Angela Rayner is a scrounger, grifter and shameless hypocrite.

If Rayner gave back around £6,000 (because the rest will have been paid in tax) then she would be setting an unnecessary precedent that could have wide-reaching consequences beyond Parliament, for example, to do with statutory redundancy pay.

For all we know, her legal counsel may even have advised her against returning money that she is legally entitled to for exactly that reason.

I doubt the gesture would make any difference to Labour supporters who like her and it certainly won’t make a difference to her political opponents and the right-wing media who will just look for the next reason to disparage her.

And I think that any politician may be criticised, including AR.
I certainly criticised her when I heard her at a political meeting sneering “Tory scum!”

Yes, that was uncalled for.

Not all Labour supporters like her Graphite she’s very much a Marmite MP.

Isn't that frequently the case? With many MP's?

No, I really don’t think it is Maremia it seems to be certain MP’s that provoke strong reactions to them.

Oreo

Not all Labour supporters like her Graphite she’s very much a Marmite MP.

I didn't say they did.

The truth is ND used language such as 'scrounger' to describe AR as she thinks she is better than her. I am considerably richer than yaou Angela - though I don't think that's actually true

I think the two women are most probably more similar than they care to admit to

18:15Maremia

Surely you could ask what's the point of any thread then. Members of GN can start any thread they like as far as I know within the rules, it would be pretty boring on here if there weren't any lets say provocative ones 😀 I've enjoyed this thread.

I suspect you re right JaneJudge. Nadine failed in politics ultimately, and she sees Angela being given a second chance, which must be a bitter pill. A woman scorned and all that.

Sunshinegirls

18:15Maremia

Surely you could ask what's the point of any thread then. Members of GN can start any thread they like as far as I know within the rules, it would be pretty boring on here if there weren't any lets say provocative ones 😀 I've enjoyed this thread.

That’s nice

AR left the cabinet 5 September last year so nearly 11 months ago- not recent. She didn’t know she would return to a cabinet position until last week.

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

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.

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 ☹️

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….

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.

Who do you mean Daisyanne?

What I said Galaxy.

Sorry, I misread your post. Just people Galaxy.

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.

07:08Maremia

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

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 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.

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