Angela Rayner ghastly trouser suit

Germanshepherdsmum

A child is either legitimate or illegitimate, there’s no such thing as ‘so-called’ illegitimate.

There are many old terms for things that could be used to describe situations that used to be considered beyond the pale, but decent people don't use them nowadays. Manners are either good or they aren't. There is not much middle ground there, either.

merlotgran

My mother always used to say, ‘You are what you wear and you’re treated accordingly.’

She never wavered from that even on the day DD and I struggled to get her into smart burgundy trousers and matching blouse on the day she had a stroke. She refused to travel in the ambulance in her nightclothes.

By the time she left hospital they were calling her the Duchess! 😂

merlotgran that is so my Mum too. 🤣 we called her The Queen. When she was a young Mum we were very hard up so she seldom had new clothes unless she made them. In her later years when we were all left home I bought her lovely trendy clothes or we would go out and she would buy them.

She had a most beautiful pale pink cardigan with round pearl buttons which suited her complexion and hair. I kept it and am having it made into a memory bear. ❤️

Commenting on Sunak's trainers (or MF's donkey jacket, or BJ's tatty appearance) just doesn't compare in any way, and I can't believe people don't fully recognise that.

Yes it does, reading most comments on this and other threads.

Casdon and Doodledog, well said. “Manners maketh man” (& woman).

I stood behind Angela Rayner in the (long) queue for the toilet at a matinee for the Lion King in Manchester last year.

She looked immaculate. I now have a bit of a girl crush on her

Well I don’t usually comment on MP’s dress, but I’ve just seen pictures of Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves arriving for the Cabinet meeting today. Angela Rayner was wearing a very nice orangey, red dress and Rachel Reeves was wearing a very nice aubergine trouser suit.
I have no idea which ranges/designers they were from.

Doodledog

I think it's fine to say you like or don't like an item of clothing. It is not fine to say someone is 'tarty', suggest that she is unprofessional because she doesn't dress as you did 'in your day' or comment on the 'legitimacy' of her child.

AR has had so many horrible comments on here because she came from a council estate, has a Northern accent and a colloquial register. Like her politics, don't like them, that's fine either way. Like her clothes or don't. She is a young woman dressing as young women prefer - I certainly wouldn't have given a tinker's cuss for what 'grans' thought about my clothes at her age - that's the whole point of fashion.

Comment on what she says (as opposed to how she says it) as strongly as you would about a male politician, but calling her a tart is sexist. The word itself is sexist - there is no male equivalent. In fact it is probably libellous. What evidence is there that AR is sexually profligate? Commenting on Sunak's trainers (or MF's donkey jacket, or BJ's tatty appearance) just doesn't compare in any way, and I can't believe people don't fully recognise that.

It strikes me that there is a subset on here who are appalled that AR has power over them, and not only is she a woman (😲), but she is a woman who they have traditionally (and lazily) looked down on for not being as 'well heeled' as they think they are, and for getting pregnant at a young age.

If they judged AR on her achievements they would have to admit that by comparison their own are lacking, so they punch down and attack her appearance, accent and background. That is not only unkind and snobbish, but it is entirely mannerless as there will be women on GN who have Mancunian accents, have so-called 'illegitimate' children and who were brought up on council estates. Manners are about not making people around you feel uncomfortable.

On another thread, people are congratulating Starmer and Sunak for their decent speeches and respective grace in victory and defeat, and saying how this is a marker of a civilised country. I agree, and am genuinely shocked at some of the cheap, shallow and narrow-minded things I've read on GN recently.

Totally agree.

I don't know anything about this woman. First time I knowingly saw her was on the news as she walked to Downing street. I thought her outfit was awful. Maybe up all night at the count and grabbed the first thing she could find? Don't know. Not bothered.
BTW for me life's too short to wear uncomfortable footwear.

A child is either legitimate or illegitimate, there’s no such thing as ‘so-called’ illegitimate.

Casdon

It’s entirely possible to critique somebody’s outfit without lapsing into personal insults about them. Some people have the manners to do that, and some don’t is what it boils down to.

Thank you. That's what I took ages to say, but you boiled it down perfectly

I think it's fine to say you like or don't like an item of clothing. It is not fine to say someone is 'tarty', suggest that she is unprofessional because she doesn't dress as you did 'in your day' or comment on the 'legitimacy' of her child.

AR has had so many horrible comments on here because she came from a council estate, has a Northern accent and a colloquial register. Like her politics, don't like them, that's fine either way. Like her clothes or don't. She is a young woman dressing as young women prefer - I certainly wouldn't have given a tinker's cuss for what 'grans' thought about my clothes at her age - that's the whole point of fashion.

