperienced’ MP ever becoming Prime Minister. Things change. The four minute mile was not a fact until it was one. Experience is a quirk of history not a constitutional necessity for a Prime Minister.
Third, both Theresa May and Michael Gove by definition will be taking the Government in a different direction from Cameron; we are in a post Brexit Britain with a different leader who is not Cameron necessarily following different policies. Thus neither May nor Gove would be anymore ‘legitimate’ than Ms Leadsom. Whoever is leader will have to change many previous Government policies to accommodate Brexit.
Further Gove’s leadership campaign message was on radical reform; a different message from Cameron’s. And Ms May was hitherto for leaving the ECHR, which she has since repudiated. She will now be leading us out of the EU, not remaining. To assert that May and Gove would have authority because they would be carrying out the same policies as Cameron simply does not bear scrutiny. Neither can lay claim to Cameron’s mandate and neither has more legitimacy than Ms Leadsom.
Fourth, in the Conservative Manifesto, which every single Conservative MP was elected on and bound to follow, it was clear that when voters were electing their MPs they were electing them on the basis that they would hold the promised referendum on the EU and implement the result. The manifesto and subsequent literature produced by Cameron was very clear that he and the Government would implement the result. He said it was ‘a once in a lifetime decision’ and that whatever decision the electorate made he would implement. Not only were the conservatives elected with a majority on that basis but over 17 million people endorsed leaving the EU on the basis that the Government would implement the result.
Fifth, and not withstanding all the above, what possible purpose could be served by having an election today. Apart from adding uncertainty upon uncertainty, we don’t even have a credible opposition party. If by some twist of fate the mess that is the Labour Party were elected it would be dangerous for the security of the nation and ultimately a betrayal of the Government’s first obligation, which is the safety of the nation. The leader of the Labour Party prior to his accidental election to leader had never led anything in his life; never even had a junior cabinet post. If t’s believed Ms Leadsom is not experienced enough to be Prime Minister with her junior cabinet minister experience then the prospect of the ‘accidental opposition leader’ as PM is unthinkable. What possible choice would that be for the British people? It would be reckless to have an election now and risk granting Corbyn and Momentum access to power.
There is more I could say on objections to Ms Leadsom on the basis of her purported inexperience i.e. that in fact Ms Leadsom is not that inexperienced her roles in work prior to Parliament do indicate leadership ability as does her decisiveness in throwing her hat in the ring when she did; the fact that she has only held junior cabinet position is more than likely due to her being prevented from holding more senior positions not because she lacked capacity but because the Chancellor prevented her from rising in accordance with her ability; both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne made more than their fair share of blunders, misjudgements and omni-shambles and while in office and got better ‘on the job’ (though some might argue got worse). As have Mr Gove and Ms May; Government throws up new challenges every day the pre-eminent qualification must be commitment to do the job to the best of your ability putting your firmly held convictions of what is best for the nation at the forefront.
A final point; I would suggest that Ms Leadsom’s lack of spin as indicated by the ‘motherhood’ controversy probably makes her a more attractive and legitimate politician in the eyes of many than either Gove or May.
Thus there is absolutely no need and nothing would be served by having a general election at this time and Ms Leadsom would be as legitimate a Prime Minister as either Mr Gove or Ms May would be. The leader of the Conservative Party has a mandate to govern whoever the leader. If the next leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister is not experienced enough in cabinet perhaps we should look to Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne because I doubt Ms Leadsom’s ‘inexperience’ in cabinet is due to any lack of ability on her part.
Be First to Comment