To think Rachel Reeves is just in it for the perks?

[HonestGreyBird]

I can’t shake the feeling that Rachel Reeves, like so many politicians, is just in it for the status, the connections, and the cushy benefits that come with the job. She talks a big game about the economy and working people but when you look at the actual policies and decisions, it feels like she’s more interested in maintaining power than making real change.

AIBU to think she’s just another career politician who loves the perks more than the purpose?

I really doubt it. If you read any autobiography of any former cabinet members (from any government) they all say the workload is insane - particularly in the high profile positions. The number of hours they have to work to get through all the things the civil service send their way is bonkers. I really doubt any cabinet member would be doing the job for the perks.

You are being unfair, and frankly weird. Why have you picked on a female politician to speculate randomly about whether they have met some bar of good faith you have set them?

I met RR years ago, when she was volunteering near me. She was very nice, and grafted her socks off for no benefit apart from help out. HTH.

I doubt it.

No politician is in it for anything other than themselves. None of them give a shiny shit about the people they are supposed to serve.

No. Most politicians do more work than you’d believe possible for not a very exciting level of reward and increasing physical danger. If you think politicians aren’t good, try standing for election.

I disagree.

I think she’s got a tough gig - she’s tried implementing reform and the Labour party has failed to back her despite a majority.

Agree, to a certain extent, but not about RR in particular, just many politicians in general.

the last decade or so has brought a level of “celebrity” to being a politician that just wasn’t there before.

It’s very different to being a politician for, example, in the 90s.

There are now MP’s on “I’m a Celebrity…”

I think it’s a very different career to what it used to be and it’s changing the type of people it is attracting.

Boris Johnson, certainly. Not Reeves.

But I do think far too many politicians know NOTHING about how the less well-monied live. There should be a requirement of working in a minimum wage job for a year before entering parliament.

I just don't think this is true (and I say it as someone who has worked with various politicians through the course of my career). Most are driven to try and do what they see as the right thing- haven't always agreed with them on what 'the right thing' is though. But it's a very difficult and unstable career, and most of them don't get to the top anyway. Most of them are high achievers who give up better-paid and more stable jobs to run for Parliament.

I can't shake the feeling that probably behind your post is a misogynistic attitude that women shouldn't be doing the top, most prestigious jobs. Why just single out Rachel Reeves for your accusations?

I can't shake the feeling that behind the OP's post is a rather unsubtle attempt by a Tory to get a conversation going about Reeves, for no other reason than to criticise her performance.

Why not just post criticising her performance? That would be fair and honest, surely?

Well, two reasons.

First, this way the OP can protest that it's not a party political thng. More a kind of generic musing.

Second, it introduces the opportunity for a personal attack on Reeves' characer, and conflates it with her policies and their success or otherwise.

The clincher for me is 'can't shake the feeling' - which means 'I have absolutely no evidence for what I'm about to say, but I dare you to question my intuition, because at MN going with your gut is practically an article of faith'.

We've been living beyond our means for years. Politicians just can't help themselves when it comes to spending other people's money.

The only real change she can make is to start cutting things, and her party won't back her on that. They're just opening the door wider for Reform.

I don't think female politicians can be in it for the perks, especially those with children. Their entire families get targeted in a way no man ever experiences. Constant rape and abduction threats. RR has a young daughter. I don't think she would put her through all that if her only motive was rubbing shoulders with the rich and powerful.

All politicians crave power. To misquote the Bishop of Southwark, it’s what they do.

Some are no doubt nicer than others. But the idea that any, from any party, are motivated by compassion and to fight the good fight against injustice, misfortune and want, is bollocks.

The main considerations are which are more competent or lucky.

Women don't go into politics for the perks. The serious abuse and character assassination and danger they put themselves in are not worth whatever perks you think they might get.
In fact the vast majority of public representatives from parish Council to Ministers go into it because they want to make some difference. The system might turn them cynical and self serving, but the majority started with some vision to change things for what they saw for the better. The more we say things like the OP says, the more you are likely to only attract those who are out only for themselves. That's a problem for us as an electorate. Judge people on their achievements or lack of them.

Every C. of E. talks about the economy and working people.

I can’t shake the feeling that you're holding Rachel Reeves to a higher standard because she's a woman.

Bollocks

This is a highly uneducated and foolish post. Why don't you try to educate yourself and maybe read about what they have actually done for you.

Let's see off the top of my head

Maternity leave
Paid holidays
The NHS
Health and Safety
Women's suffrage

Frankly saying they are all the same shows a remarkable lack of knowledge

Do you think both these motivations could be present in a person? People are usually a mixed bag, politicians included.

Not the perks, but definitely the power. But that’s true at least of all cabinet members if not all MPs.

You can tell by the number of U turns they do, and the fact they never do anything substantial or fundamental. If you do that, you will lose voters. You might also gain voters but you won’t hear from those, you’ll just see the exodus and noise from back benchers. So they bend their principles and ambitions so that they are able to stay in power for as long as possible.

Maybe it’s because they truly think that them being in power is the best thing for the country (which in the case of the current government might indicate a touch of delusion) or because of their personal ambitions to retain their role.

No. I cannot see how the “perks” make it worth having your every decision at work, not to mention your personal life, pawed over and publicised.

She’s been an MP since Blair’s government. She’s a successful politician who’s achieved high office. She al so spent 14 years in opposition, so hardly someone who’s in it for the ‘perks’. You sound envious OP

I don't think there are perks. Just a lot of stress and abuse.

I bet the people who'd make an amazing difference to how this country is run, look at the media and think "nahhhh, don't need that for me or my family"

ok random man on the internet.

The workload and mental pressure of being Chancellor of the Exchequer must be immense. I actually think it’s a 2-person job, though I have no idea how the responsibilities could be shared or split.

Ah, so you're going to attack me rather than what I said. That's very low effort, and says more about you than it does me.

Again, why don't you try to educate yourself, find out the good things that various governments and politicians have done over the years, instead of putting zero thought into it with obviously stupid statements.

You could actually learn something and improve yourself