Angela Rayner calls Tory MP "Scum"
Discussion
Wombat3 said:
biggbn said:
I think I'm right in saying only one poster has defended her, the rest of us are saying she made a huge error in her use of language.
I think it's been well established that what she said was completely out of order. I was referring to her complete unsuitability to be anywhere near the levers of power.I know nothing of Rayner, other than that she called another member 'scum' and that is behaviour unbecoming. What do you think should be the accepted qualifications for a politician, or a cabinet member, or a pm? Major presented well but had the morals of a young Alsatian puppy by some accounts, Blair was likely well qualified but was a war mongering Christian jihadist who lied to the world. Brown well qualified yet sold our gold and helped bankrupt many. Cameron, well qualified, may yet be responsible for splitting the union, left his kid in a pub, showed zero moral fortitude when the country needed to be pulled together and buggered off, May? Second class degree in geography yet couldn't find her way out of Europe and almost lost an election to one of the worst Labour leaders in recent times, and dear, dear BoJo, another second class degree, sacked from jobs in the private sector for dishonesty, lazy, self serving and seems to make Kennedy look monogamous? Now, none of that is conjecture, it is all fact.
So what happens to these people? Is our system so corrupt by the time they reach the top of the greasy pole they have lost touch with their basic morality, or does politics attract cheats and liars? I am genuinely interested in this discussion, and have mentioned labour and tory leaders so can hardly be accused of whataboutery.
Should one seeking office need to get a qualification in politics including finance, education etc...? I can think of no other job you can walk into, take a decent wage from, have a fair amount of responsibility yet need no qualifications? Should someone be provisionally elected and not allowed to take over from the incumbent until they are trained and have a basic qualification, a levelling up of politicians? Boris would love that! Instead of shouting and criticising, what's the answer, because I agree, going on the abyss our politicos are disappearing into, something needs done. The behaviour in the house would get detentions or exclusions from school. The cronyism, nest feathering and sometimes nepotism has rings of ancient Greek tragedy. What is the solution. We put these people here, how long must we settle for the leasr worst regardless of our own beliefs?
jakesmith said:
She is an atrocious statesperson, her politics and policies are all rubbish, and if she had a little more grace and decorum her lack of education wouldn't even register as an issue.
Right now this country needs people who can cool down the rhetoric,
Agreed. So when are the PM, Matt Hancock and Priti Patel resigning? Right now this country needs people who can cool down the rhetoric,
biggbn said:
Ah, you mean the ongoing comparative discussion about what are the real credentials for a politician? I do wonder sometimes, our political class being as inept as I can remember it, and neither 'side' can lay claim to hegemony in this regard.
I know nothing of Rayner, other than that she called another member 'scum' and that is behaviour unbecoming. What do you think should be the accepted qualifications for a politician, or a cabinet member, or a pm? Major presented well but had the morals of a young Alsatian puppy by some accounts, Blair was likely well qualified but was a war mongering Christian jihadist who lied to the world. Brown well qualified yet sold our gold and helped bankrupt many. Cameron, well qualified, may yet be responsible for splitting the union, left his kid in a pub, showed zero moral fortitude when the country needed to be pulled together and buggered off, May? Second class degree in geography yet couldn't find her way out of Europe and almost lost an election to one of the worst Labour leaders in recent times, and dear, dear BoJo, another second class degree, sacked from jobs in the private sector for dishonesty, lazy, self serving and seems to make Kennedy look monogamous? Now, none of that is conjecture, it is all fact.
So what happens to these people? Is our system so corrupt by the time they reach the top of the greasy pole they have lost touch with their basic morality, or does politics attract cheats and liars? I am genuinely interested in this discussion, and have mentioned labour and tory leaders so can hardly be accused of whataboutery.
