This is a serious thread, about a serious subject that deeply affects a lot of people, do you think we could keep the Brexit bullshit out of it.
You can't separate it from other issues.
Rubbish - it's about sexual harassment allegations. Brexit has sod all to do with this yet still manages to sneak in.
Alright. Let's remove "Brexit" and change it to "hard-right" versus "centre -right". Again a long standing division within the Tories. Go on, tell me why we should take Leadsom at face value in coming forward with this now.
I really couldn't care a tinkers cuss about Andrea Leadsom. The whole Brexit charade started to bore me about a week after the vote.
Whatever the position, whether now, next week or in two years time, there is feck all you or I can do a thing about it.
No problem with people having opinions, but the Brexit threads just get hijacked by the same individuals mostly (in my opinion) by posters attempting to show up those who voted out as being racist and stupid.
I gave up after a poster I know well made his first post I'd seen from him on the subject (he has similar concerns as me) and the response he got was completely disrespectful. Not even bothered opening the thread since then.
This thread is about sexual harassment allegations. Other than the newspapers loving a bit of scandal with politicians, I see no reason to bring Brexit into this subject. Other than to point score. Personally, I don't believe this is an appropriate subject to do that.
Good for you but the thread and discussion will inevitably reflect the wider discussion going on in the media. Appropriate or otherwise.
This is a serious thread, about a serious subject that deeply affects a lot of people, do you think we could keep the Brexit bullshit out of it.
You can't separate it from other issues.
Rubbish - it's about sexual harassment allegations. Brexit has sod all to do with this yet still manages to sneak in.
Alright. Let's remove "Brexit" and change it to "hard-right" versus "centre -right". Again a long standing division within the Tories. Go on, tell me why we should take Leadsom at face value in coming forward with this now.
I really couldn't care a tinkers cuss about Andrea Leadsom. The whole Brexit charade started to bore me about a week after the vote.
Whatever the position, whether now, next week or in two years time, there is feck all you or I can do a thing about it.
No problem with people having opinions, but the Brexit threads just get hijacked by the same individuals mostly (in my opinion) by posters attempting to show up those who voted out as being racist and stupid.
I gave up after a poster I know well made his first post I'd seen from him on the subject (he has similar concerns as me) and the response he got was completely disrespectful. Not even bothered opening the thread since then.
This thread is about sexual harassment allegations. Other than the newspapers loving a bit of scandal with politicians, I see no reason to bring Brexit into this subject. Other than to point score. Personally, I don't believe this is an appropriate subject to do that.
Good for you but the thread and discussion will inevitably reflect the wider discussion going on in the media. Appropriate or otherwise.
This. You can't stop politicians from using opportunity to do down those they're competing with. Either in the same party or another. Whether or not it's the moral/ethical thing to do. And especially with such a weak government with gaping fault lines over europe.
I hadn’t thought about the knock-on effect of this scandal and the future of May’s government, so I welcome those posts, but the thread shouldn’t be dominated by it. It was far more interesting when people were sharing their experiences and perspectives.
Although I would say, as long as Johnson loses his job I don’t care what the accusation is. The most important thing to me is that he never gets to be PM. And gets humiliated somehow.
If it's not already clear from posts on the Brexit thread(s), I'm a "remainer" but I think some of this blame shifting onto Leadsom is utterly ridiculous. And I'm by no means a fan of hers.
Might she have used an apparently minor incident to her advantage to oust an opponent? Potentially.
How could it have been avoided? Fallon should've behaved himself.
So does anyone want to tell me why Andrea Leadsom's specific complaint against Fallon is a reasonable portrayal of unacceptable behaviour (i.e. a sackable offence if it took place in say a company management meeting) which should be taken on board by wider society.
Would anyone like to defend Leadsom against my charge that her intervention was a 100% opportunistic move by a politician against an internal rival? (Fallon, don't forget is a leading Remainer, and has been mentioned as a possible Tory leader, while Leadsom is a leading Brexiteer, and has been mentioned by herself as a possible leader).
I will, and I never thought I'd be on Andrea Leadsom's side about anything. You're making the mistake that lots of people did when Fallon first resigned, in assuming that his resignation is as a result of a story that is currently in the public domain, rather than some other incident(s) we don't yet know about.
ETA: And as I typed that, ooh look, the actual reason he resigned. It seems that the Leadsom story may have been leaked by someone high up in the Tory party to distract from the real reason for Fallon's resignation and/or damage Leadsom's reputation.
