Leadsom is not fit to lead some

Prior to the EU referendum, Andrea Leadsom was an unknown Conservative backbencher elected in 2010, rarely making a sound or movement. She became a rising star in the EU referendum,despite believing remaining in the EU was the best thing for the country in 2013. She continually boasted about her CV and 25 years of financial services experience, and used this a justification for knowledge of financial services and the banking system. Leadsom used to be able to show-off and exaggerate her role in Barings Bank, when it collapsed in 1995. In her blog post in 2009, she claimed to be “running Barclays’ investment team” and “[her] team and [Leadsom] spent the weekend in the office, working for Andrew Buxton and Eddie George, then Governor of the Bank of England.” She has continually described herself as the ‘Financial Institutions Director’ at Barclays. During her time at De Putron Fund Management in 1997-99, she claimed to be the managing director. Between 1999-2009, Leadsom claimed to be a senior investment officer at Invesco Perpetual. She had claimed she ran “enormous teams, small teams [and] start-up businesses.”

However, the former chief executive at the time of Barings’ collapse claims to have “no recollection of her [Leadsom] at all.”John Gapper, the former Financial Times’ Bbanking editor who wrote a book on Barings bank says “I never heard of Andrea Leadsom until now.” She has since downgraded the seniority of her positions at Barclays and De Putron Fund to ‘Deputy Financial Institutions Director’ and ‘marketing director’ respectively. Reuters contacted former employees at Invesco Perpetual; “Leadsom did not have a prominent role or manage client money.”  They also claim “[e]verybody I’ve spoken to who does remember her says her CV doesn’t match her role.” The former Invesco Perpetual worker Robert Stephens claims her role at Barclays was “a largely administrative one”, not one of managing finances or funds. Prior to the EU referendum, no-one batted an eye-lid. She was a borderline nobody in the world of politics. Now that she is one of the final two candidates for the Conservative leadership and thus, Prime Minister, her exaggerations and lies are catching up with her. She has since revised her CV, and it looks a lot less glowing. She has deliberately tried to mislead people about her experience for her own personal gain. Who would like to remindMs Leadsom we are still waiting for her tax returns she promised to publish if she got into the final two candidates for the Conservative leadership?

Her lack of  financial knowledge and naivety can be seen in her recent interviews. She asserts “we can see that the forecasts of a disaster for sterling, for equities and for interest rates have not been proven correct. The pound is weaker, partly as a result of markets being wrong on the results of the referendum” As of today, the pound has fallen by around 11-12% since the EU referendum and is the worst performing major currency – worse than the Argentinian and Mexican pesos. Following her logic, if the market had been on the right side of the referendum, i.e. perceived a Brexit win, the pound would still have fallen. She further asserts a “lower sterling is good for exports and it makes inward investment more attractive. It means we may import less and buy more at home. These are all good things for our economy.” This does make sense and is in line with basic economic theory. What she omits is that we are a hugely importing nation which lacks the industrial capacity to create physical goods we consume, we also have diminishing natural and raw materials. A lower value of sterling will make our imports more expensive – in particular oil – and will lead to a rise in inflation. Our economy specialises on financial services, demand for said services will not increase on a lower pound.

It is also worth noting Leadsom’s thoughts on the dramatic fall in the value of sterling in 2008, where she argues “Sterling has dropped dramatically – the collapse is effectively the foreign investors’ ‘vote’ on our economic potential. They don’t want to hold sterling because they don’t believe we will thrive economically for the forseeable future.” How times change. 

Leadsom has also voiced concern over same-sex marriage and is asupporter for fox hunting, with her the so-called ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ is dead. In the words of the Conservative MP, Michael Fabricant “she [Leadsom] is of the Christian right – neither Christian, nor right.” Last night, the Times ran with “Being a mother gives me edge on May – Leadsom.” The headline stems from her quotes in her interview with Rachel Sylvester of the Times, as shown below. “But I have children” stuck out like a sore thumb.

Leadsom vehemetely disagreed calling it”[t]ruly appalling and the exact opposite of what I said. I am disgusted[,]” demanding to see the transcripts. Her demands for the transcripts showed that she had not recorded her interview – exposing her political naivety and incompetence. The Times released the transcripts, as seen below, as well as the audio transcripts. It is clear her views have not been misrepresented. The idea that someone doesn’t have a “very real stake in the future of our country” because they don’t have children is utterly ludicrous, especially when the person in question is barren. It has caused outrage and disgust through many MPs, with even Dr Sarah Wallaston MP calling for her towithdraw from the leadership. Leadsom either meant it and is therefore full of malice, or she didn’t thus further exposing her naivety and incompetence.

To sum it all up, Leadsom does not deny what she said, but wants a retraction because she doesn’t like how the Times portrayed it. 

Leadsom is an egotistical pathological liar, saying what people want to hear, exaggerating non-truths to climb up the greasy pole. She is full of empty platitudes, naivety and inexperience. She will put herself first, not her party and not the country.

Leadsom is not fit to lead.