To think allisons pearsons rant about Angela Rayner is full of nasty stereotypes about girls who are 16 and pregnant?

[Helhigh]

Well I’m not a fan of Angela Rayner and have never voted labour but Pearsons rant in the telegraph yesterday was half assumptions that Rayner must have been a bully who thumped classmates for doing their homework and distracted the class by talking about how many boys she shagged.
And of course reading books and having a child at 16 is mutually exclusive.
I don’t think Rayner has ever said she was like this Pearson has just made a load of assumptions because she was 16 and pregnant.

Anyway it’s behind a pay wall so I had to copy and paste the nasty part:

“I have noticed a tendency among politicians and commentators, particularly the posh ones, to praise Rayner’s flame-haired “authenticity”. That’s because they didn’t go to school with an Angela. Those of us who did know the harm that the Angelas do to kids from poorer homes who want to work hard and do well but whose lessons are permanently disrupted by those who don’t. The Angelas sit in the back row of the class putting on make-up, doing their nails and chatting loudly, throughout readings from the set book, about who they’ve sh---ed. They disdain the teachers who are rather scared of them.
Angelas have sex by the age of 13 (they mock those of us who are saving our virginity for later). Pregnant at 16, they leave school without any qualifications and work behind the till in Mac Fisheries before embarking on a romantic life which features at least two injunctions and a restraining order. By the age of 37, they are grandmothers (as Rayner was).
Believe me, all the kids who want to get on in life breathe an almighty sigh of relief that the Angelas have left school because now they can hand in their homework and try to pass their exams without being ridiculed or thumped by an Angela.
So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t join in the applause for Angela Rayner’s vibrant “back story” and her ascent to the top of government through militant trade unionism. The working-class kids I admire often came from difficult council-house homes, as Rayner did, but they clung on to education like a life raft. Or they saw a job opportunity and grasped it with both hands. They did that old-fashioned thing called bettering themselves”

Ok. That says all I need to know about you. Thanks for finally replying.

This!

Got to be trolling. Very sad and unhappy person if not, got to feel sorry for them if so.

Well what did you expect me to say? You were so interested apparently that you asked me three times. If I had said no, then you would have kept on about it, and frankly I’m bored now.

On a cheerier note, it looks like Labour will be getting their arse handed to them next week, and evidently Starmer is gearing up to chuck Reeves under the bus - what a guy.

Gratifying to see your wretched government implode.

Please start your own thread, if you are just here to moan about the government, or you could join one of the many others doing just that.
It doesn’t feel very in the spirit to use one about journalistic misogyny purely to get your dislike of “our wretched government “ across constantly.

In which case, I shall focus on the thread topic.

All good.

Let’s be honest - anyone at work who called someone else Scum, would be fired. There and then. Raynor has what the Americans call ‘ a potty mouth’. We don’t yet have the witnesses, but get ready for it….my guess is she was a pretty mean teenager. But let’s see.

Rayner was a DEI hire - quite simply.

It didn’t work out when she was scooped by the DT fiddling tax. And now Starmer looks set to bring her back in an attempt to ‘keep your enemies closer’.

Doubtless she has some other shit buried, which, when it comes to light, Starmer will blame the vetting failure on someone else.

It’s all rather inevitable.

Really? At a non work event?

Not at all. In Parliament. Her choice of words rolled off her tongue.

We do have the witnesses, had you bothered to RTFT you’d know the mean girls bullied her.

Rayner isn’t a “hire”, she’s a politician who was elected by almost half the people who voted in her constituency. And MPs aren’t vetted. If you’re going to pontificate about our politicians @Selectivemute at least take the trouble to do some basic research about how the system works.

the article isn't great but we.certainly shouldn't be applauding lack of educational achievement of trying to pretend it is normal to become pregnant at 16 and then become deputy prime minister.

Check before you post, perhaps - a cabinet appointment is cleared through a vetting process. Starmer is purportedly planning on offering Rayner a cabinet position.

It’s not normal which is why Rayner’s achievement is so remarkable. Incidentally Major - PM for seven years, having also been Chancellor and Foreign Secretary - has three “O” levels and left school at 16.

He also had a career in finance/banking, and a grasp of basic economics.
Unlike your Ange.

She’s already been a cabinet member. We do not vet MPs.

He still left school at 16 with minimal qualifications.

What a cunty article. No wonder she was bullied.

I think the comparison is absurd.

Rayner is (was) a union sop, a DEI appointment, and an attempt by Starmer to keep the left wing on side. Wildly over-promoted, as thick as mince, a tax fiddler, and a vicious POW.

You may have detected - I’m not a fan.

I’m guessing she means this kind of thing?

That's not the only thing I've detected...

For those of you with an FT subscription, there’s a terrific article on Starmer’s inevitable demise.

Pearson is a deeply unpleasant woman.

She hasn’t been appointed, she’s an elected politician. The comparison with Major (who, along with the King, admires her) is entirely valid in terms of education. And she’s far from “thick”, she’s highly intelligent.