Angela Rayner’s appointment as Deputy Prime Minister back in July came as no surprise. But it was still a victory for the former council estate girl. It was the position that some had said she would never acquire (not until September 2023 did Rayner become shadow deputy PM).
Yet it did not take long for the narrative that she had been marginalised to develop. Rayner was denied a formal Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (against her pre-election wishes) and policy briefs such as planning and workers’ rights were said to have been absorbed by Rachel Reeves and the Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds. Then, it was revealed Rayner lacked permanent membership of the National Security Council (unlike her predecessors). This strengthened the view of some inside government that Pat McFadden, the leading Cabinet Office minister, is the “real deputy prime minister” (a label, I’m told, the unassuming Scotsman “hates”).
Rayner was then angered at being “scapegoated” by No 10 alongside the Transport Secretary Louise Haigh for DP World’s threat to pull £1bn of investment from the UK. She was also revealed to have written to Keir Starmer protesting against planned spending cuts in the Budget. Was Rayner destined to be a permanent rebel on the margins of government?
The last week has shown why the answer is no. Indeed, Rayner’s allies say that reports of her marginalisation were always exaggerated. One points out to me that she has five offices: one in the Cabinet Office, her Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government office, her parliamentary office, her constituency office and one in a Manchester government building (where she sometimes works on Fridays).
But this week Rayner also gained permanent membership of the National Security Council. Sources emphasise that she had been attending in a temporary capacity but in politics appearances matter. No 10’s decision to formalise her status and to reaffirm her pivotal role is seen as evidence of “sound political judgement” by Morgan McSweeney, Downing Street’s new chief of staff. After the Sue Gray debacle, Starmer could not afford the narrative that he was at odds with Rayner to become entrenched.
The Deputy Prime Minister has a positive relationship with McSweeney, who regards her “make work pay” agenda as crucial to the government’s appeal. “She’s political to her fingertips and so is he,” an insider observes.
Rayner, who chairs the government’s Future of Work cabinet committee, led from the front this week as the Employment Rights Bill received its second reading. “That is personal for me: I started my working life as a carer on casual terms, not knowing if there would be a pay cheque next month,” Rayner recalled as she stood at the despatch box.
Sitting alongside her was Reynolds, the man who some have suggested she is locked in a political struggle with. Yet predictions by left and right that the workers’ rights programme would be sunk by business proved false. The careful compromise negotiated has been aided by Rayner and Reynolds’ friendship – the pair are neighbouring MPs in Greater Manchester (on election night, Reynolds dropped by Rayner’s house to say hello).
Rayner has also been bolstered by the news that she will receive almost £1bn in next week’s Budget for council housing – though local government funding remains a concern – and by her confident performance at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday. “The definition of ‘working people’ is the people who the Tory party have failed for the past 14 years,” she replied succinctly when challenged by Oliver Dowden.
For Labour MPs, it was a reminder that Rayner is one of the party’s strongest communicators. Some anticipate a future in which the soft left Rayner and the more Blairite Wes Streeting face off for the party leadership.
But for now, she will be a crucial political asset for Starmer. Labour faces important midterm tests, not least the 2026 Scottish election (where workers’ rights will be prominent). When foreign travel absorbs the Prime Minister’s time – as it has this week – Rayner’s role will be to help ensure that this is an “insurgent government”.