As the Leader of The House, Leadsom's charged with working with the Speaker to sort out a reporting process for sexual harrassment in Parliament, and may have contributed that story to the PM as an example of the kind of inappropriate behaviour MPs or staff are having to deal with. Alternatively, Theresa May might have been canvassing female colleagues for other stories about Fallon so she could assess whether the Julia Hartley Brewer thing was a one-off failure of judgement, or if he has a track record of creepy unpleasant behaviour towards women. A single comment is probably not a sackable offence, but multiple instances definitely could be, especially if the person has been warned that they're making the workplace an unpleasant place to be for their female colleagues.
Jo Brand made the point quite well on Friday's Have I Got News For You:
Hi @aliwibble You are one of the many sensible reasonable posters I never expect to be on the wrong side of on here. You wrote
You're making the mistake that lots of people did when Fallon first resigned, in assuming that his resignation is as a result of a story that is currently in the public domain, rather than some other incident(s) we don't yet know about.
I certainly did not, and do not make that mistake. I am not seeking to defend Fallon. I am accusing Leadsom of opportunistically seizing the political moment to take out one of the obstacles to her mission to appoint herself as the leader of a new hard right (and apparently puritanical) Tory party. In support of this, I will simply paste below some excerpts from the earlier Guardian report on her intervention, with my emphasis in bold.
She is reported to have objected to lewd remarks he made at a parliamentary meeting six years ago. When Leadsom complained of cold hands, Fallon allegedly replied: “I know somewhere you can put them to warm up.”
Leadsom stood against May for the party leadership, before stepping aside after appearing to suggest being a mother would make her a better prime minister.
The Brexiter is keen to place herself at the forefront of efforts to rid Westminster of its reputation for sexual harassment.
On a personal level I just think this whole sorry episode is yet another reason for me to despise this political and ruling class. They are as bad as any persons we see on Jeramy Kyle but with more bullshit and hypocrisy.
Ultimately what's happening now, with the focus shifting to examine the Machiavellian machinations of politicos embroiled in this scandal, is that any support/care/attention/help for the victims seems to be being overlooked, in favour of political point-scoring.
And from both the media, and the political establishment, this is truly a disgrace.
As a fellow Liberal Democrat, I often wonder how you know so much about so many politicians? I mean Leadsom. You've got to find some pretty obscure political corners to discover she has limited ability and vaulting ambition, dont you? All politicians are ambitious - how is this one so much more so (apart from one unattributed tweet)?
It is only my judgement as I made absolutely clear, and you are welcome to put a different one, indeed I was enquiring if anyone on has a different view of her. But my view comes entirely from information in the public domain. Seems to me you have forgotten her leadership campaign, and the widespread derision it met with. The embellishment of her cv, where she over-cooked her previous career in banking was widely reported at that time. Her campaign spawned a fake Twitter account called Leadsom's Tips. Hilarious, but not something that would happen to a politician with genuine ability and leadership potential.
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future. In other words, the (probably white) married bloke. You steer well clear of anyone that might turn out to be a bunny boiler.
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future. In other words, the (probably white) married bloke. You steer well clear of anyone that might turn out to be a bunny boiler.
In the long run, is this good for anyone?
No, absolutely not good for anyone. Does this scenario still hold good though? It sounds life something from the 70s, I'd like to think we've moved on a bit. Maybe we haven't.
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future. In other words, the (probably white) married bloke. You steer well clear of anyone that might turn out to be a bunny boiler.
In the long run, is this good for anyone?
I thought the answer was going to be that you choose the one with the biggest tits.
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future. In other words, the (probably white) married bloke. You steer well clear of anyone that might turn out to be a bunny boiler.
In the long run, is this good for anyone?
Hire the best candidate for the job and keep it in your pants, how hard can that be?
Who cares about care and support when there's an agenda to support.
It's quite fascinating how the response in two threads, this one and the Weinstein one are totally different, when posters suggested claims may have been made for personal gain in one, people came down on then like a ton of bricks, but making the same accusation against a politician you don't like seems to be ok.
Anybody watching Sunday Morning Live (after the Marr show on BBC1) >Absolutely going to the heart of what is worrying me about the debate. Relieved that two women on the panel are capturing my concerns exactly. It's still running..
