Angela Rayner calls Tory MP "Scum"
Discussion
768 said:
Red 4 said:
Congratulations. What do you do for a living ?
I'm guessing you're not The Deputy Leader of The Labour Party, or even a lowly MP.
I don't think Rayner will be looking down the back of sofa for a few pence or wondering where her next meal will be coming from, somehow.
That's not to say she may not have done that at one time.
I'm not even a lowly MP no, don't fancy the pay cut thanks.I'm guessing you're not The Deputy Leader of The Labour Party, or even a lowly MP.
I don't think Rayner will be looking down the back of sofa for a few pence or wondering where her next meal will be coming from, somehow.
That's not to say she may not have done that at one time.
crankedup said:
Owing to the nature of work which can involve spending far more than an average working day in terms of hours. If I spent 12-15 hours stuck at work on a regular basis I would see meal subsidy as reasonable. Otherwise it’s off out to my fave restaurant for a full priced meal(s) on expenses. I guess on balance the subsidy works out fairly for both the MP and tax payer.
I think that's a reasonable argument but most people are limited to what they can claim on expenses. I've held some senior roles but a hundred quid on an evening meal would have raised plenty of eyebrows and that wouldn't cover a full priced meal and wine in my fave restaurant. I think the subsidy is a little too generous for reasonably well paid people with a raft of their expenses covered, that's all.BigMon said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Escy said:
Good idea.
Eton > Oxford (2nd in Classics) > Graduate Trainee Journalist at the Times (secured via family connections) [sacked for lying] > Journalist at the Daily Telegraph (secured via Oxford connections) > political gravy train.
I think it's save to say Rayner has a better grasp on what the reality is for the majority of the population. I bet Johnson doesn't even know a single person that receives free school meals.
I bet he knows some who actually work for a living instead of expecting handouts.Eton > Oxford (2nd in Classics) > Graduate Trainee Journalist at the Times (secured via family connections) [sacked for lying] > Journalist at the Daily Telegraph (secured via Oxford connections) > political gravy train.
I think it's save to say Rayner has a better grasp on what the reality is for the majority of the population. I bet Johnson doesn't even know a single person that receives free school meals.
Derek Smith said:
williamp said:
Derek Smith said:
It's just rules, not decorum. My MP at the time called a labour minister a liar, but used a different term. It meant the same. It generated laughter and was mentioned in a couple at least right of centre national papers. How funny, the bloke got around the rules by using terminology not on the list. He wasn't even original.
I was unaware scum was on that list. Ah, well, you live and learn.
It's a club. It's got club rules.
But isnt it civilised not to call someone scum? I wouldnt dream of calling anyone that. To their face, behind their back, anywhere.I was unaware scum was on that list. Ah, well, you live and learn.
It's a club. It's got club rules.
Its rude and offensive. I dont think its to do with their "club"
I'm not defending her, but then I would not defend my sitting MP for suggesting that someone on the opposite benches used a terminological inexactitude, ie liar. Using a synonym is inexcusable. It wasn’t even invented by him.
To you, scum is used by the uncivilised. To someone brought up differently, it might be a common term. I don’t know. My upbringing was firm on not calling anyone ‘names’ that could be seen as abusive. I wouldn’t necessarily judge her on that alone. Some of the other stuff is different though.
I used to deal with the class that is roundly condemned as slackers and wastes of space on PH. I soon learned that a lack of vocabulary, and different phrases and words, did not necessarily reflect the quality of the person, merely their upbringing.
I’d agree, going by her history, she seems to fall into the PH definition of slacker and waste of space. But wear her shoes for a while.
That way you have a new pair of shoes, and their owner is a mile back with none.
crankedup said:
chrispmartha said:
Wombat3 said:
chrispmartha said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:768 said:
She does, but she thinks it's where you have your first kid.
Do you have similar views about anyone who's a single parent at a young age or is it entirely down to which political party they support?Isn’t that exactly what some on here are calling for people to do yet it seems she’s still derided for her past?
B 1980
1996 (@ 16) left school when pregnant.
Subsequently trained as a Social care worker & worked for Stockport council can't see when that started but lets be generous & say in 2000
Subsequently became union Rep for unison & after that Convener for the whole North West. One can only imagine what percentage of her time was spent on Social care by that time but if most union wallahs are to be used an example, not very much would be the answer. Unison is, of course the public sector union.
Married a Unison bod in 2010 & had two further kids, one prematurely so much of the next 4 or 5 years taken up with that before entering parliament in 2015.
So overall she's probably done maybe 5 or 6 years actual work 9-5, 5 days a week working for a local council before getting heavily involved in Union activities & then politics.
