Germanshepherdsmum
There was no reason for AR to speak about her mother’s problems, and the effect on her childhood, other than to gain sympathy and further her career. What I find totally unacceptable, unnecessary and cruel is apparently acceptable to others. I am glad that I don’t share your views. I will leave you to it, grateful that I am not one of you.
I am not in favour of washing dirty linen in public, and ordinarily would agree that raking over the past is unfair on people who don’t have the platform from which to tell their own stories.
In this case, however, it seems likely that it’s a case of getting in first and refusing to be ashamed. The sorts of things people on here say about AR tend to focus on her class, her accent, her early motherhood and education. All things that can’t be changed, but all things that give people in similar circumstances hope that someone is representing them. In a democracy it is important that all social groups are represented, surely?
If AR didn’t talk about those things, you can bet that someone else would. I can imagine Les Dawson in a Cissie and Ida sketch, hitching up his bosom with his folded arms and muttering about how ‘she’s no better than she should be’.
Small minded? Without a doubt, but it’s what would happen if she tried to blend in with the Westminster crowd - the tabloids would be ferreting out schoolmates and neighbours with stories to tell, and their readers would love pursing their lips and shaking their heads.
There is a British mentality that loves keeping people ‘in their place’ by reminding them of where they came from, and by seizing the narrative AR is taking that power from those who would use her past against her, whilst at the same time giving the disadvantaged a role model.
There’s nothing wrong with ‘getting on’, and if someone does so without the benefit of a private education and family connections they have come further than someone born into privilege. Why shouldn’t she celebrate that?