Should one seeking office need to get a qualification in politics including finance, education etc...? I can think of no other job you can walk into, take a decent wage from, have a fair amount of responsibility yet need no qualifications? Should someone be provisionally elected and not allowed to take over from the incumbent until they are trained and have a basic qualification, a levelling up of politicians? Boris would love that! Instead of shouting and criticising, what's the answer, because I agree, going on the abyss our politicos are disappearing into, something needs done. The behaviour in the house would get detentions or exclusions from school. The cronyism, nest feathering and sometimes nepotism has rings of ancient Greek tragedy. What is the solution. We put these people here, how long must we settle for the leasr worst regardless of our own beliefs?
One of the best posts I've ever read on here. I know nothing of Rayner, other than that she called another member 'scum' and that is behaviour unbecoming. What do you think should be the accepted qualifications for a politician, or a cabinet member, or a pm? Major presented well but had the morals of a young Alsatian puppy by some accounts, Blair was likely well qualified but was a war mongering Christian jihadist who lied to the world. Brown well qualified yet sold our gold and helped bankrupt many. Cameron, well qualified, may yet be responsible for splitting the union, left his kid in a pub, showed zero moral fortitude when the country needed to be pulled together and buggered off, May? Second class degree in geography yet couldn't find her way out of Europe and almost lost an election to one of the worst Labour leaders in recent times, and dear, dear BoJo, another second class degree, sacked from jobs in the private sector for dishonesty, lazy, self serving and seems to make Kennedy look monogamous? Now, none of that is conjecture, it is all fact.
So what happens to these people? Is our system so corrupt by the time they reach the top of the greasy pole they have lost touch with their basic morality, or does politics attract cheats and liars? I am genuinely interested in this discussion, and have mentioned labour and tory leaders so can hardly be accused of whataboutery.
Should one seeking office need to get a qualification in politics including finance, education etc...? I can think of no other job you can walk into, take a decent wage from, have a fair amount of responsibility yet need no qualifications? Should someone be provisionally elected and not allowed to take over from the incumbent until they are trained and have a basic qualification, a levelling up of politicians? Boris would love that! Instead of shouting and criticising, what's the answer, because I agree, going on the abyss our politicos are disappearing into, something needs done. The behaviour in the house would get detentions or exclusions from school. The cronyism, nest feathering and sometimes nepotism has rings of ancient Greek tragedy. What is the solution. We put these people here, how long must we settle for the leasr worst regardless of our own beliefs?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
jakesmith said:
She is an atrocious statesperson, her politics and policies are all rubbish, and if she had a little more grace and decorum her lack of education wouldn't even register as an issue.
Right now this country needs people who can cool down the rhetoric,
Agreed. So when are the PM, Matt Hancock and Priti Patel resigning? Right now this country needs people who can cool down the rhetoric,
Im afraid your point is not the zinger you think it is. No one is calling on Rayner to resign firstly. The issue is that she is from a party that masquerades as occupying the moral high ground, fairness, and all that s
t. Shouting scum at someone who has a different opinion hardly meets their own standard and doesn’t everyone hate a hypocrite. The next problem is that the Torys are already in power so have the luxury of practically guaranteed tenure for several years. There is no precedent for them to resign for incompetence those days are gone much as many of us may want them not to be.
Rayner represents the failure of the previous administration to convince the electorate to change their government. Labour face a numerically challenging Electoral mountain to climb. She and Labour do not have an easy task to accomplish, without even having to manage coronavirus. They need to be better than shouting ‘scum’ out.
jakesmith said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
jakesmith said:
She is an atrocious statesperson, her politics and policies are all rubbish, and if she had a little more grace and decorum her lack of education wouldn't even register as an issue.
Right now this country needs people who can cool down the rhetoric,
Agreed. So when are the PM, Matt Hancock and Priti Patel resigning? Right now this country needs people who can cool down the rhetoric,
Im afraid your point is not the zinger you think it is. No one is calling on Rayner to resign firstly. The issue is that she is from a party that masquerades as occupying the moral high ground, fairness, and all that s
t. Shouting scum at someone who has a different opinion hardly meets their own standard and doesn’t everyone hate a hypocrite. The next problem is that the Torys are already in power so have the luxury of practically guaranteed tenure for several years. There is no precedent for them to resign for incompetence those days are gone much as many of us may want them not to be.
