How Angela Rayner has become the most influential figure in Starmer's government
It is now widely recognised by Labour MPs, across the different wings of the party, that deputy prime minister Angela Rayner 's influence in this government is greater than almost anybody else.
Certainly more than the wounded chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has been beset by economic woes, and even more than health secretary Wes Streeting who, like Rayner, has been tipped as a future contender for the leadership.
She was, though, completely unprepared for the shot fired by the Unite union, after its general secretary announced it had suspended her membership for failing to resolve the Birmingham refuse collectors dispute.
But while a trade union that looks set to peel off and back Jeremy Corbyn's new party gave her a headache, Ms Rayner nevertheless is enjoying a surge in influence – for now.
Welfare rebellion
The biggest reason for her rise is the result of the welfare rebellion just over a week ago.
As one party whip put it: 'There's nobody more powerful in the government than Angela at the moment.
'She was the one who brokered the deal with Labour rebels, she was the one who talked people off the ledge from voting against the government.'
As another ally pointed out that she did not even want the disability cuts and had already sent a leaked memo to Ms Reeves suggesting wealth taxes instead of austerity.
Now, after last Wednesday's PMQs, it seems like the government has no option but to raise taxes.
But the turnaround for Ms Rayner actually started with her holdout in the spending review, where she got a £39bn for housing and more than expected for local government.
A spot of union bother
Some may see the recent decision by Unite the union to suspend her membership (even though she left the union in April) as a problem.
But behind the scenes it has confused people on the left and other unions, who believe Ms Rayner has turned Starmer's government leftward on disability benefits and steering through the bill on workers' rights.
As a TUC source noted: 'The main metric we are judging this government by is the workers' rights legislation and that is on course.'
Unite took action because of her position on the Birmingham bins strike. But an ally of Ms Rayner said: 'It's wild! They know full well that Angela cannot directly intervene in the way that they say, and to attack one of the few remaining cabinet members who is standing up for workers rights and real labour values is simply mad.'
However, it remains to be seen if the escalating clash with Unite will halt Ms Rayner's rise.
A rival court to Downing Street
How the tide can turn. Just over a month ago, there was talk about Ms Rayner being demoted and losing the housing part of her portfolio.
Now there is speculation in Westminster that the deputy prime minister could soon have her own official office, with its own staff and comms team.
There is some scepticism, especially over what it would mean for Sir Keir himself and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.
As one ally of Ms Rayner noted: 'Morgan will hate the idea and do everything he can to stop it. An Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) would create a rival court, an alternative centre of government.'
The last person to have an ODPM was John Prescott under Tony Blair, but unlike Ms Rayner, Prescott was never seen as a candidate to replace Sir Tony.
All about the leadership
There is still a lot of fevered speculation about whether Sir Keir can survive as prime minister.
The image of his chancellor in tears while he failed to guarantee her future this month became the image of a government spiralling out of control after just a month.
There are many waiting to see the results of the elections in Scotland, Wales and English councils next May to decide whether to launch a putsch.
If he is forced out, Ms Rayner is now the clear favourite to take over, despite her protestations that she does not want the job.
Beware the 'Rayner's rise' trap
While Ms Rayner is on top at the moment, there is some speculation that the spending review with Ms Reeves has laid a trap for her much more problematic than the issues with Unite.
In getting her cash for local government and housing it appears that the deputy prime minister has signed up to council tax rises of 5 per cent.
At the housing and local government select committee hearing this week in the Commons she denied that the increase was 'baked in', but MPs from her own party and the opposition were not convinced at all.
The Independent has been told that already the term 'Rayner's rise' is being used for hefty council tax increases not seen since the Blair era two decades ago. Back in the Blair government it was Prescott and his Office of the Deputy PM which took the brunt of the anger over rising bills - it will be the same for Ms Rayner.
Among her allies there is genuine concern that Ms Rayner's opponents inside and outside the party are 'preparing to weaponise' it as an issue when council tax bills land at the end of the year.
There are fears that it will not take much to turn the public against her.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
UK politicians are in the pockets of the rich. Is that democracy?
