Rayner Has Resigned

[usernamealreadytaken]

AIBU to say it isn't unexpected, or a surprise?

Not having been there I don't pretend to know, so won't be assuming whether she worked hard or not

After all she wouldn't be the first to coast along howling "discrimination" about anything which didn't suit - a claim which some would certainly have been believed if various posts on here are anything to go by

Some of us care nothing about where she comes from, her voice or anything except her behaviour and whether she can do the job, and the ones I feel sorry for is all those she's let down by her dreadful choices

I was with you until you started with the ‘amusing’ nicknames and accusations of people being thick. Disagreeing with you doesn’t make someone thick.
FPTP is the reason for most of the issues. PR would give better democracy and prevent one party having enough of a majority to ignore what anyone else wants and not listen to common sense.

But, again, you said something that wasn’t true and refuse to acknowledge that. It doesn’t help your argument. There was no need to exaggerate.

In the most part, either way its the taxpayer, either via upfronted damages/compensation/payout, or by daily/weekly/monthly payments. Personally I’d prefer the second as it leaves less opportunity for trusts to “buy” houses from parents who want to move hundreds of miles away.

The Deputy Leadership roles hasn’t existed for long anyway really, so it’s entirely possible the NEC will decide not to go forward with it. Or, because under the current rules, which of course could be changed from 20% to 50% of Labour MPs, if they wanted they could make sure whoever they wanted to win wins. It’s not really a democratic process at all.

Haig actually reported a work ‘phone as stolen after a mugging. We will never know if it actually was. She then claims to have found it, but rather than return it to her employer as the rest of us would she decide to sell it. In the process making an active decision to defraud her employer. All while not having the common sense to realise that all ‘phones are traceable by their IMEI, and to think ‘oh, hang on, maybe my employer reported its loss to the operator’. The actual conviction was for fraud by false representation, much worse than theft I think. The motivation seems to be greed, or entitlement, and it was picked up because of her stupidity in not realising that phones are trackable. I am struggling to see any quality that makes her remotely suitable for government.

I still don’t understand how she got the job

Because her union backers wanted her to have it, @Brunettesmorefun, and being the party's main funders they naturally get a lot of say

Possibly someone thought that if they bigged up her background all those with similar ones would come out to vote Labour, but while I don't have the stats to know if this happened I find it very unlikely - especially when at the last election those with the poorest educational outcomes were less likely to vote Labour

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election

What Did @KhakiTiger say that wasn’t true?

Louise Haigh ‘admitted to having lied about the theft in the first place in order to get a newer phone, and that the investigation and replacement phone cost Aviva £1,249. She was discharged for 12 months and paid £100 in fines, £85 to the Crown Prosecution Service and £15 as a victim surcharge.

The sheet says: “You dishonestly made a false representation, namely that your work-issued mobile phone had been stolen, intending to cause loss to Aviva insurance by falsely reporting the loss of your phone, causing them to issue you with a new iPhone 5 instead of a replacement BlackBerry phone as well as conducting an investigation into that loss.”’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows

The circumstances around it are disputed. The Times reported that Aviva launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions. The newspaper said the police were given details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva, but that the criminal charge related to one phone.

Are you suggesting that she was given poor legal advice which lead her to plead guilty, rather than actually being guilty?

You were right in the first place.

Though tbf that was what she did to get the actual conviction (phone singular in this case, though more were suspected but never proven)

I think an election has been confirmed, NEC to decide when.
I wasn’t disputing what Haigh did was illegal and makes her unsuitable for some positions of authority, though. I was disputing the pp claim that she took phones from her employer to sell. The exaggeration was inaccurate and unnecessary.

So you want everyone severely injured by the NHS to end up on a life on benefits, and the whim of a particular government as to how much they get and when, with no security or choice? I think if the NHS is negligent it should pay, and clearly the court and /or the NHS’s lawyers did too because they did.

I am far from Rayners biggest fan as my posts will show. But the Trust has a responsibility to ensure the child is cared for for his whole life. As part of that he’ll need somewhere to live for his whole life. The parents owned a house that had been adapted, so it makes sense to transfer ownership if that to the Trust for her sons benefit. I’m sure she would have loved to be able to just give that away, but not many people can afford to do that, and perhaps she couldn’t either. In which case the Trust has done the right thing by buying it. I completely agree the optics of it are bad, and the timing worse. But, subject to the value attributed to the property not being completely made up, I don’t think there’s a story here.

Ah okay. Sorry. So she didn’t take a phone from her employer then sell it, she found a phone that belonged to her employer and sold it. That clears everything up :)

Exactly nhs here and defend them lots. But of course you are correct

She said she took phones from her employer and sold them. Plural. She didn’t. And the wording makes it sound as though she took them new from the office to sell rather than not returning one she’d had replaced when she found it. What she did was wrong. There was no need for exaggeration. Facts matter and there are too many lies and distortions about in public discourse currently. They need challenging (and yes, whoever it is pushing them).

No, facts matter. It was one phone. She didn’t swipe it from the office to sell. I’m fed up of constant lies and distortions.

No I’m not suggesting that. I’ve said she broke the law. I’m just interested in challenging lies and distortions. We would all be better off if politicians didn’t lie and people reporting on/discussing politics didn’t lie.

No, she thought a phone had been stolen from her, got a new one and then found the old one hadn’t been stolen and sold it 8n stead of returning it. It was wrong. It was illegal. So why make up an exaggerated version?

She has a criminal conviction for fraud. That's all the electorate need to know.

Well yes. Exactly. I think you’ll find that’s my exact point.

I’m struggling to see the exaggeration - perhaps you could point it out.

I have. Repeatedly. Have a little read.
And ask yourself why you are arguing about this when I’ve clearly said what she did was both illegal and unacceptable in a person in public office. (Though there is a discussion to be had about rehabilitation and how long different crimes should bar you from office - and about double standards with regard to frauds committed by people from different political perspectives).

If you are amused, great.

And yes our the two main parties are full of crooks who are as thick as pig shit. How do we know. Their results show it.

Must be quite exhausting trying to defend crooks and wrong ‘uns, but you can try, if you are so passionate about defending these nasty characters

Talking of "Thick", did you watch any of Reform conference!