Right. Emboldened by those two women (and i don't mean Edwina Currie, who also appeared and with whom, alarmingly, I also found myself agreeing), I would like to ask you all about the following.
Take the Fallon- Leadsom incident in isolation (I understand that in his case there are more incidents, but bear with me). Let's try and transpose it to an analogous incident in daily life. Let's do it, because politicians, in resolving how they should behave are to a large extent reflecting how they think broader society behaves.
The analogy I suggest is the management board of a private company. Crucially, Fallon and Leadsom are equals in the cabinet. So this particular case cannot be categorised as abuse of power, can it? We could say that Fallon is the Sales Director and Leadsom is the Finance Director both reporting to the CEO. Both are seen as future CEOs. Leadsom arrives for the meeting from outside and the exchange takes place. Is that remark from the Sales Director "inappropriate"? How inappropriate? Why, exactly? In what way has the Finance Director ( and don't forget to transpose the Leadsom personality to the case) Is the Finance Director justified in complaining about it to the CEO? What punishment is then considered a appropriate? Sacking? Branding as not suitable as future CEO?
Do please try it. I am very interested in your conclusions, and what this says more widely about the change in relationship you seek to create between the genders in 2017 Britain. It is not per se about Leadsom's actual actions in real life.
Right. Emboldened by those two women (and i don't mean Edwina Currie, who also appeared and with whom, alarmingly, I also found myself agreeing), I would like to ask you all about the following.
Take the Fallon- Leadsom incident in isolation (I understand that in his case there are more incidents, but bear with me). Let's try and transpose it to an analogous incident in daily life. Let's do it, because politicians, in resolving how they should behave are to a large extent reflecting how they think broader society behaves.
The analogy I suggest is the management board of a private company. Crucially, Fallon and Leadsom are equals in the cabinet. So this particular case cannot be categorised as abuse of power, can it? We could say that Fallon is the Sales Director and Leadsom is the Finance Director both reporting to the CEO. Both are seen as future CEOs. Leadsom arrives for the meeting from outside and the exchange takes place. Is that remark from the Sales Director "inappropriate"? How inappropriate? Why, exactly? In what way has the Finance Director ( and don't forget to transpose the Leadsom personality to the case) Is the Finance Director justified in complaining about it to the CEO? What punishment is then considered a appropriate? Sacking? Branding as not suitable as future CEO?
Do please try it. I am very interested in your conclusions, and what this says more widely about the change in relationship you seek to create between the genders in 2017 Britain. It is not per se about Leadsom's actual actions in real life.
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future. In other words, the (probably white) married bloke. You steer well clear of anyone that might turn out to be a bunny boiler.
In the long run, is this good for anyone?
I think this tells us about the choice you'd make. Doesn't really offer any insight into what's going on.
Right. Emboldened by those two women (and i don't mean Edwina Currie, who also appeared and with whom, alarmingly, I also found myself agreeing), I would like to ask you all about the following.
Take the Fallon- Leadsom incident in isolation (I understand that in his case there are more incidents, but bear with me). Let's try and transpose it to an analogous incident in daily life. Let's do it, because politicians, in resolving how they should behave are to a large extent reflecting how they think broader society behaves.
The analogy I suggest is the management board of a private company. Crucially, Fallon and Leadsom are equals in the cabinet. So this particular case cannot be categorised as abuse of power, can it? We could say that Fallon is the Sales Director and Leadsom is the Finance Director both reporting to the CEO. Both are seen as future CEOs. Leadsom arrives for the meeting from outside and the exchange takes place. Is that remark from the Sales Director "inappropriate"? How inappropriate? Why, exactly? In what way has the Finance Director ( and don't forget to transpose the Leadsom personality to the case) Is the Finance Director justified in complaining about it to the CEO? What punishment is then considered a appropriate? Sacking? Branding as not suitable as future CEO?
Do please try it. I am very interested in your conclusions, and what this says more widely about the change in relationship you seek to create between the genders in 2017 Britain. It is not per se about Leadsom's actual actions in real life.
Is the answer Brexit?
You may think that. But I could not possibly comment.
I hadn’t thought about the knock-on effect of this scandal and the future of May’s government, so I welcome those posts, but the thread shouldn’t be dominated by it. It was far more interesting when people were sharing their experiences and perspectives.
Although I would say, as long as Johnson loses his job I don’t care what the accusation is. The most important thing to me is that he never gets to be PM. And gets humiliated somehow.