At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Keir Starmer responded to a question from Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay about growing calls to introduce a tax on wealth for the super-rich – those with assets above £10 million – by saying he wouldn't 'take advice' from the Greens, and insisting that 'we can't just tax our way to growth'. We can, it seems, cut our way to growth though, as long as it's those already at the greatest risk of poverty who'll bear the brunt. On Wednesday evening, 333 Labour MPs voted to cut disability benefits by £2 billion per year, halving the health element of universal credit for new claimants, and cutting it altogether for new claimants aged under 22. At a certain point, when the faces and the colour of the rosettes change but the glaring injustices remain the same, we have to ask ourselves why. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Image: Yui Mok) A common refrain among politicians is that right-wing policies that make life harder for social security claimants – or immigrants, or any other marginalised group – are popular. So popular that they have no choice but to implement them with gusto, because that's the will of the people, I guess. Meanwhile, I suppose we are to imagine that the average British voter is kept up at night worrying about the prospect of millionaires and billionaires being asked to pay more into our public services. As Tory leader Kemi Badenoch put it at PMQs, a wealth tax would be 'a tax on all of our constituents' savings, their houses, their pensions'. Who among us doesn't know and love someone with more than £10m in assets lying around? And surely we can all agree that they're the real victims? Back in the real world, a YouGov poll last week found that 75% of people in the UK would support introducing a wealth tax of 2% on wealth above £10m. Earlier this year, YouGov conducted another poll on behalf of Oxfam which found that 79% of over 16s in Scotland would rather the government tax the richest than make cuts to public spending. (Image: YouGov) And while it's true that some voters do believe that the welfare system is too generous, and the immigrants are draining the country of resources, it's important to remember that large sections of the British media, with their own vested interests, have spent not years but decades pushing precisely this narrative. It's disingenuous at best to persuade someone of something and then behave as though it was their idea all along. Alongside campaign groups Tax Justice UK and Patriotic Millionaires UK, Oxfam identified that the government could raise up to £24bn per year through a wealth tax which would apply to only 0.04% of the population. At the same time, charities and experts from across the UK and beyond – extending to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – have highlighted the damage that cuts to social security could cause to people's ability to make ends meet or simply live with dignity. So, if it's not the electorate telling politicians which policies to pursue, and it's not the data or the impassioned pleas of experts that persuade them, then what is it that drives them to make these decisions? READ MORE: Mark Brown: Why I plan to join Scotland's new radical left party Surely the answer is obvious by now. Time and again, right-wing and supposedly centrist politicians prove that nothing matters to them than the feelings of their rich donors and supporters – and nothing matters more to those wealthy individuals and large corporations than money. Successive governments' inaction on a range of urgent issues – from climate change, to energy prices, to raising taxes to fund crumbling public services – becomes far easier to understand once you realise that standing up to behemoth corporations and their numerous beneficiaries could cost these politicians dearly. If power for power's sake is the goal, if fuelling the party machine with big donations is a worthwhile end in and of itself, and if securing oneself a cushy position after – or perhaps during – your time in office is the ultimate prize, then making an enemy out of the 1% is a senseless endeavour. The dramatic decline in political party membership numbers over the past several decades mean that parties have become more and more reliant on a small pool of wealthy donors. Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society found that, during the 2024 election campaign, Labour received £6.7m from 'mega-donors', which made up 68.5% of their total donations up to polling day. This equates to 42 times the amount they took from the same type of donors during the 2019 election campaign. David Lammy secured a personal donor a job at the Foreign Office (Image: PA) When we ask ourselves how it is that the Labour Party have sold out on so many principles in such a short period of time, the answer is in the question. What chance does the average person – or community – stand to have their voice heard and acted upon by those in power while principles and policies are being sold to the highest bidder? Just last week, it was revealed by the Democracy for Sale substack that Foreign Secretary David Lammy gave a taxpayer-funded job in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the former UK president of multinational PR company WPP after she donated £5000 to his office ahead of the election. This is only the latest in a series of jobs for donors that Labour have been scrutinised over. Under the ideal of democracy which we are encouraged to believe the UK represents, every eligible voter should have an equal say in elections and, by extension, an equal opportunity to have a say in the decisions the elected parliament makes. How far must our political leaders stray from this principle before we recognise that we are no longer ruled by