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”

FGS.

Does Rayner have the requisite skillset/transferable skills. For much of her previous role, I would argue not.

I can recall her DA-style car crash interview with Andrew Neil.

She was found out, and didn’t like it. Brass neck will only carry you so far.

So it's ok for them to build up from scratch but not for Rayner?

So sorry you never made it to Deputy PM, jealousy isn't a good look.

Iraq??

Look, I appreciate your consistency with being religious about Labour, but can you try reading please? not MN posts, but actual articles or research? ideally independent, not just taxjustice.uk

No, Andy hasn't been elected, but it's certain that Labour will bleed badly on 7th May and it is likely there will be reshuffle at best, if Starmer doesn't go. Markets are shit scared of left government, Andy is one of the possible successors of Starmer, hence the reaction.

Just think about it - as a private person you can get your mortgage now much cheaper than 5.73%. This tells you everything about current UK government and state of economy.

We pay over 111bn of interest pa. This is just slightly below our entire education budget. Just this about it.

Well, for one - it doesn’t pay enough.

And therein lies half of the issue. Peanuts & simians…

Iraq??

Typo/autocorrect. As I’m sure you realise.

The fact that you don’t like unions does not mean that working for one isn’t a real job

I don’t think much to arms dealers, but I’m not imbecilic enough to claim the head of sales at Raytheon doesn’t count as employment.

I don't seriously believe the Telegraph gives a fuck about teenage pregnancy,

They just want to denigrate a Labour politician that frightens them.

Perhaps extend your apologies to the 'How about we look at the evidence before we enthusiastically agree with the imaginings of someone saying what we want to be true' society?
Because not liking AR isn't the problem. Your willingness to accept a stereotype of a WC child as a sex obsessed bully, because you dislike the woman she became and a substandard journalist has spun you a tale, is.

And apparently the FT is wrong and nearlylovemyusername knows better.

It is almost as though some posters want to see the UK plunge into some sort of financial armageddon. You have to wonder about their agenda.

You're literally criticising @thepariscrimefiles for criticising Allison Pearson (who is a loathsome, disingenuous piece of filth).

Me, me!

I want to see an economic crisis brought on by Labour - not for the poor people, but to see this lot carried out, rather than the current death by a thousand cuts.

My agenda is crystal.

FT is wrong? in what way? I quoted FT and agree with their view.
Or did you misread my post?