Never been near a business, & therefore knows only what she has learned either second/third hand or through dogma/doctrine. In other words S.F.A.
The only use of the word "successful" that applies to her is the £80K a year she relieves the taxpayer of.
Absolutely stealing a living.
768 said:
Red 4 said:
You "work in IT" don't you ? It shows.
Guess we've long passed the end of your argument then.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion but it is sensible to speak from a position of at least some knowledge. If you don't do that then you run the risk of being ignorant and showing your arse.
Even when your ignorance has been highlighted you move on to another put down of Rayner.
Your comments such as "You wouldn't take the pay drop to become an MP" show that you have a high opinion of yourself.
Your posts do not support this. You just come across as a bit of a t
t, TBH.chrispmartha said:
crankedup said:
chrispmartha said:
Wombat3 said:
chrispmartha said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:768 said:
She does, but she thinks it's where you have your first kid.
Do you have similar views about anyone who's a single parent at a young age or is it entirely down to which political party they support?Isn’t that exactly what some on here are calling for people to do yet it seems she’s still derided for her past?
B 1980
1996 (@ 16) left school when pregnant.
Subsequently trained as a Social care worker & worked for Stockport council can't see when that started but lets be generous & say in 2000
Subsequently became union Rep for unison & after that Convener for the whole North West. One can only imagine what percentage of her time was spent on Social care by that time but if most union wallahs are to be used an example, not very much would be the answer. Unison is, of course the public sector union.
Married a Unison bod in 2010 & had two further kids, one prematurely so much of the next 4 or 5 years taken up with that before entering parliament in 2015.
So overall she's probably done maybe 5 or 6 years actual work 9-5, 5 days a week working for a local council before getting heavily involved in Union activities & then politics.
Never been near a business, & therefore knows only what she has learned either second/third hand or through dogma/doctrine. In other words S.F.A.
The only use of the word "successful" that applies to her is the £80K a year she relieves the taxpayer of.
Absolutely stealing a living.
crankedup said:
chrispmartha said:
crankedup said:
chrispmartha said:
Wombat3 said:
chrispmartha said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:768 said:
She does, but she thinks it's where you have your first kid.
Do you have similar views about anyone who's a single parent at a young age or is it entirely down to which political party they support?Isn’t that exactly what some on here are calling for people to do yet it seems she’s still derided for her past?
B 1980
1996 (@ 16) left school when pregnant.
Subsequently trained as a Social care worker & worked for Stockport council can't see when that started but lets be generous & say in 2000
Subsequently became union Rep for unison & after that Convener for the whole North West. One can only imagine what percentage of her time was spent on Social care by that time but if most union wallahs are to be used an example, not very much would be the answer. Unison is, of course the public sector union.
Married a Unison bod in 2010 & had two further kids, one prematurely so much of the next 4 or 5 years taken up with that before entering parliament in 2015.
So overall she's probably done maybe 5 or 6 years actual work 9-5, 5 days a week working for a local council before getting heavily involved in Union activities & then politics.
Never been near a business, & therefore knows only what she has learned either second/third hand or through dogma/doctrine. In other words S.F.A.
The only use of the word "successful" that applies to her is the £80K a year she relieves the taxpayer of.
Absolutely stealing a living.
And to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people? Some of them should be, and it's not a bad thing if a portion of them are, but why is it to Rayner's deficit that she has (supposedly) 'never been near a business'? She's an MP, party deputy and former shadow education secretary. What does business experience got to to with that? Wouldn't a qualification and career in social care, local government and a major trade union be just as useful, or at least bring some useful insight to the role?
2xChevrons said:
Just to help, I've bolded the bits of your run-down which are opinion and supposition. I won't get into the bitterness.
And to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people? Some of them should be, and it's not a bad thing if a portion of them are, but why is it to Rayner's deficit that she has (supposedly) 'never been near a business'? She's an MP, party deputy and former shadow education secretary. What does business experience got to to with that? Wouldn't a qualification and career in social care, local government and a major trade union be just as useful, or at least bring some useful insight to the role?
She hasn't a qualification,And to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people? Some of them should be, and it's not a bad thing if a portion of them are, but why is it to Rayner's deficit that she has (supposedly) 'never been near a business'? She's an MP, party deputy and former shadow education secretary. What does business experience got to to with that? Wouldn't a qualification and career in social care, local government and a major trade union be just as useful, or at least bring some useful insight to the role?