democracy but plutocracy: a society controlled by people with great wealth or income? Consider that the UK's 50 richest families hold more wealth than 50% of the population, according to analysis from the Equality Trust. And while the top 20% hold 63% of the UK's wealth, the bottom fifth have only 0.5% of the wealth. READ MORE: The best way to defeat Reform UK? Expose the gaping holes in their politics Polls might show that the vast majority of the British public want to see the wealthy taxed more, but to imagine that this information would seize the Prime Minister with an urgency to act would be to believe that all views, experiences, voices or lives are equal. You only need to look at how this government – the progressive alternative to the old government – treats the most vulnerable to know that isn't true, not under this system. As long as money talks and those without are silenced, most of us will be out here screaming into the void. In case that seems too bleak a note to end on, a reminder: it doesn't have to be this way. Just look at the growing fervency with which the Tories and now Labour have sought to quash dissent through the criminalisation of peaceful protest, and the proscription of activist groups they don't like as terrorists. Even the frantic efforts of the Government to censor a rap group, Kneecap, over political statements is revealing. These are the actions of power under threat. They are terrified of ordinary people speaking their minds and telling them in no uncertain terms that enough is enough. That, alone, should act as motivation to keep doing just that.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Arms firms are buying exclusive access to MPs for as little as £1499
It comes as the new UK Labour Government has ushered in the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in February that the UK would increase spending on defence up to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, raiding the international development budget. The 144-page-long Strategic Defence Review released last month details how the UK is moving to a position of 'war-fighting' readiness, including committing to procuring up to 7000 domestically built long-range weapons. Look no further than the newly created All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Defence Technology. READ MORE: Scotland's NHS ready to treat injured Gaza children, First Minister says This informal cross-party group at Westminster was only created in January 2025 but has hit the ground running with a swish website where it says it is looking to 'partner' with defence firms who can then buy exclusive access to Westminster MPs and policy makers. Demand has certainly been high. At least 37 arms firms – including industry titans Leonardo and Lockheed Martin – have already sponsored the group according to its website. Leonardo, which has a factory in Edinburgh, is known to have produced targeting systems for Israel's F-35 fighter jets, which have been used to bombard Gaza. Lockheed Martin – the world's largest arms company – also contributes parts to F-35 fighter jets. Membership comes with its perks. So-called 'Tier 1 Partners' – which the APPG recommends to start-ups – can get access to 'all organised meetings' and 'opportunities to network with MPs and policymakers' for just £1499 (below). (Image: Defence Technology APPG) At the higher price point of £5000, meanwhile, 'Tier 2 Partners' can also get 'enhanced access to exclusive APPG meetings and key discussions' as well as 'priority invitations to high-profile parliamentary engagements' (below). (Image: Defence Technology APPG) The APPG register claims the group has already received between £60,001-£61,500 for a group 'secretary' from these firms. Declassified UK reported earlier this month that RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, a weapons firm which is owned by the Israeli government, also donated at least £1499 to the group. Of the 30 MPs involved in the APPG, five are from Scottish Labour, including Gordon McKee (Glasgow South), Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar), Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudon), Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) and Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan). Other MPs on the group include Neil Shastri-Hurst (co-chair), Fred Thomas (co-chair), Sarah Bool (officer), Anna Gelderd (officer), Luke Akehurst and Iain Duncan Smith. READ MORE: Scotland's NHS ready to treat injured Gaza children, First Minister says Meanwhile, another new Westminster group this year – the Defence and Security Sectors Supporting Local Communities APPG – is also funded by the arms industry, with the ADS group – the industry body for the arms industry – funding its secretary to the tune of £16,501- 18,000, according to the register. The ADS group also contributes funding to the APPG for Aviation, Travel and Aerospace. (Image: Danny Lawson) Meanwhile, arms firms BAE Systems and Babcock International – alongside other organisations – pay for the secretary for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Apprenticeships to the tune of £54,001-£55,500. This type of lobbying and private firms sponsoring Westminster APPGs isn't new. For years, concerns have been raised that they can operate as a 'back door' for lobbyists. In 2021, the parliament's standards watchdog warned that a new Westminster lobbying scandal could be sparked by the actions of MPs sitting on these informal committees. Labour's Chris Bryant – who chaired the committee at the time and is now a minister in Starmer's government – said he feared some APPGs were being used as a "backdoor" for commercial interests. Anti-corruption campaign group Transparency International has also expressed concerns. Rose Whiffen, a senior research officer at Transparency International UK, told the Sunday National: "All-Party Parliamentary Groups serve an important function in bringing expertise to Parliament, and encouraging cross-party work. When defence companies can buy access to MPs and policymakers, it raises serious questions about whether APPGS are being exploited by private interests seeking to influence decision-makers. "To avoid the next major lobbying scandal, we need much greater openness and accountability in how APPGs operate, with clear rules preventing them from being used as backdoors for commercial influence." Meanwhile, Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman said: 'That Westminster has allowed an official group to form where multinational arms dealers and foreign governments like Israel are paying to access a large group of MPs and peers through the backdoor is frankly astonishing. 