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future. In other words, the (probably white) married bloke. You steer well clear of anyone that might turn out to be a bunny boiler.
In the long run, is this good for anyone?
Hire the best candidate for the job and keep it in your pants, how hard can that be?
That's the problem, when it's hard, it's uncomfortable in your pants.
Right. Emboldened by those two women (and i don't mean Edwina Currie, who also appeared and with whom, alarmingly, I also found myself agreeing), I would like to ask you all about the following.
Take the Fallon- Leadsom incident in isolation (I understand that in his case there are more incidents, but bear with me). Let's try and transpose it to an analogous incident in daily life. Let's do it, because politicians, in resolving how they should behave are to a large extent reflecting how they think broader society behaves.
The analogy I suggest is the management board of a private company. Crucially, Fallon and Leadsom are equals in the cabinet. So this particular case cannot be categorised as abuse of power, can it? We could say that Fallon is the Sales Director and Leadsom is the Finance Director both reporting to the CEO. Both are seen as future CEOs. Leadsom arrives for the meeting from outside and the exchange takes place. Is that remark from the Sales Director "inappropriate"? How inappropriate? Why, exactly? In what way has the Finance Director ( and don't forget to transpose the Leadsom personality to the case) Is the Finance Director justified in complaining about it to the CEO? What punishment is then considered a appropriate? Sacking? Branding as not suitable as future CEO?
Do please try it. I am very interested in your conclusions, and what this says more widely about the change in relationship you seek to create between the genders in 2017 Britain. It is not per se about Leadsom's actual actions in real life.
But Prague, you're ignoring the fact that the incident happened six years ago when they weren't of equal status, and she is bringing forward this information now in the context of other allegations that have been made against him. It's not her making a complaint against him, but supporting other women with less power than she now has. When it comes down to a "she said, he said" situation (or even a "he said, he said" situation) generally nothing gets done unless it's possible to demonstrate that it's part of a pattern of inappropriate behaviour, and it's easier to come forward if you're not in the reporting chain of the person concerned.
Believe me, I don't like Leadsom, and I can pretty much guarantee you that her "as a mother" schtick pissed me off far more than it did you. But immediately jumping to the conclusion that she's doing this for personal advantage is the kind of thing that makes it difficult for women to come forward when they have been on the receiving end of inappropriate attention
Right. Emboldened by those two women (and i don't mean Edwina Currie, who also appeared and with whom, alarmingly, I also found myself agreeing), I would like to ask you all about the following.
Take the Fallon- Leadsom incident in isolation (I understand that in his case there are more incidents, but bear with me). Let's try and transpose it to an analogous incident in daily life. Let's do it, because politicians, in resolving how they should behave are to a large extent reflecting how they think broader society behaves.
The analogy I suggest is the management board of a private company. Crucially, Fallon and Leadsom are equals in the cabinet. So this particular case cannot be categorised as abuse of power, can it? We could say that Fallon is the Sales Director and Leadsom is the Finance Director both reporting to the CEO. Both are seen as future CEOs. Leadsom arrives for the meeting from outside and the exchange takes place. Is that remark from the Sales Director "inappropriate"? How inappropriate? Why, exactly? In what way has the Finance Director ( and don't forget to transpose the Leadsom personality to the case) Is the Finance Director justified in complaining about it to the CEO? What punishment is then considered a appropriate? Sacking? Branding as not suitable as future CEO?
Do please try it. I am very interested in your conclusions, and what this says more widely about the change in relationship you seek to create between the genders in 2017 Britain. It is not per se about Leadsom's actual actions in real life.
But Prague, you're ignoring the fact that the incident happened six years ago when they weren't of equal status, and she is bringing forward this information now in the context of other allegations that have been made against him. It's not her making a complaint against him, but supporting other women with less power than she now has. When it comes down to a "she said, he said" situation (or even a "he said, he said" situation) generally nothing gets done unless it's possible to demonstrate that it's part of a pattern of inappropriate behaviour, and it's easier to come forward if you're not in the reporting chain of the person concerned.
