Angela Rayner not returning her 17K severance payment

[MissionCreep]

After a year out of gov Angela Rayner is back obviously and today saying she won’t return the 17K severance payment because she ‘will deliver again’ in government. Just seems so grubby.

Same for Liz Truss taking the PM pension after crashing the economy. Just so tone deaf. I’m sure there are loads of other examples and I don’t think they’re OK either.

I don’t want this Burnham government to appear to be one that just looks out for itself. That was terrible for us in the Boris Johnson era. We should obviously not be harbouring any corruption from those in office, but also I want politicians to do the right thing in office even where the law doesn’t absolutely force them to.

To use the well known phrase, you do you.

whats wrong with a feminist response? We should all be feminists

Why?

£17k is a small price for the country to pay for the reward of having it confirmed yet again that Rayner and Labour are gold medal winning hypocrites.

Because otherwise we end up expecting women to pretend they’re not successful individuals so as to support their husband’s careers.

What do you think of Liz Truss?

Some of the complaints that have happened in the last 5 days about this new government say an awful lot more about the complainers than the subject of the complaints.

It's almost like some people want the government to be rubbish.

I’m sure that’s true. But what’s it got to do with Rayner’s appalling, grabby hypocrisy?

It’s not almost like, it is. Any sane person would want its country’s government to do well whether or not it’s politically aligned with their views.

Agreed @BIossomtoes

It also deflects nicely from any good the government might be doing. Far better to find some real niggles like PMs wife's dress to balance out any good someone might discover.

How is that comparable? Frankie van Heel is being criticised for a frock not for batshit policies she implemented as PM that cost the UK god knows how much money.

Because it isn’t “appalling, grabby hypocrisy.” She left her job because of an accusation that turned out to be unfounded.

Her clothes were generally excellent.

What is wrong with asking like the OP: I want politicians to do the right thing in office even where the law doesn’t absolutely force them to.

We can't all lower our expectations and standards so easily.

That’s untrue. She was found in breach of the ministerial code. She was accused of underpaying stamp duty and eventually admitted to that.

Yeah I've never heard this raised before. Who else does it apply to?

I don't get this argument that it's somehow wrong/worse to focus on LT or AR because they are women. Are we meant to ignore their behaviour? I don't feel that I owe it to women to ignore grubby behaviour or incompetence because 'sisterhood'.
I also don't think they get more focus than male politicians - there were countless thread about BJ, Keir Starmer's glasses being paid for by a donor, Nigel Farage's finances.

That feels like a retreat to the pizza-topping territory.

Should men criticise male politicians? Neither should expect solidarity on grounds of their sex, I think.

Absolutely politicians of both sexes should be criticised for their words, their policies and their opinions. By people of both sexes. Not for their appearance.
Also, Burnham’s wife is NOT a politician.

Yes I agree on that. If that was the whole scope of your claim then sorry for butting in because we agree.

Because she is a public servant. It is taxpayers money.
And because a civil servant would be expected to pay it back if they left and then went into a similar public service job within that timescale.
That is why.

I am absolutely happy to criticise female MPs for being dodgy - I can't stand Angela Rayner - but I also don't think she should be held to a higher standard than all the men who've been sacked and rehired over the years.

She's entitled to keep it and she should do.

If i was made redundant I wouldn't return my redundancy money if I got a new job.

Not a Raynor fan at all but this is a non story really.

No they wouldn’t. Civil service rules require part repayment if a new civil service role is taken up within six months. There’s no requirement after that.

Because there 2 off the most high profile mp’s it’s relevant to
everyone is more invested in these two than the other run of the mill mp’s which makes it more news worthy not the fact there women