Angela Rayner is a scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite.

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.

Absolutely

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

Pot and kettle spring to mind

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

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?

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 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

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.

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.

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

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.

Exactly.
Sauce-goose-gander?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

MartavTaurus

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.

plus ca change, indeed.

It happens when somebody posts a deliberately provocative thread MartavTaurus, it’s inevitable that people will react strongly.

Doodledog

MollyNew

I didn't read the green trouser suit thread and I won't go looking for it. Sounds like a classic school bullying type of thread to me.

Oh, it was.

There are people on this thread who were on that one doing the bullying but now use different names so their hypocrisy isn't obvious to all. Not on the surface, anyway.

I agree that politicians of all parties deserve scrutiny, but for their deeds, not for their appearance, accent, etc. Yes, Boris Johnson drew flak about his hair, but that is because he messed it up before going on stage, because there are many old photos that show it was tameable before he decided to pretend it wasn't, and because the 'loveable rogue' image it projected was at huge variance with the man who lied to the Queen and partied when others couldn't attend the funerals of loved ones.

Who do you mean, please Doodledog?
That's the second time you've referred to someone on this thread.

Doddledog hasn’t named anybody? The adverse comments about what AB’s wife was wearing were made last week though she’s entitled to dress as she pleased.

AR revived the severance payment to which she was entitled last year no less for the reasons set out in ministerial code- which applies in the same way to her NN and all other Governent minsters under the age threshold. NN was too old so not entitled so perhaps her comments come from a place of bitterness?

We could be here to domesday with people calling Farage a “scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite”- the difference is AR was fairly entitled to her severance payment- the question remains whether Farage should have declared his £5 million payment from a Reform UK political donor and for what reason. Wonder what standards NN applies to Farage re scrounging, hypocrisy and grifting- level playing field?

Not naming is passive aggressive behaviour, as it’s back to some posters, but I see that Doodledog has had that post deleted now.

I don’t think I have seen any comments on here that says that AR isn’t entitled to her severance pay when she left Ministerial Office to go to the back benches.
Just that it would have been nice if she had refused it, especially as she is back as a Minister really quickly, and as some of us are pointing out it would have been politically advantageous for her to do that.
Posters should keep well clear of references to other threads and controlling input which GNHQ don’t want us to do if we don’t want posts deleted or the whole thread.Bringing up old grudges isn’t a good look either.

Yes, but you have seen comments about 'moral compass', and so, judgement has been given to this.

Referencing, by naming or linking another relevant thread is permissible, but a thread about a thread is not as I understand it.
I don’t know if you have realised Oreo, but by telling others what they can and cannot do, you are appearing to try to control the thread yourself?

Basically, ND gave back a payment to which she was not entitled
AR kept a payment to which she WAS entitled.
I wonder, what was the purpose of this Thread?

Good point Casdon.

I am reminding people in case this thread is suddenly deleted as it isn’t long since HQ reminded us of doing these things.
So yes, I do realise but it’s Catch 22.

Having read the whole thread, surely this is now a thread about a thread