'If this represents the level of lobbying and ethics regulation in London, then it's no surprise the UK consistently ends up supplying weapons to tyrants and war criminals around the world. It shames Scotland to be associated with it.' The APPG for Defence Technology didn't respond to a request for comment.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The world's best (and worst) airlines, according to you
Around 20,000 readers voted in the 2025 Telegraph Travel Awards, nominating their favourite destinations, hotels and holiday companies – and the results are in. Here we reveal how you rated the world's airlines. Did keep hold of its short-haul title? Has British Airways arrested its slide down the rankings? Will Wizz Air or Ryanair claim the dreaded wooden spoon? Read on to find out. The best short-haul airlines Top 10 (and change since 2023) – see the table below for the full rankings (=) Finnair (new entry) Turkish Airlines (new entry) Aegean Airlines (+1) Swiss (–3) Icelandair (–2) Loganair (+1) Austrian Airlines (+3) Norwegian (–3) LOT Polish Airlines (new entry) Having weathered the storm of the pandemic years, airlines have lately – it seems – been seeking to cash in. Telegraph Travel recently revealed how low-cost carriers have been hiking their baggage fees, with Ryanair raising its charges by up to 88 per cent in four years. Readers responded by voting it the worst short-haul airline, an 'honour' Wizz Air denied it in our last awards, held in 2023 (not that Wizz has much cause for celebration then – it still finished second from bottom). British Airways, which annoyed many frequent flyers by overhauling its loyalty scheme this year, continued to tumble down the rankings, coming 20th (out of 28), down from 12th (out of 23) in 2023. Low-cost giant easyJet was ranked two places higher. At the business end of the table, reigns supreme for the third awards in a row, with its combination of reasonable fares and reliably good customer service continuing to impress readers. It's all change on the rest of the podium, however, with Finnair and Turkish Airlines supplanting Swiss and Aurigny Air, which fell to 5th and 16th, respectively. At a glance Jet2 has retained the number-one spot it seized from Swiss in 2019. British Airways – now 20th – was voted best short-haul airline in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015/16. Four of your 10 favourite airlines in 2014 (Swiss, Icelandair, Jet2, Austrian Airlines) remain in the top 10 more than a decade later. Rising up the rankings were Austrian Airlines (+3 places), Aegean Airlines (+1), Loganair (+1) and KM Malta Airlines (+1). The biggest fallers were Aurigny Air (–13 places), British Airways (–8), EasyJet (–8), Vueling (–8), Ryanair (–6), Air France (–5) and Aer Lingus (–5). The best long-haul airlines Top 10 (and change since 2023) – see the table below for the full rankings Emirates (=) All Nippon Airways (new entry) Singapore Airlines (=) Qatar Airways (–2) Japan Airlines (–1) Virgin Atlantic (–1) Cathay Pacific (+2) EVA Air (–2) Air New Zealand (–2) Etihad (+2) British Airways has faced criticism from passengers for cutting costs and attempting to compete with its low-cost rivals, but nobody would accuse your favourite long-haul carrier of such methods, with one of its more recent innovations being the introduction of unlimited caviar for first-class flyers. Emirates topped this year's poll, retaining its title ahead of All Nippon Airways, a new entry in the rankings, and Singapore Airlines, the winner in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Virgin Atlantic slipped one place to sixth, but remains – by a mile – your favourite UK-based long-haul option, combining a tried-and-tested route map (mostly featuring Caribbean and US destinations) with its stylish Clubhouse lounge at Heathrow, plus onboard bars (which it will, alas, soon scrap) and always upbeat service. BA plummeted in the rankings from 23rd to 36th – its worst ever performance in the long-haul category. And the bottom of the class? That would be American Airlines, which came last out of 48 eligible carriers and, with its $35 (£26) checked luggage charges, is little more than another low-cost airline, critics say. At a glance Emirates, this year's winner, has never ranked lower than second place in any of the past seven Telegraph Travel Awards, going back to 2014. All Nippon Airways, which did not receive enough votes in 2023 to qualify, rocketed back to second place, meaning two Japanese airlines made the top five. Several of the West's legacy carriers have experienced a dramatic fall from grace, with British Airways falling from fourth in 2014 to 36th, Lufthansa from 19th to 39th and Air Canada from 17th to 29th. The biggest risers in the rankings this year were Turkish Airlines, Qantas and SAS – all up four places. In its first appearance in the rankings, plucky low-cost long-haul carrier Norse Atlantic finished a creditable 14th place.
