Angela Rayner to face investigation?
Discussion
captain_cynic said:
President Merkin said:
Don't often rate Parris but he's spot on here. Every word amplified by some of the worst people on these pages.
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
They really are terrified of her. https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
I certainly dislike her politics, and her personally, but why would that be terrifying?
98elise said:
captain_cynic said:
President Merkin said:
Don't often rate Parris but he's spot on here. Every word amplified by some of the worst people on these pages.
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
They really are terrified of her. https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
I certainly dislike her politics, and her personally, but why would that be terrifying?
bennno said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Don't worry Benno luckily the Police do.
That's why Johnson got fined and Starmer was found to have done absolutely nothing wrong.
To be fair, when Starmer ran the CPS it was decided that Jimmy Saville had done nothing wrong and that post masters had....That's why Johnson got fined and Starmer was found to have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Police didn't provide enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute Saville - https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute...
11 Post Office Horizon cases definitely prosecuted by the CPS from 2001 to 2020 .Possibly 3 may have happened under Starmer.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12948049/...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Doesn't change the facts though.
Johnson was fined because he committed an offence.
Stamer wasn't.
It was all discussed at the time and the Sue Gray report made clear the extent of Johnson's disgrace.
None of that will change however much you and a few others might want to try to equate the two situations.
Yep, really clear. Johnson was fined because he committed an offence.
Stamer wasn't.
It was all discussed at the time and the Sue Gray report made clear the extent of Johnson's disgrace.
None of that will change however much you and a few others might want to try to equate the two situations.
98elise said:
captain_cynic said:
President Merkin said:
Don't often rate Parris but he's spot on here. Every word amplified by some of the worst people on these pages.
https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
They really are terrified of her. https://twitter.com/ahmerwadee/status/178056907371...
I certainly dislike her politics, and her personally, but why would that be terrifying?
Therein lies the problem (and why SKS wants rid of her IMHO). She appeals to the Labour faithful but will not win over any long-term Tory voters or even many floating voters. There seems to be an argument that she will win the Red Wall seats back. They are coming back regardless of Angela - the voters there have achieved their goal of 'getting Brexit done' and have no further use for an incompetent Tory administration. For a Blairesque multi-parliament period of power, Labour needs to convert some middle-ground voters to their cause and here I believe Angela is hinderance not a help.
She also does not come across a visionary, a communicator, a detailed policy wonk, or really an asset in any particular way to Labour's long-term hopes for power (or even creating real change to the fortunes of the UK).
The coming election will clear out swathes of the Tory grandees. Rishi will go after the Tories are wiped out in record numbers. New faces will gradually appear. People's memories of Tory incompetence will fade and be replaced with fresher memories of Labour cock-ups. Angela at that point (unless she changes with Labour in power) will be an electoral liability like Burgon and Abbott.
So not terrifying, to me at least.
What sort of seniority would look at prosecuting someone as rich, famous, and well connected as Jimmy Savile? Whether he should have been prosecuted or not also depends on the quality of work the police did and how strong the victims and witnesses are etc so I don't have a problem with the decision to not charge him. It seems odd that Starmer never even looked at such a high profile case and nobody thought he needed to know.
I believe him because if there was even a hint that he was involved then someone would have used it, but it seems like something he should have been told about before reading it on the front page of the Sun.
I believe him because if there was even a hint that he was involved then someone would have used it, but it seems like something he should have been told about before reading it on the front page of the Sun.
Mr Penguin said:
What sort of seniority would look at prosecuting someone as rich, famous, and well connected as Jimmy Savile? Whether he should have been prosecuted or not also depends on the quality of work the police did and how strong the victims and witnesses are etc so I don't have a problem with the decision to not charge him. It seems odd that Starmer never even looked at such a high profile case and nobody thought he needed to know.
I believe him because if there was even a hint that he was involved then someone would have used it, but it seems like something he should have been told about before reading it on the front page of the Sun.
