According to some of Angela Rayner’s allies she was a victim of a longer campaign led by the Blairite cabal at the head of the Labour Party. Morgan McSweeney, Labour’s chief political strategist, recognized her as the most credible leadership challenger to Starmer. So they briefed against her and used the judgment of the ethics advisor that she had broken the ministerial code to dump her.

Her friends say her failure to recognise that the apartment she brought in Hove was a second home and liable for a higher rate of stamp duty was an unfortunate mistake. It was caused by getting bad specialist advice. Starmer, they claim, betrayed her trust and her key role in defusing the MPs revolt against the cuts to disabled people’s benefits.

She is also a victim of a misogynist and anti-working class mass media which has been investigating and attacking her for years. The party has lost an authentic working class voice who was able to appeal to the same demographic Nigel Farage is winning. Many of the soft left and even some Socialist Campaign MPs echo parts of this argument.

Are her allies right?

First, for a minister responsible for housing not to be better informed on the complexities of stamp duty is more than a mistake made by a busy politician. What is clear is that she failed to inform the conveyancing firm who dealt with the Hove purchase about all the details of the home in the north where she paid council tax. The company said they were not asked to study the stamp duty issue in depth and it based advice on the information she gave.

At the same time we have no further details about the other two tax experts Rayner is supposed to have consulted. The HMRC is clear that it is no excuse to say you followed a specialist’s advice if they are incompetent. I mean it is an obvious get out if you are trying to avoid a fine and interest for avoiding tax. 

At a time when many people, including Labour voters, are struggling with the cost of living crisis and suffer from the most expensive house prices and rent in Europe, saving £40,000 on your taxes is not a good look for a Labour government. This is particularly true if Labour claims to be for a complete break with Tory corruption and money grabbing.

It left an open goal for Farage and Reform UK that already pitch their populism on the idea that politicians are all the same and in it for themselves. Just because Rayner has been arguing for slightly more progressive policies on welfare and taxation than official party policy does not mean we can ignore the ethical question around the £40K.

How left is Rayner?

As soon as Corbyn lost the election and resigned as leader Rayner hitched her wagon to Starmer and echoed his arguments about how the party had to radically shift back to business friendly policies. Despite her background as an active trade unionist she refused to support the Birmingham bin workers and told them to go back to work – using the spurious equal pay argument.

She is leading on two of the policy areas Labour claims are the most progressive for improving the lives of working people – the new fairer labour laws and the 1.5 million house programme. We still do not have a definite proposal on the labour laws and there is talk of further consultation with business and concessions are likely.

In any case even the original plan does not restore all workers’ rights removed by Thatcher and endorsed by Labour ever since. As for the housing programme it is still unclear how many social rent houses will be built. She was right in claiming it is more than before but we are talking of a very low starting point. The programme is based on a partnership with private developers and builders. it focuses on how regulations and supply are the source of the crisis rather than the sell-off of council houses and general affordability. 

Despite discreetly rallying the soft left and other MPs to block the cuts to disability payments she still voted through the other cuts to sickness benefits and refused to revolt on the two child benefit cap or the pensioners’ heating allowance. Faced with the genocide in Gaza she has backed Starmer all the way. The same goes for the Labour policies against migrants and asylum seekers – she has spoken in favour. So Zarah Sultana is right when she tweeted:

Starmer’s Prescott

During Blair’s government he kept John Prescott as his deputy and used his working class and trade unionist background to sweet talk internal opponents to swallow his anti worker policies. It is a tried and tested tactic – Berlinguer used Ingrao in the same way in the Italian Communist Party.

This romanticises a working class background as though having a tough past and doing well against the odds confers political authority. Both Blair and Starmer did not let either of them determine policies that opposed their general project. From time to time they may have been given a few concessions to maintain credibility.

Many commentators are suggesting without Rayner playing this role it will be more difficult to keep the discontented Labour MPs onside. McSweeney has used the opportunity of the reshuffle to eliminate even slightly soft left ministers from cabinet. Ed Miliband is said to be the last man standing – but what is he doing to really organizs the left to shift the government in a more progressive direction? He has swallowed a downsising of his already modest eco-transition programme.

If Rayner decides, as one pundit said, to become the Red Queen across the water, and organise a left opposition to Starmer, it would be significant. Reports that despite Sir Keir’s handwritten note the two ended things on bad terms may indicate she might make some move but other reports suggest she is weary of being in the public eye so she may retreat.

A new political debate in Labour?

What is a concern for Starmer is the internal race for the deputy leader position. Obviously this could be a stage for political debate about the direction of the Labour government – wealth taxes, welfare cuts, social housing, Palestine, etc. Any opposition candidate would have to get 80 nominations, which given the revolt on welfare and the disabled cuts, may be possible although that group was heterogeneous politically. Lousie Haigh, who resigned as Transport Minister, and Clive Lewis, are both being touted.

The latter would be a positive candidate but can he get 80 nominations? The big beasts who want to replace Starmer, like Wes Streeting, may want to keep their powder dry and not look divisive at this stage. It has been whispered that a way may be found to postpone the contest or abolish the post at conference. More likely there will be pressure to either get a coronation without a contest or to get a ‘safe’ candidate selected against the Starmer one.

For the left – both inside and outside the party – a contest that really debates the way forward for Labour would be something we should welcome without having any illusions that anything will fundamentally change. There may well be some minor progressive taxes and other measures in the budget to try and divide and deflect any opposition among Labour MPs.

How the system pulls you away from the left

Clive Lewis MP has written a pertinent Facebook post about how the Rayner saga demonstrates how the political institutions and the corporate world drags you away step by step from your roots in a radical defence of working people.

the further up the ladder one climbs in politics, the more insistent the temptations become. This is not simply about individual weakness or personal failing. It is structural. Over the past 40 years, Britain has built a society in which consumption, status, and proximity to wealth have become defining features of the political class. The gravitational pull of money is now so great that even those who arrive in Westminster with the clearest sense of purpose find their heads turned.

Angela’s story is not unique. She came from humble beginnings, but the wealth that circles political life today is more concentrated, more brazen, and more intrusive than in the past. The old checks and balances, party rootedness in mass membership, trade union accountability, a press less entangled with oligarchic interests, have all weakened. Where once honour, public service, even a sense of historical duty could command respect, today those values are dimmed in comparison to the pursuit of material position.

The whole comment is worth reading and it is relevant to all currents on the left – from revolutionary Marxists rightwards. This should also be required reading for anyone being a candidate for the new left party. One thing you can do is to limit the salary of your representatives – Militant MPs back in the day were on an average skilled worker’s wage – but the details can be updated. In addition you need very strong accountability and the right to recall any representative. It should be an item for early discussion.

Call out the snobbery and misogyny

Although we do not consider Rayner a heroine of the working class we can sympathise and defend her against the snobbery and misogyny of much of the mainstream press. The ruling class hate uppity working class people who directly challenge them and it is even worse if you are working class and a woman. Rayner has called the Tories scum in the past.

The press were always going on about her dress sense as though the British middle class dress that well! The establishment fear working class leaders more because they fear that they might be better than others at organising and leading that sleeping giant against their interests. 

What a pity Rayner got sucked into a world of freebies and gross material privilege.

Art Book Review Books Capitalism China Climate Emergency Conservative Government Conservative Party COVID-19 EcoSocialism Elections Europe Fascism Film Film Review France Gaza Imperialism Israel Italy Keir Starmer Labour Party Long Read Marxism Marxist Theory Palestine pandemic Protest Russia Solidarity Statement Trade Unionism Ukraine United States of America War