Would you vote for Angela Rayner?

[WildEnergySupplier]

Sounds like she's throwing her hat in the ring.

She says she's paid off the tax she owes and is no longer under investigation.

This apparently means she's free to run - and is going to.

It wouldn’t for most people. I left home when I was 17.

We had a PM once who didn't even know how many children he had.

Public office characters matter?

I don't care whether someone is XX, XY or anything in between. That is a really strange assumption to make.

Why does not respecting Angela Rayner have to be about how she speaks, her background, her qualifications or her sex? Nothing I have said even remotely suggests that. Another strange assumption. Do not assume everybody’s standards or reasoning are that shallow.

Just because many politicians do something does not automatically make it a good thing, especially when many ordinary people are struggling to afford even one home.

Speak for yourself. Some of us expect men to be held to the same standards as women.

Some of you seem to be working with a very low bar.

Public office characters matter?

More than one definition of character exists. Feel free to expand your vocabulary.

My low bar is that her youngest child is the same age I was when I left home. It would be irrational for me to be outraged.

outraged.

More strawmen.

You are aware,aren’t you, that many MPs with constituencies a long distance from London have two homes-otherwise work becomes practically impossible?

I was copying your sentence

It was clear that I meant, “In public office, character matters.”

It is rather ironic that you are being so pedantic with me over a quick and sloppy sentence, yet defend Angela Rayner’s way of speaking.

And you are aware that there is much debate over whether that is the best setup.

That’s not what you were doing. Let’s not kid ourselves about that.

I don't have a problem with accents.

You have different standards for male politicians?

If I were an MP, I would be happy with secure purpose built portered accommodation right next to Parliament. I think it’s different for cabinet ministers but why the Government cannot just have various houses/flats pre allocated for the various positions is beyond me. But then I also believe that people standing should have pre-existing connections to where they stand and a history (either having lived there or at least worked or gone to uni there).

@TopPocketFind - I really don’t think that is what @NorthXNorthWest is saying.

”but the Tories” just doesn’t wash anymore. Why shouldn’t we have proper standards both for our husbands and our politicians? Competent professional women with confidence are more likely to feel this way.

Good standards and workable economic policies is really not too much to ask for. High expectations is empowering not the opposite.

How would those 500+ apartments be funded? It would cost about half a billion to buy them and more millions to maintain them. We’re probably better off with them in flat shares as they are currently.

You might not like Rayner for whatever reason but she is a competent professional woman.

@blossomtoes - the sums are insignificant compared to eg the welfare or health budget and there might be security savings and simplification for MPs anyway.

They’re probably exorbitant compared with the amount MPs are currently paid in expenses.

“You might not like Rayner for whatever reason but she is a competent professional woman.”

I do not dislike Rayner and have respect for the way she has risen up and is self made. However, I do not think she is PM material. There has to be a certain standard. This is not how I want Britain to be portrayed to the rest of the world. And any amount of “but Nigel, but Boris” really won’t persuade me or most people with certain professional standards otherwise.

Can you expand on the certain standard?

Yes, I am not a coward and am happy to answer questions.

The rest of the world will not see it, it is as simple as that. She really cannot represent Britain on the world stage. Internal politics fine, geopolitics - no. And business and the bond markets won’t see it either.
The fact we have to actually reiterate this multiple times is rather worrying.

Of course. But it is the set up that pertains at the moment.

If we are comparing media inputs, I look at the Times early in the morning, because I find the app readable, and then I go to my (limited) FT feed. When I open my desktop I look at the Torygraph (I like the fashion feed for older ladies, trivially -- they do it well) and I read some editorial too, but I don't like it on my phone screen. Some days I read the Guardian's articles on items that they view through another lens. I send them money every month too. And I pay for the New York Times, because I lived in NYC many years ago for five years and was shaped by the experience. For 50c a week, why wouldn't I? I spend quite a lot every month across all the varied news sources. I know many people are not news and information junkies like me, but I believe I have a good read on current events. However, I don't look at FB or most social media unless I am wishing you a happy birthday.