Comment on what she says (as opposed to how she says it) as strongly as you would about a male politician, but calling her a tart is sexist. The word itself is sexist - there is no male equivalent. In fact it is probably libellous. What evidence is there that AR is sexually profligate? Commenting on Sunak's trainers (or MF's donkey jacket, or BJ's tatty appearance) just doesn't compare in any way, and I can't believe people don't fully recognise that.

It strikes me that there is a subset on here who are appalled that AR has power over them, and not only is she a woman (😲), but she is a woman who they have traditionally (and lazily) looked down on for not being as 'well heeled' as they think they are, and for getting pregnant at a young age.

If they judged AR on her achievements they would have to admit that by comparison their own are lacking, so they punch down and attack her appearance, accent and background. That is not only unkind and snobbish, but it is entirely mannerless as there will be women on GN who have Mancunian accents, have so-called 'illegitimate' children and who were brought up on council estates. Manners are about not making people around you feel uncomfortable.

On another thread, people are congratulating Starmer and Sunak for their decent speeches and respective grace in victory and defeat, and saying how this is a marker of a civilised country. I agree, and am genuinely shocked at some of the cheap, shallow and narrow-minded things I've read on GN recently.

It's not "serious", bumface. It's a piss-take.

I think you’re right eddiecat. When Starmer faces a challenge, as he will, she’ll be first in line and probably holding the metaphorical knife to stab him in the back.

It’s entirely possible to critique somebody’s outfit without lapsing into personal insults about them. Some people have the manners to do that, and some don’t is what it boils down to.

Germanshepherdsmum

In some offices it’s expected. I never wore uncomfortable shoes, but always wore heels to work unless I was wearing a trouser suit, as I don’t like the heels with trousers look. Just a personal thing.

I would have rebelled in such an office.

Quietly.

I had a boob job once. I worked as a scrub nurse and we did reduction mammaplasties and silicon implants. I left my own
mammaries to their own devices.

Sorry I can't take this chat seriously however hard I try.
Fortunately nobody reads what I post.

eddiecat78

I am certain AR knew exactly what she was doing wearing that outfit. She knew it would provoke comment. Her aim seems to be to make headlines and if possible overshadow Starmer

This!

eddiecat78

I am certain AR knew exactly what she was doing wearing that outfit. She knew it would provoke comment. Her aim seems to be to make headlines and if possible overshadow Starmer

In the spirit of all publicity being good publicity, that makes perfect sense.

In some offices it’s expected. I never wore uncomfortable shoes, but always wore heels to work unless I was wearing a trouser suit, as I don’t like the heels with trousers look. Just a personal thing.

I am certain AR knew exactly what she was doing wearing that outfit. She knew it would provoke comment. Her aim seems to be to make headlines and if possible overshadow Starmer

merlotgran

My mother always used to say, ‘You are what you wear and you’re treated accordingly.’

She never wavered from that even on the day DD and I struggled to get her into smart burgundy trousers and matching blouse on the day she had a stroke. She refused to travel in the ambulance in her nightclothes.

By the time she left hospital they were calling her the Duchess! 😂

👏👏👏 😂

Unless the average GNetter/woman is 5'10" & a size 6/8 most "fashion" & fashionable colours don't really suit us. If we then avoided wearing what doesn't suit us we would probably end up with a choice of tent/binbag/ potato sack.... in black or navy blue or possibly beige.

To Angela & any other woman considered to have dubious fashion sense " You like it, love, you wear it" - and with as much attitude as you can muster.

Germanshepherdsmum

Baggs

It's the silly shoes worn by women that always make me groan inwardly.

I categorise shoes (and have done since my teens) as: 1. shoes; 2. silly shoes; 3. very silly shoes.

If footwear squashes your toes or if you can't walk several miles in them comfortably, they are silly (or very silly) in my book. It was noticing people's shoes on buses that started this shoe judgmentalism in me long ago.

<innocent look>

😜

I thought Teresa May’s shoes were wonderful. They brightened up a corporate suit. The only shoes I have ever bought on the basis of being able to walk several miles in them are flat boots and trainers. Most women in office jobs don’t have to walk miles and many change from flats to heels when they get to work.

I daresay, but I've never understood why anyone needed high heels in an office.

I suppose a lot of people just like toe-squashers and high heels. Beats me why.

Baggs

It's the silly shoes worn by women that always make me groan inwardly.

I categorise shoes (and have done since my teens) as: 1. shoes; 2. silly shoes; 3. very silly shoes.

If footwear squashes your toes or if you can't walk several miles in them comfortably, they are silly (or very silly) in my book. It was noticing people's shoes on buses that started this shoe judgmentalism in me long ago.

<innocent look>

😜

My DD wears the silliest of silliest shoes and has nearly broken her neck on a number of occasions!

Baggs

*BB*, stop jumping on Primrose. Free speech and all that adds to life's rich tapestry.

Well said. We are all entitled to express an opinion as long as we don’t insult one another. How boring it would be if we all help the same views.