Believe me, I don't like Leadsom, and I can pretty much guarantee you that her "as a mother" schtick pissed me off far more than it did you. But immediately jumping to the conclusion that she's doing this for personal advantage is the kind of thing that makes it difficult for women to come forward when they have been on the receiving end of inappropriate attention
You make a very good point, which i had not considered. So, I have checked, and at the time of the remark, they were both members of the Treasury Select Committee. I'm looking for the power balance here. Leadsom had only recently arrived in the Commons, whereas Fallon at the time was Deputy Chairman of the Tory party. He was not a Minister at the time, but I would concede that the balance of power was still in his favour. I have also now read Jane Merrick's detailed account of what happened in her case with Fallon. I absolutely accept that in her case it was a clear abuse of power, and he deserves to go. (I tried to make clear from the start that I am not defending him)
I remain extremely suspicious of Leadsom's move and her motives. Furthermore, her specific complaint is fuelling what the women on Sunday Morning Live described as a moral panic. Whether or not Leadsom's motive was as you described, there is a danger that many reasonable people will consider her complaint to be frivolous and ridiculous, and if that is the case she is not advancing the cause of those who suffer such abuses of power. She is distracting from a focus on defining what is clearly unacceptable behaviour.
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future.
Are you suggesting that a married male cannot make accusations of harassment or are you suggesting that the gay man (you don't say whether he is married or not) or single woman (you don't say whether she is gay or not) are likely to, to the extent that you should not hire them because of their gender and sexual preferences? Or are you suggesting that you may accidentally harass one of them in the future so best to go for the one you are least likely to harass?
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future.
Are you suggesting that a married male cannot make accusations of harassment or are you suggesting that the gay man (you don't say whether he is married or not) or single woman (you don't say whether she is gay or not) are likely to, to the extent that you should not hire them because of their gender and sexual preferences? Or are you suggesting that you may accidentally harass one of them in the future so best to go for the one you are least likely to harass?
I'm suggesting none of that at all. I'm suggesting that being cautious and a political operator, you'd play the odds and make a decision which has the best chance to give you the least prospect of an unfounded allegation being made. I'm also not suggesting that any of the current matters are without foundation, merely that a knee-jerk (pun intended) reaction to this unedifying brouhaha has the prospect of making matters of equality in the workplace worse rather than better.
I would add as a side issue that in this day and age there can be no rationale for an organisation to encourage drunken behaviour by having subsidised bars (or any bars at all) on the premises. Eric Joyce being an example of someone who could well have done without the temptation in the House of Commons.
Here's a scenario. You are a heterosexual, male MP. But you are not Sir Les Patterson's stunt double. You need a new government-sponsored research assistant. Three of the candidates are equally well-suited for the job. One is a married male, one a female, one an openly gay male. Who do you choose? It's a no-brainer isn't it? You choose the one that has the least chance of doing you harm some time in the future.
Are you suggesting that a married male cannot make accusations of harassment or are you suggesting that the gay man (you don't say whether he is married or not) or single woman (you don't say whether she is gay or not) are likely to, to the extent that you should not hire them because of their gender and sexual preferences? Or are you suggesting that you may accidentally harass one of them in the future so best to go for the one you are least likely to harass?
I'm suggesting none of that at all. I'm suggesting that being cautious and a political operator, you'd play the odds and make a decision which has the best chance to give you the least prospect of an unfounded allegation being made. I'm also not suggesting that any of the current matters are without foundation, merely that a knee-jerk (pun intended) reaction to this unedifying brouhaha has the prospect of making matters of equality in the workplace worse rather than better.
I would add as a side issue that in this day and age there can be no rationale for an organisation to encourage drunken behaviour by having subsidised bars (or any bars at all) on the premises. Eric Joyce being an example of someone who could well have done without the temptation in the House of Commons.
Fair points, especially about the running of HOP as a men's club.
I'm not sure that fear of potential harassment allegations would significantly affect recruitment or that that should be a consideration.
Comments
Whether or not it's the moral/ethical thing to do. And especially with such a weak government with gaping fault lines over europe.
Although I would say, as long as Johnson loses his job I don’t care what the accusation is. The most important thing to me is that he never gets to be PM. And gets humiliated somehow.
Might she have used an apparently minor incident to her advantage to oust an opponent? Potentially.
How could it have been avoided? Fallon should've behaved himself.
Nothing more to it.
ETA: And as I typed that, ooh look, the actual reason he resigned. It seems that the Leadsom story may have been leaked by someone high up in the Tory party to distract from the real reason for Fallon's resignation and/or damage Leadsom's reputation.