5 or so years doesn't make a career,
Major trade union activity may bring some useful insight to the role, I fear nepotism probably doesn't
What Ashton-under-Lyne have with Raynor is the equivalent in usefulness as a donkey with a red rosette
2xChevrons said:
[
And to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
Oh, I dont know, maybe because it might give them half a clue as to how fAnd to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
king difficult it is to generate the money that they spend so easily?People like Rayner are literally clueless as to what it takes to do that.
Just a thought ....
crankedup said:
chrispmartha said:
crankedup said:
chrispmartha said:
Wombat3 said:
chrispmartha said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:768 said:
She does, but she thinks it's where you have your first kid.
Do you have similar views about anyone who's a single parent at a young age or is it entirely down to which political party they support?Isn’t that exactly what some on here are calling for people to do yet it seems she’s still derided for her past?
B 1980
1996 (@ 16) left school when pregnant.
Subsequently trained as a Social care worker & worked for Stockport council can't see when that started but lets be generous & say in 2000
Subsequently became union Rep for unison & after that Convener for the whole North West. One can only imagine what percentage of her time was spent on Social care by that time but if most union wallahs are to be used an example, not very much would be the answer. Unison is, of course the public sector union.
Married a Unison bod in 2010 & had two further kids, one prematurely so much of the next 4 or 5 years taken up with that before entering parliament in 2015.
So overall she's probably done maybe 5 or 6 years actual work 9-5, 5 days a week working for a local council before getting heavily involved in Union activities & then politics.
Never been near a business, & therefore knows only what she has learned either second/third hand or through dogma/doctrine. In other words S.F.A.
The only use of the word "successful" that applies to her is the £80K a year she relieves the taxpayer of.
Absolutely stealing a living.
Wombat3 said:
I'm not bitter about her, I just view her as very thick, ill-informed and potentially dangerous. Hopefully she will get no closer to being able to do any real damage.
It you support a party that would have Priti Vacant-Patel as Home Secretary, (her of the war on counter terrorism), then you really lose all credibility to comment on politicians being very thick, ill-informed, potentially dangerous, and holding high office.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wombat3 said:
I'm not bitter about her, I just view her as very thick, ill-informed and potentially dangerous. Hopefully she will get no closer to being able to do any real damage.
It you support a party that would have Priti Vacant-Patel as Home Secretary, (her of the war on counter terrorism), then you really lose all credibility to comment on politicians being very thick, ill-informed, potentially dangerous, and holding high office.
Wombat3 said:
2xChevrons said:
[
And to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
Oh, I dont know, maybe because it might give them half a clue as to how fAnd to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
king difficult it is to generate the money that they spend so easily?People like Rayner are literally clueless as to what it takes to do that.
Just a thought ....
k business?greygoose said:
Wombat3 said:
2xChevrons said:
[
And to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
Oh, I dont know, maybe because it might give them half a clue as to how fAnd to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
king difficult it is to generate the money that they spend so easily?People like Rayner are literally clueless as to what it takes to do that.
Just a thought ....
k business?"But Boris" is somewhat irrelevant.
Be that as it may , the basic tenets of Conservatism are much more inclined to be low tax, business friendly etc.
Raynor et al plainly think differently.
Wombat3 said:
2xChevrons said:
[
And to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
Oh, I dont know, maybe because it might give them half a clue as to how fAnd to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
king difficult it is to generate the money that they spend so easily?People like Rayner are literally clueless as to what it takes to do that.
Just a thought ....
There is a lot of angry short sighted views in politics which stem from a lack of knowledge of finance and economics.
leef44 said:
Wombat3 said:
2xChevrons said:
[
And to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
Oh, I dont know, maybe because it might give them half a clue as to how fAnd to add, what's this obsession with MPs being business people?
king difficult it is to generate the money that they spend so easily?People like Rayner are literally clueless as to what it takes to do that.
Just a thought ....
There is a lot of angry short sighted views in politics which stem from a lack of knowledge of finance and economics.
I think we need more “common folk” like Rayner. Much of politics has become aloof from the real world and they don’t seem to understand what many are going through. You see it with lots of politicians when the electorate show concern for losing their job/career and are simply told “go to university and train for something else”. I’m not saying Rayner is any good, but there should be representatives from a variety of backgrounds rather than simply university and journalism.
crankedup said:
Owing to the nature of work which can involve spending far more than an average working day in terms of hours. If I spent 12-15 hours stuck at work on a regular basis I would see meal subsidy as reasonable. Otherwise it’s off out to my fave restaurant for a full priced meal(s) on expenses. I guess on balance the subsidy works out fairly for both the MP and tax payer.
They are there regularly for 12-15hrs??!! In the bar perhaps...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff