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.

Absolutely this!

Dates do not lie. I took my GCSEs in May/June 1996. And we got A stars then. We were very excited about our A stars! I am not going to brag about my grades, do not worry. And I still had fun.

I was in the same school year as Angela Rayner.

So if indeed her son was born in February 1997, then she could have taken her GCSEs in May/June 1996.

I mean a pregnancy is 9 months roughly. Facts and dates do not lie. So no “theory” or fantasy around dates and facts are required.

If the Civil Service insists on Maths and English language GCSEs and fast track insists on X, Y and Z as the basics, then surely the natural conclusion is we have a legitimate expectation that the vast majority of leaders are going to have at least the same qualifications.

And no, doing professional exams is not a hobby @blossomtoes. It is a basic for most of us.

I understand that voters do not need to pass anything, that is democracy for you. And until now we never needed a basic requirement for MPs. However, looking at the recent quality of MPs, perhaps they do need some professional qualifications!!!

You're allowed to brag go on ;)

Perhaps you could be an MP and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party..

And no, doing professional exams is not a hobby . It is a basic for most of us.

It would be a hobby for Rayner because she doesn’t need to take them. Galling, isn’t it?

She has been talking about her childhood (carer from the age of 6) and subsequent career path to various outlets. Her 'murky' past is not exactly a secret, neither is the fact that she left school without any qualifications.

If that's not enough for you, go investigate.

I already suggested Allison Pearson but you could also try Dan Hodges with your facts.

Same

I'd like to know if she did her GCSE's. Or did she just leave school without them because she felt like it?

One of the above is true. What is not true is that she left school at 16 because she was pregnant / had a baby. And that is the lie we've all been spun time and time again. It's part of her struggled up the ladder brand. If you don't find that an issue, I can't help you. Though it does say a lot about you, as well as her and the labour party lies, of course.

What does it tell you about me?

That I don't judge a woman for decisions she made when she was 16 and that I admire her for working her way up and showing all the people who wrote her off wrong?

Call it lies if you want, it makes you look petty

Hard work is celebrated unless you are Angela Rayner

You're carefully avoiding the fact that the labour party have lied to the electorate. I'm not judging a 16yr old for their decisions - stop lying. Par for the course I guess.

You didn’t post this then? If that’s not judging a 16 year old I don’t know what is.

I credit her for the Employments Rights Act.

Thank you. Yes, this will do for me.
If you consider Employment Rights Act as credit, then it says this all.
And no, I don't dislike her - I can't respect her.

This poster repeatedly said that they don't judge 16yo.
They judge a women in her 50s, in a senior public role, who lied about her past.

Who’s the woman in her 50s?

Yes she is 46 like me. Although she seems to have lived a full life!

So instead of doing her GCSEs she what bunked off school and got pregnant during the time she was either meant to be revising for or taking her GCSEs? If that is factually true, I agree, it’s been one big misrepresentation!

you're right, apology, I didn't check her DOB

Actually I agree with you, his backstory was presented as a positive when he became PM unexpectedly, he was seen as a success story. The only thing he was criticised for, as I recall, was being grey and boring (see his Spitting Image persona).

If you’re a socialist you’re not supposed to buy a house have capitalist double standards.

IMO, by definitions Labour often use in housing debates, Angela Rayner, occupying her new three-bedroom home, could be described as a single-occupancy “under-occupier” and “asset hoarder” who has benefited from considerable “unearned wealth” through significant house price inflation on a taxpayer-subsidised property, purchased using a taxpayer-subsidised discount. The same type of “house wealth” accumulation that Labour often argues perpetuates “intergenerational unfairness”, because the property could otherwise be occupied by a younger family. She will also benefit from the long-term security of a generous, stable, taxpayer backed DB pension in retirement, alongside a taxpayer backed state pension.