As the Leader of The House, Leadsom's charged with working with the Speaker to sort out a reporting process for sexual harrassment in Parliament, and may have contributed that story to the PM as an example of the kind of inappropriate behaviour MPs or staff are having to deal with. Alternatively, Theresa May might have been canvassing female colleagues for other stories about Fallon so she could assess whether the Julia Hartley Brewer thing was a one-off failure of judgement, or if he has a track record of creepy unpleasant behaviour towards women. A single comment is probably not a sackable offence, but multiple instances definitely could be, especially if the person has been warned that they're making the workplace an unpleasant place to be for their female colleagues.
Jo Brand made the point quite well on Friday's Have I Got News For You:
You're making the mistake that lots of people did when Fallon first resigned, in assuming that his resignation is as a result of a story that is currently in the public domain, rather than some other incident(s) we don't yet know about.
I certainly did not, and do not make that mistake. I am not seeking to defend Fallon. I am accusing Leadsom of opportunistically seizing the political moment to take out one of the obstacles to her mission to appoint herself as the leader of a new hard right (and apparently puritanical) Tory party. In support of this, I will simply paste below some excerpts from the earlier Guardian report on her intervention, with my emphasis in bold.
She is reported to have objected to lewd remarks he made at a parliamentary meeting six years ago. When Leadsom complained of cold hands, Fallon allegedly replied: “I know somewhere you can put them to warm up.”
Leadsom stood against May for the party leadership, before stepping aside after appearing to suggest being a mother would make her a better prime minister.
The Brexiter is keen to place herself at the forefront of efforts to rid Westminster of its reputation for sexual harassment.
And from both the media, and the political establishment, this is truly a disgrace.
The embellishment of her cv, where she over-cooked her previous career in banking was widely reported at that time. Her campaign spawned a fake Twitter account called Leadsom's Tips. Hilarious, but not something that would happen to a politician with genuine ability and leadership potential.
In the long run, is this good for anyone?
Then I read the question properly.
It's quite fascinating how the response in two threads, this one and the Weinstein one are totally different, when posters suggested claims may have been made for personal gain in one, people came down on then like a ton of bricks, but making the same accusation against a politician you don't like seems to be ok.
Odd.
Is it offensive? No
Is it consistent? No
Take the Fallon- Leadsom incident in isolation (I understand that in his case there are more incidents, but bear with me). Let's try and transpose it to an analogous incident in daily life. Let's do it, because politicians, in resolving how they should behave are to a large extent reflecting how they think broader society behaves.
The analogy I suggest is the management board of a private company. Crucially, Fallon and Leadsom are equals in the cabinet. So this particular case cannot be categorised as abuse of power, can it? We could say that Fallon is the Sales Director and Leadsom is the Finance Director both reporting to the CEO. Both are seen as future CEOs. Leadsom arrives for the meeting from outside and the exchange takes place. Is that remark from the Sales Director "inappropriate"? How inappropriate? Why, exactly? In what way has the Finance Director ( and don't forget to transpose the Leadsom personality to the case) Is the Finance Director justified in complaining about it to the CEO? What punishment is then considered a appropriate? Sacking? Branding as not suitable as future CEO?
Do please try it. I am very interested in your conclusions, and what this says more widely about the change in relationship you seek to create between the genders in 2017 Britain. It is not per se about Leadsom's actual actions in real life.
Next?
Done and done. Nobody could elect him to anything after thi...oh.
That's the problem, when it's hard, it's uncomfortable in your pants.
Believe me, I don't like Leadsom, and I can pretty much guarantee you that her "as a mother" schtick pissed me off far more than it did you. But immediately jumping to the conclusion that she's doing this for personal advantage is the kind of thing that makes it difficult for women to come forward when they have been on the receiving end of inappropriate attention
I remain extremely suspicious of Leadsom's move and her motives. Furthermore, her specific complaint is fuelling what the women on Sunday Morning Live described as a moral panic. Whether or not Leadsom's motive was as you described, there is a danger that many reasonable people will consider her complaint to be frivolous and ridiculous, and if that is the case she is not advancing the cause of those who suffer such abuses of power. She is distracting from a focus on defining what is clearly unacceptable behaviour.
I would add as a side issue that in this day and age there can be no rationale for an organisation to encourage drunken behaviour by having subsidised bars (or any bars at all) on the premises. Eric Joyce being an example of someone who could well have done without the temptation in the House of Commons.
I'm not sure that fear of potential harassment allegations would significantly affect recruitment or that that should be a consideration.