Should Keir Starmer fear the rise of Angela Rayner?

After a year in office, and somewhat against expectations, Angela Rayner has emerged as the undisputed “second among equals” in the cabinet, in fact as well as in name. Soon she will augment her political base with a dedicated Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which will sit atop her existing ministerial duties, her wide-reaching role in government, and her party position as deputy leader.

Some wonder what might come next.

Partly through the errors of others; partly through her own gifts. The thing that really demonstrated her influence, and why the future of the government critically relies on her, was her role in the retreat from the welfare bill fiasco. That was also when the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, previously long thought of as the “real” deputy prime minister, had any remaining ambitions smashed by the parliamentary party – and by the botched way in which she and Liz Kendall handled the reforms.

The bill’s humiliating failure was also another stumble by Keir Starmer. Instead, at the last minute, it was Rayner who finally sorted out the rebels, and saved the administration from an even worse mauling.

Aside from that, she has shone at Prime Minister’s Questions, developed an apparently chummy relationship with the King, and presented herself as a more plausible, “authentic” and forceful foil to Nigel Farage.

It’s been very up and down. For example, not long after they were elected leader and deputy leader respectively, Starmer tried to demote Rayner following the disappointing 2021 council elections. He resisted naming her as the future “deputy prime minister” and took away her roles in campaigning and policy development. But she secured a bigger frontbench role, shadowing Michael Gove – and, crucially, was still popular in the party.

She cannot be sacked from her party positions, and she holds her own equal electoral mandate as deputy leader. As a Labour victory became more certain and her future role as DPM was guaranteed, tensions eased. Now, in more turbulent times, the balance of power between the pair has subtly altered again.

Very doubtful. She’s been through so much already, after all, and part of her “brand” is loyalty to the party (if not always the leader). She knows any such manoeuvre would massively damage and divide Labour, and she’d probably get the blame and suffer accordingly. Her own union, Unite, has expelled her for sticking with Starmer (she says she’s lapsed anyway), and to resign now would look too much like opportunism.

She doesn’t want it (she says “never”), but we’ve all heard that sort of thing before. If Starmer were run over by a freshly nationalised bus with a Unite driver at the wheel, there’s little doubt that she’d win a Labour leadership election. Reeves, once near enough heir apparent, has destroyed herself; Wes Streeting is too right-wing (crudely speaking); Yvette Cooper is all at sea on a dinghy; and Andy Burnham lacks Rayner’s charisma.

She was wise not to run and be beaten by Starmer himself after Jeremy Corbyn quit, and to bide her time from the safety of the deputy leadership.

At the moment, Starmer, having won the landslide of 2024, and still having the advantage of incumbency and the power of patronage at his disposal, is reasonably secure – but another year like the last one will make some Labour MPs, even in “safe” seats, panicky. They’re a restive lot at the moment.

Yes, but it’s more a question of what the point would be. She would, probably, be better at communication than Starmer, and more able to challenge Reform in the newly rebuilt red wall. She can match Farage for authenticity – and surpass him, and anyone else, on genuine working-class credentials. In an age of personality politics, she could be an asset.

She’s also been a reasonably effective minister, getting somewhere on housing, and will soon see legislation on workers’ and renters’ rights on the statute book. She lacks experience in foreign affairs, but so do most new prime ministers. On the other hand, electorally speaking, she’d perhaps be more vulnerable to a Conservative challenge over her economic instincts than the centrist Starmer, and, sadly, would suffer from a certain amount of snobbishness about her accent and her background in sections of the press.

More important than any of that, though, is the grim reality that the same intractable problems that frustrate Starmer would still be there on day one of a Rayner premiership – migration, the public finances, welfare reform, the NHS, living standards. There is no sign at all that she has any magical alternative ideas to transform things and thus unite the party and win the next election.

Like the rivalry between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the last Labour government, any emerging tensions between Starmer and Rayner seem to be much more about personalities and presentation than policy. No one has yet had cause to define “Raynerism”, or would have much to go on even if they tried. But the day may come...