Rayner represents the failure of the previous administration to convince the electorate to change their government. Labour face a numerically challenging Electoral mountain to climb. She and Labour do not have an easy task to accomplish, without even having to manage coronavirus. They need to be better than shouting ‘scum’ out.
jakesmith said:
Tell you what they’ve kept Patel out of the way during Covid haven’t they! Haven’t seen her for months.
.
Not that this is the thread but it seems she’s been busy with ‘lefty activist lawyers’ but seems that she may have gone a little too far,.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/25/pr...
The common problem of both parties and front benches is that they both contain members that have no place being there. For every Rayner there’s a Patel. For every Abbott there’s a Grayling.
It’s difficult to win an argument saying so and so is useless because there’s always the counterpoint of highlighting an equally useless so and so from your ‘side’. Doesn’t matter whether you’re left or right, you all have the same problem and that’s a great pity.
biggbn said:
Wombat3 said:
biggbn said:
I think I'm right in saying only one poster has defended her, the rest of us are saying she made a huge error in her use of language.
I think it's been well established that what she said was completely out of order. I was referring to her complete unsuitability to be anywhere near the levers of power.I know nothing of Rayner, other than that she called another member 'scum' and that is behaviour unbecoming. What do you think should be the accepted qualifications for a politician, or a cabinet member, or a pm? Major presented well but had the morals of a young Alsatian puppy by some accounts, Blair was likely well qualified but was a war mongering Christian jihadist who lied to the world. Brown well qualified yet sold our gold and helped bankrupt many. Cameron, well qualified, may yet be responsible for splitting the union, left his kid in a pub, showed zero moral fortitude when the country needed to be pulled together and buggered off, May? Second class degree in geography yet couldn't find her way out of Europe and almost lost an election to one of the worst Labour leaders in recent times, and dear, dear BoJo, another second class degree, sacked from jobs in the private sector for dishonesty, lazy, self serving and seems to make Kennedy look monogamous? Now, none of that is conjecture, it is all fact.
So what happens to these people? Is our system so corrupt by the time they reach the top of the greasy pole they have lost touch with their basic morality, or does politics attract cheats and liars? I am genuinely interested in this discussion, and have mentioned labour and tory leaders so can hardly be accused of whataboutery.
Should one seeking office need to get a qualification in politics including finance, education etc...? I can think of no other job you can walk into, take a decent wage from, have a fair amount of responsibility yet need no qualifications? Should someone be provisionally elected and not allowed to take over from the incumbent until they are trained and have a basic qualification, a levelling up of politicians? Boris would love that! Instead of shouting and criticising, what's the answer, because I agree, going on the abyss our politicos are disappearing into, something needs done. The behaviour in the house would get detentions or exclusions from school. The cronyism, nest feathering and sometimes nepotism has rings of ancient Greek tragedy. What is the solution. We put these people here, how long must we settle for the leasr worst regardless of our own beliefs?
There is a saying that we get the politicians we deserve, and to a large extent that is now true. Their basic problem is that is that they need to keep getting elected and that drives much of what they say and do; because the one thing they can count on is that the electorate in this country is now beyond fickle.
It also has little appetite for the truth or some of the harsher realities & it has no stomach for hard graft or sacrifice at a national level. Real pride or national community spirit in our nation also seems lacking (or at best only appears fleetingly from time to time). Its every man for himself & I'm afraid we are a nation of very selfish people. We all spend our lives looking over our shoulders trying not to get screwed. Meanwhile we have a LOT of people absolutely stealing a living. There is so much incompetence, self interest and corruption which wastes so much time and money.
All of which is why we stay in such a perpetual mess IMO and why, at least in our lifetimes, this country will make no great progress and will simply lurch from one crisis to the next getting ever deeper into debt and ever weaker.
The only question is as to whether that will happen faster here than elsewhere because how many world leaders or governments can you name who would be universally lauded for what they are achieving? Not many that I can think of.
