whitewave was asking the other day which candidate The Times is backing. I answered that it was not clear to me they were backing any one. This has been confirmed this morning by this leader article which is critical of all three—I included Gove's dismissal for your entertainment; tbh, there might be a touch of regret in the article about Gove being kicked out of the running:
(it's not the entire artice but I think I've lifted the relevant paragraphs)
"In the second round of voting for the leadership, and hence for the post of prime minister, Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom have prevailed. The final choice between them will go to the roughly 150,000 members of the Conservative Party in a postal ballot, with the result due on September 9. The party would be well advised to bring forward that timetable to fill the vacuum in national leadership.
"The clear loser yesterday was Michael Gove, the justice secretary, who trailed Mrs Leadsom with 46 votes to her 84 and was thereby eliminated. He seems to have alienated his parliamentary colleagues by his ruthless dispatch of the leadership hopes of Boris Johnson. In reality Mr Gove, while provoking strong antipathies, has intellectual weight and an inquiring mind.
"Mrs Leadsom, who as energy minister does not hold cabinet office, has so far shown little evidence of these qualities.
There must be suspicion that, given her inexperience, Mrs Leadsom has been propelled to the final ballot more through a general ideological wishfulness than through her personal qualities. She has argued for Brexit and positioned herself to appeal to the right-wing flank of Conservative thinking. She made clear yesterday her opposition to gay marriage on the grounds of “hurt caused to many Christians” and a wish to repeal the ban on fox hunting.
'This is an oddly narrow set of subjects on which to found an appeal to prime ministerial office, especially at a time when the need to unify party and country and set them on a new course is paramount. Most worryingly, Mrs Leadsom delivered a speech yesterday that purported to be an important contribution to economic debate yet addressed almost no economic issue. It was, rather, an exhortation to “optimism”. Her claims to have held senior posts in the City have been called into question by evidence that she has burnished her CV.
"Mrs May, the home secretary since 2010, is far the stronger candidate and has the overwhelming support of most MPs. She backed the Remain campaign but not vocally. That is not necessarily a criticism. A prime minister with awareness of the costs of Brexit and no obvious zeal in the debate may be the more suitable negotiator for Britain’s interests in leaving.
"Doubts about Mrs May are more in her having little prior indication of an interest in the economy. Given the importance of maintaining trade and investment flows while Britain leaves the EU, that is a large issue on which to be untested. Mrs May has also dismayingly been prepared to countenance the idea of using the issue of nationality of EU citizens already resident in Britain as a bargaining chip in negotiations".