It is debatable whether an £800k three bedroom flat in Hove is genuinely the most practical and convenient location for Westminster commitments, especially late night ones, when you consider the excellent transport links available in parts of outer London.

If Labour likes to use language such as “under-occupation”, “asset hoarding”, “unearned wealth” and “intergenerational unfairness” towards older homeowners, many of whom acquired their homes through decades of PAYE work and often had to fund their own less secure DC pensions, then it is only fair that similar scrutiny and terminology can also be applied to their politicians' own home ownership.

I disagree that Labour lied and I don't understand why you are now accusing me of lying.,

I wasn't accusing you of anything. You are the one saying that it said a lot about me, I was just helping you out there.

Glad to know you are not judging Rayner for her decisions as a 16 year old, guess we agree on something.

If Labour likes to use language such as “under-occupation”, “asset hoarding”, “unearned wealth” and “intergenerational unfairness” towards older homeowners, many of whom acquired their homes through decades of PAYE work and often had to fund their own less secure DC pensions, then it is only fair that similar scrutiny and terminology can also be applied to their politicians' own home ownership.

Great big if there. Can you supply links that evidence Labour housing policy using that language?

@CurlewKate “I would be happy to discuss more substantial things”

Let’s do so then. Let’s stop questioning her background. Let’s question whether she has enough political substance to become PM.

Defending her from snobbery is all valid and good, but it doesn’t answer whether she has the judgement, policy depth or strategic seriousness required for the position of national leadership. I don’t think she has.

Does she have the ability to address the whole country?

Does she have the economic understanding to govern the country beyond internal Labour Party politics?

She clearly is a serious and passionate politician and has many strengths. But she only speaks party politics. She does not have a strategy for national cohesion, for foreign policy or even a conducive reform policy.

Let’s put her to the test on her record in government as Deputy Leader and in her role as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

It would be fair to say that Housing was her real test. She came in with one of Labour’s biggest promises - to build 1.5 million homes over 5 years. What did she actually deliver? How
dos she handle the brief, and why did housing stopbeing central to her political identity. That is not snobbery, it is political scrutiny.

I am really interested to hear “Rayner for PM” supporters views on her vision for the country were she to become PM.

Policy? Nice try.

My previous post has really got me thinking on this, to many, very emotive subject. I personally am not emotional about it, but if she did become PM, I would be emotional to the point of being incensed. But let’s leave that for another day.

My question - Is Angela Rayner primarily a representative of working class Labour values, or does she have a governing strategy capable of leading Britain?

I think her supporters would answer that her working class values are her credentials to govern for ordinary people, I cringe a little using
the term, but needs must and all that.

Has anyone heard her speak on economic growth, on Britains role in the world, on fiscal constraints, on the role of the state in public life?

I have listened to her personal story time and time again and each time she becomes more fluent, verbose and articulate.

@Blossomtoes you posted the link for Chartwell Speakers. I went onto the link, read the blurb, couldn’t access a speech, but could make enquiries about hiring her to make a speech.

So no links? Quelle surprise.

Who says Angela Rayner is representative of „working class“ values? A lot of working class actual real life people find that insulting.

Labour have simply curated a carefully crafted Cinderella/rise from the ashes fictional character. The reality is much more party girl/bull in a China shop/some luck and some hard work involved.

Most likely she has been brought back not to stand for PM in any realistic way, but to detract from any dirt on Burnham or Streeting. She is there to take the flack for the men. She was also likely made deputy to not undermine Starmer too much and a very soft nod to Labour left.

It is clear Lie-Bore are out of their depth just like the Tories. It’s a challenging time period and these tech changes and geopolitics is just all too much for them to handle. In this climate we would actually need a super intelligent economically and scientific super mind as leader. Not any of these curated fake image bullshitting waffling politicians who haven’t lived and worked in the real world.

Hmm. I was happy to engage until Lie-Bore. Do you misspell Keir or call him Two Tier Keir too? Rachel from Accounts? Thought better of you.