Short answer is I don't know how you solve it.
biggbn said:
...BoJo, another second class degree, sacked from jobs in the private sector for dishonesty, lazy, self serving and seems to make Kennedy look monogamous?
Not just private sector. He was also sacked by Michael Howard for being less than honest. The article might also help explain why Johnson remains so pig headed when the press are against him. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1476560/Ho...
Wombat3 said:
biggbn said:
Wombat3 said:
biggbn said:
I think I'm right in saying only one poster has defended her, the rest of us are saying she made a huge error in her use of language.
I think it's been well established that what she said was completely out of order. I was referring to her complete unsuitability to be anywhere near the levers of power.I know nothing of Rayner, other than that she called another member 'scum' and that is behaviour unbecoming. What do you think should be the accepted qualifications for a politician, or a cabinet member, or a pm? Major presented well but had the morals of a young Alsatian puppy by some accounts, Blair was likely well qualified but was a war mongering Christian jihadist who lied to the world. Brown well qualified yet sold our gold and helped bankrupt many. Cameron, well qualified, may yet be responsible for splitting the union, left his kid in a pub, showed zero moral fortitude when the country needed to be pulled together and buggered off, May? Second class degree in geography yet couldn't find her way out of Europe and almost lost an election to one of the worst Labour leaders in recent times, and dear, dear BoJo, another second class degree, sacked from jobs in the private sector for dishonesty, lazy, self serving and seems to make Kennedy look monogamous? Now, none of that is conjecture, it is all fact.
So what happens to these people? Is our system so corrupt by the time they reach the top of the greasy pole they have lost touch with their basic morality, or does politics attract cheats and liars? I am genuinely interested in this discussion, and have mentioned labour and tory leaders so can hardly be accused of whataboutery.
Should one seeking office need to get a qualification in politics including finance, education etc...? I can think of no other job you can walk into, take a decent wage from, have a fair amount of responsibility yet need no qualifications? Should someone be provisionally elected and not allowed to take over from the incumbent until they are trained and have a basic qualification, a levelling up of politicians? Boris would love that! Instead of shouting and criticising, what's the answer, because I agree, going on the abyss our politicos are disappearing into, something needs done. The behaviour in the house would get detentions or exclusions from school. The cronyism, nest feathering and sometimes nepotism has rings of ancient Greek tragedy. What is the solution. We put these people here, how long must we settle for the leasr worst regardless of our own beliefs?
There is a saying that we get the politicians we deserve, and to a large extent that is now true. Their basic problem is that is that they need to keep getting elected and that drives much of what they say and do; because the one thing they can count on is that the electorate in this country is now beyond fickle.
It also has little appetite for the truth or some of the harsher realities & it has no stomach for hard graft or sacrifice at a national level. Real pride or national community spirit in our nation also seems lacking (or at best only appears fleetingly from time to time). Its every man for himself & I'm afraid we are a nation of very selfish people. We all spend our lives looking over our shoulders trying not to get screwed. Meanwhile we have a LOT of people absolutely stealing a living. There is so much incompetence, self interest and corruption which wastes so much time and money.
All of which is why we stay in such a perpetual mess IMO and why, at least in our lifetimes, this country will make no great progress and will simply lurch from one crisis to the next getting ever deeper into debt and ever weaker.
The only question is as to whether that will happen faster here than elsewhere because how many world leaders or governments can you name who would be universally lauded for what they are achieving? Not many that I can think of.
Short answer is I don't know how you solve it.
biggbn said:
Wombat3 said:
biggbn said:
Wombat3 said:
biggbn said:
I think I'm right in saying only one poster has defended her, the rest of us are saying she made a huge error in her use of language.
