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.

Good. Because it is the “whole scope of my claim.”

I don’t agree with that. She was entitled to severance and so were all her predecessors, Tory, Labour, whatever.

The difference with her is that she condemned ministerial severance payments but now is happy to pocket one.

She’s a massive hypocrite. But then Labour is generally.

You do know that most of us aren't successful individuals, right? Now I'm not saying that as women we shouldn't be feminist but this whole 'you'll only be successful if you are a feminist' idea is BS. Even the idea that a woman's success hinges on her career is BS. That's girlboss feminism and it has hurt feminism in a way the manosphere could only dream of.

I do agree with you. But she's had some prophetic policies:

Marie-France vanHeel
"can't we have a military coup to get rid of our democratically elected government".

Hypocrite.

Mone can be investigated and return the millions she stole for PPI that didn’t exist.

Not only do I vote Tory I'm actually a party member (I joined to vote against Liz Truss)..

Having said that - I admire Angela Rayner for the position she has achieved in life - so, (and when you consider the tory corruption) I don't really begrudge her this.

Looking at how many of our cabinet are usually Oxbridge educated, and PMs generally from one or the other, I think different life journeys are to be encouraged in government

She was sued for the money by the Tory government two years before Labour came into power.

you should really google that for yourself. Women should be able to operate equally to men in society and it’s very much in society’s interests to make that happen.

And how much has she given back?

I was talking about Burnham’s wife.

I definitely don’t agree that feminism has hurt feminism more than the manosphere- (which is only the latest example of the violent misogyny that the patriarchy has been enacting on women and girls for centuries..)
but i definitely agree with you that feminism doesn’t or shouldn’t be linked only to career ‘success’ if that is the accusation against it.
I don’t really recognise that as a big feminist message tbh.

It’s definitely true that without feminism it would be very hard for women to have any (traditionally viewed as male) ‘career success’. But my view of feminism is that it should allow women broadly the same choices that men can make, except where biology doesn’t allow it, so it would be just as feminist as a woman to take on a role that you might think the patriarchy approves of, if that’s your genuine choice. And if you didn’t harm other women by doing it.

But- saying that, it’s important to recognise that the patriarchy hates all women- it hates the women who stay home with their kids and it also hates the women who go out to work.
And the reality of economic life for women in late stage capitalism in the UK and the socialisation that women get, means that we are still without the same genuinely free choices as men get. So probably no woman gets a free choice, but some women have the social and economic resources to make the best of their situation according to what they want to do.

Nature loves balance, so any hypocrisy on ARs part is cancelled out by the hypocrisy of a unfashionable few who were cheering the tabloids on in their (as it emerged, unjustified) pursuit of her, and caused her removal.

Pleased to have sorted that one out.

Also more fool for them not asking
I took voluntary redundancy also some staff negotiated severance packages and part of the terms I’d you have to pay it back if you work for them again in the next 3 years
I thought this was standard practice

I know that but you don't have to put a label on yourself to want equality. There's a few waves of feminism I strongly disagree with.

I don’t know. I’d guess at not very much. But that wasn’t the question. And it wasn’t for want of trying by the previous government.

Why was it hypocritical to press her to come clean about how much tax she paid and to want an investigation - which happened and concluded that Rayner breached the ministerial code. So it wasn’t unjustified at all. I think you’re grasping at straws there. You’ve sorted nothing out.

Rayner also attacked MPs for having second jobs. In the year after resigning she earned £180k from second jobs.

But, no, she’s definitely not an industrial strength hypocrite. 🙄

The issue is not whether she was entitled to one initially, but whether she should return it as she is back in the same job so very soon.

I can see that issue, but I don’t think she’s any different in that respect from many who came before and after her. That’s just how it works.

I’d be all for changing the system, but for now it is what it is.

Rayner’s problem is her nauseating hypocrisy.

No it’s possibly because she fiddled her taxes and underpaid stamp duty when she was housing secretary and people don’t like dishonest liars

I'm not interested in daft gestures like returning 6 weeks money she was legally entitled to.
I'm interested in whether she can get social homes built. I'll judge her on that.

That wasn't what I said was it ? I am quite happy for any and all politicians to have their affairs checked for propriety.

That's exactly the issue.

Yes, it was what you said.

Him was in the pub.
No he wasn't.
He was in the pub.
Yes.
So when Haigh joined him it was simply a case of "He and Haigh were in the pub."
Simple. Correct.

She wasn't sat in the pub. She was sitting in the pub.
I heard her on the radio this morning. Maybe she really has had some elocution lessons or some grammar lessons.

As she's in charge of housing again and wants to be Prime Minister I hope she won't forget greenery as part of any housing development, uses up all the brown sites first, doesn't call developers 'scum', except for the ones who are of course and pays some of her own money into the treasury.