Dear oh dear. I know you are new to NP&E, but come on. I believe him because if there was even a hint that he was involved then someone would have used it, but it seems like something he should have been told about before reading it on the front page of the Sun.
Mr Penguin said:
What sort of seniority would look at prosecuting someone as rich, famous, and well connected as Jimmy Savile? Whether he should have been prosecuted or not also depends on the quality of work the police did and how strong the victims and witnesses are etc so I don't have a problem with the decision to not charge him. It seems odd that Starmer never even looked at such a high profile case and nobody thought he needed to know.
I believe him because if there was even a hint that he was involved then someone would have used it, but it seems like something he should have been told about before reading it on the front page of the Sun.
Absolutely spot on.I believe him because if there was even a hint that he was involved then someone would have used it, but it seems like something he should have been told about before reading it on the front page of the Sun.
And people are championing him to run the country.
AstonZagato said:
She doesn't seem very terrifying to me either. Labour have essentially already won the next election. It is the election after that that will need to be fought and new voters won over.
Therein lies the problem (and why SKS wants rid of her IMHO). She appeals to the Labour faithful but will not win over any long-term Tory voters or even many floating voters. There seems to be an argument that she will win the Red Wall seats back. They are coming back regardless of Angela - the voters there have achieved their goal of 'getting Brexit done' and have no further use for an incompetent Tory administration. For a Blairesque multi-parliament period of power, Labour needs to convert some middle-ground voters to their cause and here I believe Angela is hinderance not a help.
She also does not come across a visionary, a communicator, a detailed policy wonk, or really an asset in any particular way to Labour's long-term hopes for power (or even creating real change to the fortunes of the UK).
The coming election will clear out swathes of the Tory grandees. Rishi will go after the Tories are wiped out in record numbers. New faces will gradually appear. People's memories of Tory incompetence will fade and be replaced with fresher memories of Labour cock-ups. Angela at that point (unless she changes with Labour in power) will be an electoral liability like Burgon and Abbott.
So not terrifying, to me at least.
Agree. I suppose my from perspective, preferring right-of-centre fiscal policies, it's a good thing they see Rayner as an asset, as it shows their blind spot. And whilst it is unpopular to say, for all his critics, Blair was objectively a brilliant and pragmatic politician. I think after the next election, we are going to see a new tranche of Labour MPs who will be like Laura Pidcock, Nadia Whittome, and Richard Burgon etc who are so obsessive about their activism, they forget about being persuasive. And that should be good for the Conservatives in the longer term. Therein lies the problem (and why SKS wants rid of her IMHO). She appeals to the Labour faithful but will not win over any long-term Tory voters or even many floating voters. There seems to be an argument that she will win the Red Wall seats back. They are coming back regardless of Angela - the voters there have achieved their goal of 'getting Brexit done' and have no further use for an incompetent Tory administration. For a Blairesque multi-parliament period of power, Labour needs to convert some middle-ground voters to their cause and here I believe Angela is hinderance not a help.
She also does not come across a visionary, a communicator, a detailed policy wonk, or really an asset in any particular way to Labour's long-term hopes for power (or even creating real change to the fortunes of the UK).
The coming election will clear out swathes of the Tory grandees. Rishi will go after the Tories are wiped out in record numbers. New faces will gradually appear. People's memories of Tory incompetence will fade and be replaced with fresher memories of Labour cock-ups. Angela at that point (unless she changes with Labour in power) will be an electoral liability like Burgon and Abbott.
So not terrifying, to me at least.
Mind you, for every "Laura Pidcock" I can think of, the Conservatives have recently managed to find worse, like Gavin Williamson or Nadine Dorries
There have always been stupid MPs, they just didn't have as much opportunity to display their stupidity in the past because they had no social media and only a couple of TV channels. Just one of the things we have to deal with.
There are have also always been MPs who have forthright views and are not afraid to put them bluntly - John Prescott is the most obvious comparison to Rayner but I think they are both in a similar vein to Norman Tebbit.