I think it's been well established that what she said was completely out of order. I was referring to her complete unsuitability to be anywhere near the levers of power.I know nothing of Rayner, other than that she called another member 'scum' and that is behaviour unbecoming. What do you think should be the accepted qualifications for a politician, or a cabinet member, or a pm? Major presented well but had the morals of a young Alsatian puppy by some accounts, Blair was likely well qualified but was a war mongering Christian jihadist who lied to the world. Brown well qualified yet sold our gold and helped bankrupt many. Cameron, well qualified, may yet be responsible for splitting the union, left his kid in a pub, showed zero moral fortitude when the country needed to be pulled together and buggered off, May? Second class degree in geography yet couldn't find her way out of Europe and almost lost an election to one of the worst Labour leaders in recent times, and dear, dear BoJo, another second class degree, sacked from jobs in the private sector for dishonesty, lazy, self serving and seems to make Kennedy look monogamous? Now, none of that is conjecture, it is all fact.
So what happens to these people? Is our system so corrupt by the time they reach the top of the greasy pole they have lost touch with their basic morality, or does politics attract cheats and liars? I am genuinely interested in this discussion, and have mentioned labour and tory leaders so can hardly be accused of whataboutery.
Should one seeking office need to get a qualification in politics including finance, education etc...? I can think of no other job you can walk into, take a decent wage from, have a fair amount of responsibility yet need no qualifications? Should someone be provisionally elected and not allowed to take over from the incumbent until they are trained and have a basic qualification, a levelling up of politicians? Boris would love that! Instead of shouting and criticising, what's the answer, because I agree, going on the abyss our politicos are disappearing into, something needs done. The behaviour in the house would get detentions or exclusions from school. The cronyism, nest feathering and sometimes nepotism has rings of ancient Greek tragedy. What is the solution. We put these people here, how long must we settle for the leasr worst regardless of our own beliefs?
There is a saying that we get the politicians we deserve, and to a large extent that is now true. Their basic problem is that is that they need to keep getting elected and that drives much of what they say and do; because the one thing they can count on is that the electorate in this country is now beyond fickle.
It also has little appetite for the truth or some of the harsher realities & it has no stomach for hard graft or sacrifice at a national level. Real pride or national community spirit in our nation also seems lacking (or at best only appears fleetingly from time to time). Its every man for himself & I'm afraid we are a nation of very selfish people. We all spend our lives looking over our shoulders trying not to get screwed. Meanwhile we have a LOT of people absolutely stealing a living. There is so much incompetence, self interest and corruption which wastes so much time and money.
All of which is why we stay in such a perpetual mess IMO and why, at least in our lifetimes, this country will make no great progress and will simply lurch from one crisis to the next getting ever deeper into debt and ever weaker.
The only question is as to whether that will happen faster here than elsewhere because how many world leaders or governments can you name who would be universally lauded for what they are achieving? Not many that I can think of.
Short answer is I don't know how you solve it.
ETA: https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-a...
Personally I just think we've become a bit spoiled.
Edited by andy_s on Monday 26th October 08:15
valiant said:
jakesmith said:
Tell you what they’ve kept Patel out of the way during Covid haven’t they! Haven’t seen her for months.
.
Not that this is the thread but it seems she’s been busy with ‘lefty activist lawyers’ but seems that she may have gone a little too far,.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:98elise said:
Agreed.
Education is being told what a fish is and what a vegetable is. Being thick is thinking a vegetarian can eat fish.
She failed at school, and she is thick IMO.
A bit like how being taught Kipling is education and reciting it when in a temple in Myanmar is thick?Education is being told what a fish is and what a vegetable is. Being thick is thinking a vegetarian can eat fish.
She failed at school, and she is thick IMO.
Sorry it's just too hard not to
Angela Rayner said:
He does make exceeding good cakes
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lefty activist lawyers being the ones who actually stop the govt from breaking the law.
All people in class ‘X’ exhibit behaviour ‘Y’With no nuance or variation
Nothing wrong with that type of thinking is there.
All ‘lefty lawyers’ represent wholesome clients and they always have the best interest of society at heart. None are politically motivated and pushing a spurious anti government agenda.
Have you ever thought about engaging in a conversation and exploring different views? It is a more compelling contribution than dropping in occasionally, making a contentious at statement and then leaving again without responding to any comments your initial point provokes. Just a thought. Otherwise the risk is you just get ignored. Just a thought.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff