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”

Fair enough, but he’s evidently a crap PM.

If that's aimed at me, I don't have any strong opinions on Angela herself, I'm not fussed either way.
I just can't abide bullies which is what all of this is.

Exactly.
Say what you like about her politics, but you can't just go making up shit "because that's what teenage mums are like" 🙄

It's a decent and honourable job. But all she has is a level 2 NVQ. That's basically one GCSE.

And then she left to be a Union Rep (which I don't class as a real job).

I have more respect for Keir Starmer, Wes Streeting and David Lammy. The Milibands as well.

And then she left to be a Union Rep (which I don't class as a real job).

You might change your mind if you read the Guardian link up thread. It’s definitely a real job.

You don't believe in working yourself up from nothing?

Is a degree worth more than experience?

You're supposed to "know your place." Or something.

Gotta love all the faux indignation, and the victimhood.

How about taking some personal ownership for your life choices, and accepting that those choices preclude you from certain favourable outcomes, as opposed to blaming others.

Now, that’s bullshit.

But those choices don’t preclude you from anything. Rayner’s the living proof of that.

Or how about not lying about someone and then using those lies to smear someone, as AP did? If Rayner is so bad, why the need to make up lies about her?

Ah yes, having a baby at 16 should preclude you from ever doing anything else with your life.
About time those teenage mums were properly persecuted.

I really think this is what it boils down to for many people.

As Deputy PM, AR is very much out of her place for someone of her background and with her qualifications, and for some reason, that seems to really upset some people.

So they try to restore "order" by asserting that she can only be there because of some sort of flawed "diversity hire" box ticking process, instead of simply recognising that she is there - like every other MP - because other people elected her to be there and had some sort of confidence in her ability to contribute.

She's not really "worked" much in the real world. I don't count what she did in a Union as anything productive.

It's why I'm a Tory. At least Sunak had multiple years of real work in the private sector, working in business.

Being a carer does not count as real work?

Sunak had a priviledged upbringing.

Read this, then tell us it’s not a real job.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/feb/17/working-life-union-official-unison

Love that working for a Union isn’t a “real job” but working for a hedge fund firm is! You might be interested in the billionaire family Sunak married into as well. Very down to earth…..

That's a decent, honourable job. But she was then a union rep for longer.

Sunak was very diligent at school, uni, MBA and in his working career.

As someone of South Indian heritage, I love the Murthys!

They weren't born into wealth but set up and created a valuable tech company worth billions and employing many other people.

Sajid Javid then stood up to Johnson's (Cummings') demand and Sunak did Johnson's bidding. He continued to take the rap for Johnson. Everyone near Johnson has been tarnished.

I am not a Union man, but I have met a few Union Reps, and found them knowledgeable and effective.

Batting away attempts by company reps to take advantage of compliant and ignorant employees and deny them their rights. It was usually obvious that the company reps knew they were in the wrong and just trying it on as they dropped it without dispute. In my cases it was redundancies, TUPE, and pension negotiations.

When you see Torygraph readers sneering at workers rights you can see class hatred not far beneath the surface.

Ok? And?

Well I guess we have Trump to blame for that, at least partially?

Not really, mainly Labour.

Andy Burnham backs borrowing outside fiscal rules to boost defence spending

Gilt investors are anxious that Labour could shift to the left after the May 7 elections, especially in the event of Starmer facing a leadership challenge, and seek to loosen its self-imposed borrowing limits. ... The UK’s 30-year borrowing costs rose to 5.73 per cent on Wednesday, close to the highest level since 1998.

Mere Truss couldn't even dream about 5.73%, she only managed 4.5%

Seriously? Who gave the order to invade Iraq? And did I miss Andy Burnham being elected to parliament, let alone becoming chancellor? The desperation round here is growing fast.

Ok? You said: That's a decent, honourable job. But she was then a union rep for longer.
And?: It's why I'm a Tory. At least Sunak had multiple years of real work in the private sector, working in business.

Sunak let himself be very compromised. To sit there next to Johnson who promoted a sex abuser to be their Government whip. He was fined for Partygate, etc. You are putting down Angela's honest hard work yet praising this flawed man.

Yes, agree especially with the streetwise girls having more knowledge and access to contraception.

Given how vulnerable and messed up teenage pregnancy situations can be (SA and coercion from men/boys, lack of choice about contraception/termination due to parental control, trauma, MH issues, the fact thats under 16’s even if they just made a silly choice) is genuinely nasty behaviour for people to comment on it.