Angela Rayner is a scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite.

Exactly.
Sauce-goose-gander?

This thread is bizarre! Not the AR business, I've said she is entitled to keep the money, so no argument there.

What is bonkers is that, two months ago we were told that controlling threads, bringing up old threads and old grievances etc was a reason for banning. And yet, here it arises again. It's all very predictable, yet very strange, that no one is being deleted or told off this time?

Examples of misdemeanours by opening up old threads:

You should have been there for the famous "Angela Raynor Trouser suit thread". ....chosen to attack the new Labour Govt straight off.
And then advice where to find it in on GN.

Then, Probably the same type of person who would comment cruelly on what Mrs Burnham was wearing the other day.

Followed by discussions about posters being banned and for what reason - some of it dating back to 24 months ago!

Let alone the idea that this type of thread could be putting off new posters from posting.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose with the same names and the same grievances.

Dorries makes a fortune from her books so she can afford to turn money down.

If you read unbiased reports Primrose they don't give an opinion on whether she should keep the money and as it is legally hers nobody has the right to demand it back.

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.

I agree with Graphite: ' The provisions that members over the age of 65 cannot receive severance pay is in the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991'.

Who still takes Nadine Norris seriously? AR was entitled to her severance payment and no reason why she need pay it back - unless the rules change and all other ministers who also historically appropriately received the same severance payment repay also.

Primrose53

Oreo

An old granny saying just didn’t address the disparity between it being quite ok for any other politician from a different Party to be criticised but not AR.
In this instance we are talking about AR’s severance pay and how it would have been morally a good thing for her not to have accepted it and it wouldn’t have harmed her approval ratings with voters either!
It could have been any Minister in any political Party but in this case it’s AR.

To repay money you need a moral compass and I do not believe AR has one.

You really don’t like AR do you Primrose ?
I wouldn’t say I have a strong view either way, but why this personal visceral animosity?

Unfortunately when people get so personally and emotionally involved I find myself less likely to attach much credence to what they say.
And cloaking it all as a quote by Nadine Dorries aka kettle /pot/black doesn’t make the thread any more objective.

I assume that severance pay is given because the job of MP is so insecure. It isn’t much to tide a person over if they lose their post unexpectedly. Redundancy pay if you like. If AR had found another job outside parliament would there have been demands for her to pay it back? Of course not. Why should having another job within Parliament make such a difference?

How does 'moral compass' sit in a situation where an MP is being wrongly accused of breaking a law?

Angela Rayner is a scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite - Nadine Dorries

Pot and kettle spring to mind

Absolutely

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.

MartavTaurus

Well thank goodness AR won't be producing children, and having her private parts and her baby laughed at. As did Boris on here - suggestions from posters that he only thinks with his penis, and that his and Carrie's first born baby was a stunt to gain favour.

Unfortunately there are some very nasty vindictive people around in the world.
Personal criticism is not acceptable however much someone is disliked as a PM or MP.

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

MartavTaurus

Well thank goodness AR won't be producing children, and having her private parts and her baby laughed at. As did Boris on here - suggestions from posters that he only thinks with his penis, and that his and Carrie's first born baby was a stunt to gain favour.

Good grief!😲

I am defending AR but I am not a Labour supporter. I defend her solely because she has been wrongly accused.

Why don't you re-read what Primrose posted as the Thread name?
Nadine Dorries has been part of this discussion right from the start.

Well thank goodness AR won't be producing children, and having her private parts and her baby laughed at. As did Boris on here - suggestions from posters that he only thinks with his penis, and that his and Carrie's first born baby was a stunt to gain favour.

Oreo

An old granny saying just didn’t address the disparity between it being quite ok for any other politician from a different Party to be criticised but not AR.
In this instance we are talking about AR’s severance pay and how it would have been morally a good thing for her not to have accepted it and it wouldn’t have harmed her approval ratings with voters either!
It could have been any Minister in any political Party but in this case it’s AR.

To repay money you need a moral compass and I do not believe AR has one.

I won’t come to the defence of anyone who I politically support if I think they did either the wrong thing, or that they could have made a better decision.
Which is why I supported KS leaving Office and AB coming into it.

An old granny saying just didn’t address the disparity between it being quite ok for any other politician from a different Party to be criticised but not AR.
In this instance we are talking about AR’s severance pay and how it would have been morally a good thing for her not to have accepted it and it wouldn’t have harmed her approval ratings with voters either!
It could have been any Minister in any political Party but in this case it’s AR.

GrannyGravy13

MollyNew

GrannyGravy13

Conservatives have had years and years of threads on GN of members posting extremely personal comments about their MP’s.

Since when have Labour MPs been exempt?

Two wrongs don't make a right as many grannies used to say.

I agree that two wrongs do not make a right

I am just interested in why Labour MP’s should be exempt when the other parties are not ?

You state that Conservatives have had years of personal comments on GN but judging by the title of this thread, no-one is exempt. Each "side" will come to the defence of those they support.

Oreo there are many sayings which are often used because they have an element of truth to them. Are my replies now to be vetted to see whether they "address" the point being discussed? If so, then I won't contribute any more to this thread.

AGAA4

If Angela Rayner had been from a middle class family, spoke with received pronunciation and wore well cut trouser suits this issue about her severance pay would not have been mentioned.

I feel as if I am in a time warp back in the 17th century, and the Pendle Witch trials are taking place 😱

I agree Oreo that wrongdoing by MPs can be discussed as it should be but in this case the OP got it wrong and AR has been cleared.
AR is disliked for who she is rather than what she does which is very unfair.
Other politicians have been lambasted on here but for what they have done or not done which is understandable.

westendgirl

And the Daily Mail rage baiting was seized upon with glee by some gransnetters. Why , I don't know. I thought after the green trouser episode that grans were no longer acting like 12 year olds in a fall out. ~You can disagree without using nasty terms.

Who is using nasty terms? Is behaving like 12 year olds a nasty term? You have to think these things through.