There are have also always been MPs who have forthright views and are not afraid to put them bluntly - John Prescott is the most obvious comparison to Rayner but I think they are both in a similar vein to Norman Tebbit.
Mr Penguin said:
There have always been stupid MPs, they just didn't have as much opportunity to display their stupidity in the past because they had no social media and only a couple of TV channels. Just one of the things we have to deal with.
There are have also always been MPs who have forthright views and are not afraid to put them bluntly - John Prescott is the most obvious comparison to Rayner but I think they are both in a similar vein to Norman Tebbit.
I actually liked Prescott There are have also always been MPs who have forthright views and are not afraid to put them bluntly - John Prescott is the most obvious comparison to Rayner but I think they are both in a similar vein to Norman Tebbit.
I don't like Angela Rayner or her brand of bigoted class-based division which I find quite toxic, but I can't help but feel that the response to her misdemeanours is disproportionate and in itself a major part of the problem facing British politics.
We are quick to deplore the quality of our MPs and with good reason, but rather slower to question why able people are deterred from entering politics. What is happening to Angela Rayner is why. The scrutiny placed on MPs is oppressive. Corruption should and must be identified, but this kind of day-to-day misdemeanour is a world away from that. In the real world corners are cut and I suspect few people who have achieved in business - the people who would bring desperately needed skills to politics - will have no little skeletons in their closet.
The hysteria currently drummed up around Rayner probably elicits little more than a shrug from the average voter but it would be intensely embarrassing and unpleasant to be at the centre of it. Such sensationalist press behaviour strongly deters able people from entering politics. That's very damaging and the end result is the slimy, shameless nothings who we suffer to represent us.
Whilst I can't help but feel a little schadenfreude that she should be hoist by her own petard, that doesn't make it right.
We are quick to deplore the quality of our MPs and with good reason, but rather slower to question why able people are deterred from entering politics. What is happening to Angela Rayner is why. The scrutiny placed on MPs is oppressive. Corruption should and must be identified, but this kind of day-to-day misdemeanour is a world away from that. In the real world corners are cut and I suspect few people who have achieved in business - the people who would bring desperately needed skills to politics - will have no little skeletons in their closet.
The hysteria currently drummed up around Rayner probably elicits little more than a shrug from the average voter but it would be intensely embarrassing and unpleasant to be at the centre of it. Such sensationalist press behaviour strongly deters able people from entering politics. That's very damaging and the end result is the slimy, shameless nothings who we suffer to represent us.
Whilst I can't help but feel a little schadenfreude that she should be hoist by her own petard, that doesn't make it right.
dbdb said:
...feel that the response to her misdemeanours is disproportionate and in itself a major part of the problem facing British politics...
I agree, but she is that problem. It's not just schadenfreude, it's a problem she has vocally played a part in fuelling, that she's suffering from it is just the world finding a karmic equilibrium. I suspect she'll survive this, learn nothing from it and continue in the same vein.Mr Penguin said:
There have always been stupid MPs, they just didn't have as much opportunity to display their stupidity in the past because they had no social media and only a couple of TV channels. Just one of the things we have to deal with.
There are have also always been MPs who have forthright views and are not afraid to put them bluntly - John Prescott is the most obvious comparison to Rayner but I think they are both in a similar vein to Norman Tebbit.
Comparing John Prescott to Angela Rayner - seriously? She isn't fit to polish his shoes. He was an excellent MP for 40 years in Hull East. He came from a working class background and worked his way up. Prescott is an intelligent guy, Rayner is a mouthy waste of space.There are have also always been MPs who have forthright views and are not afraid to put them bluntly - John Prescott is the most obvious comparison to Rayner but I think they are both in a similar vein to Norman Tebbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott
andyA700 said:
Comparing John Prescott to Angela Rayner - seriously? She isn't fit to polish his shoes. He was an excellent MP for 40 years in Hull East. He came from a working class background and worked his way up. Prescott is an intelligent guy, Rayner is a mouthy waste of space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott
I just meant that they fill the same role, not that they are as good as each other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff