Angela Rayner is a scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite.

Primrose53

So says Nadine Dorries who did hand back her severance pay of approx £17,000 whilst AR is refusing to give hers back. ND was given hers by mistake as those over 65 are not entitled to it but she did give it back.

This has been covered in all the papers and TV channels and I have yet to hear anybody say AR deserves to keep it.

Now that you have read all the comparative comments that have been posted on this thread e.g.
1) Nadine Norris being absent from her MP post for months on end but still felt entitled to her full MP salary before she decided to resign
2) her party colleague, Suella Braverman being sacked from government for a Serious breach of the Code, getting her severance pay yet keeping it after returning to office just 6 days later
3) compared to AR who did not commit a serious breach of the code but decided to resign anyway-

What are your views now Primrose53 regarding the comments of Nadine Norris you originally posted?

I think Nadine Norris was definitely out of order seeking to denigrate AR in all the circumstances. In my book she would be better directing her attention to behaviours closer to home in her own party.

Thanks to the informed Posters willing to share their knowledge, it is clear that ND was out of order in her comment about AR.

The tightening up of the severance pay rules are good but don’t go as far as I would wish, but unfortunately I’m not in any position to change things.
It’s time that politicians as servants of the people became less enamoured of their perks, maybe AB will want to set a good example, I hope so.

Excuse? How rude.
I don't need an excuse to come onto a Thread looking for insightful and interesting discussion.

Good that you have acknowledged Suella's behaviour Oreo. I agree SB keeping her full service payment after being sacked for a serious breach of the Code and then returning to cabinet just 6 days later is immoral. I'm hoping that posters who have denigrated AR will also respond regarding Suella Braverman's actions.

AR resigned 5 September 2025, she wasn't sacked like SB and did not seriously breach the MC as did SB. Rayner returned to office 20 July 2026, i.e. 321 days later, so just under your preferred one year threshold for repayment. Pro rata repayment?

Personally I would set the threshold at the three month amount that the severance payment covers- for pro rata repayment if return to office within 3 months. Some might set a 6 month threshold which I wouldn't argue with depending on circumstances of leaving, but I think a year is too long. In reality- once AR fully takes up her new AB cabinet role after the summer recess she will meet your preferred 1 year threshold.

Having said all that the Ministerial Code was changed and tightened up by Starmer, on 13 October last year. Ie ministers leaving office having served fewer than 6 months or following a serious breach of the Ministerial code will no longer get payment. That would knock out Liz Truss's PM severance payment for her 7 week stint and also knock out Suella's severance payment as she did commit a serious breach of the MC.

AR referred herself to the government's ethics advisor Sir Laurie Magnus, once she was advised she had paid the wrong amount of stamp duty. Magnus concluded that Rayner "cannot be considered to have reached the highest possible standards of proper conduct as envisaged by the code" but was not found to have seriously breached the MC and she was not required to resign- but AR chose to resign herself as she wanted to be seen to be holding herself to the highest standards- which is to her credit in my book.

That’s interesting tho about SB handing back her first severance pay.

Columnists have to write about something don’t they? Doesn’t always mean they’re wrong.

I'm not sure the Suella Braverman argument is relevant.

Under the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, where a Minister of eligible age ceases to hold office and is not reappointed to a ministerial office within three weeks, they will be entitled to a severance payment of a quarter of their ministerial annual salary.

Those are the rules that were in force when SB was in government.

SB would no longer have been entitled to severance pay for her first departure on 19 October 2022 but would have been entitled for the second on 13 November 2023.

According to the i newpaper, official records show that she repaid the severance she had been given for the first.

tinyurl.com/5erer8ec

I think Dorries has recovered from her hissy fit. She's in the DM today writing about her Mounjaro bikini body.

Yes Suella Braverman did act immorally in my view as do/did anyone who’s back as a Minister in less than a year.True that it’s legally theirs and I wish it would be set out that no severance will be given at all ( they’re still MP’s with a salary) and certainly not under a year out of office.
How wonderful it would be to see a Labour Minister such as AR making a gesture by waiving the severance.
There’s nothing remotely grubby about wishing to see it.
Most people know about AR and her background and I can think of other MP’s who had poor or ghastly childhoods, it doesn’t make anyone a saint tho or even good at their jobs.

AR received her due severance payment in line with the Ministerial code. She was out of government office for 10.5 months before returning to cabinet.

Those that say her actions were not moral are in fact saying the Ministerial Code is immoral which and AR is not responsible for the Ministerial Code. Better that posters and Nadine Norris contact their MP/ Parliament to complain that the Ministerial Code is immoral

Suella Braverman was sacked from her government role received the same severance payment and returned to government just role 6 days later. To those that are complaining about Angela Rayner did Suella Braverman act immorally, is she a grifter, scrounger and a shameless hypocrite? If not why not?

Are all the cabinet minsters that received the same severance payment grifters, scroungers and shameless hypocrites? If not why not?

What makes AR any different than SB?

Or is it just that AR is a working class female, Labour Party politician that gets up some posters and Nadine Norris's nose? If those criticising AR are not similarly criticising Suella Braverman and all the other MPs that have received the same service payment that is hypocritical

AGAA4

Sunshinegirls

07:08Maremia

What's your excuse you've been on this thread quite a few times 😀

I've been on this thread a few times too. It's not enjoyable but seeing someone being vilified for something they haven't done has to be addressed however horrible the thread is.

I’ve just read through this thread. I’m quoting AGAA4 because it sums up how I feel. There’s something grubby about seeing AR vilified by women, especially those of us old enough to be her mother.
AR had a tough childhood. Her mum had mh problems, dad often absent, leaving AR in a carer role. Like many others from similar backgrounds, school attendance wasn’t prioritised by parents. An early baby, then she took advantage of Sure Start and began to build a better life for herself. She’s more representative of many in her constituency than many, Nadine Norris for example. She represents grifting, shamelessness and hypocracy

Just your opinion eazybee which you are entitled to but no more valid than other opinions.

I don't suppose many do AGAA4 but there is a small group in this country that believes "democracy" and "the law" both mean we should run the country on unfounded opinions/prejudices.

Not unfounded. My point remains: Angela Rayner "cannot be considered to have met the highest possible standards of proper conduct as envisaged by the (Ministerial) Code." That is, Misconduct in Public Office.
Not unfounded opinions/ prejudices.
Legally she may be entitled to the £17,000. Morally: Not.
She should most definitely should not have been reappointed to public office.

Sunshinegirls

07:08Maremia

What's your excuse you've been on this thread quite a few times 😀

I've been on this thread a few times too. It's not enjoyable but seeing someone being vilified for something they haven't done has to be addressed however horrible the thread is.

07:08Maremia

What's your excuse you've been on this thread quite a few times 😀

Interesting that some posters are 'enjoying' a Thread that seems to be based on a has been female politician incorrectly slagging off a still relevant contender.

Sorry, I misread your post. Just people Galaxy.

What I said Galaxy.

Who do you mean Daisyanne?

AGAA4

Maremia

To repay money you need a law that says you must.

I don't understand why people feel she should repay this money that is legally hers.

I don't suppose many do AGAA4 but there is a small group in this country that believes "democracy" and "the law" both mean we should run the country on unfounded opinions/prejudices.

It seems we live in an age of post-truth politics.

Suella Braverman, severance pay for 6 days loss of cabinet office. AR severance pay for 10.5 months loss of cabinet office pay.

It begs the question why NN is not criticising SB in her own party? We can probably all guess….

Sadly most politicians are all the same when it comes to money, perks and freebies. I just would have liked to think that Labour politicians are different but really they aren’t ☹️

MissAdventure

Primrose53

So says Nadine Dorries who did hand back her severance pay of approx £17,000 whilst AR is refusing to give hers back. ND was given hers by mistake as those over 65 are not entitled to it but she did give it back.

This has been covered in all the papers and TV channels and I have yet to hear anybody say AR deserves to keep it.

A.R deserves to keep it.

She certainly deserves to keep it more than Suella Braverman who broke the ministerial code, was sacked as Home Secretary and was reappointed to the post six days later.

Has Nadine Dorris’s handed back the year’s pay when she did no work as an MP but still drew her salary? The answer is no.

“Nadine Dorries MP Salary and Absence Delayed Resignation: Announced in June 2023 that she was quitting with "immediate effect," but did not submit her formal paperwork for months, remaining an MP through the summer. Lack of Participation: Did not speak in the House of Commons or actively represent constituents for a prolonged period, drawing criticism and calls to hand back her approx. £84,000 salary.Continued Pay: Remained on the parliamentary payroll during this time because she had not officially vacated her seat.”
AI Overview