Angela Rayner won’t be happy if Andy Burnham doesn’t give her what she wants (Image: Getty)
This desire to be liked is one of the PM-in-waiting’s biggest weaknesses. It could make it impossible for him to take the tough decisions our ailing nation needs. He has to show some tough love, not the sloppy stuff we’ve seen so far. That may mean cutting welfare or tightening immigration rules, neither of which will endear him to Labour’s left-wing base. He also needs to resist the brutal tax hikes Labour MPs are demanding. They will backfire horribly, by killing economic sentiment and growth, just as Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s blitz did. But it won’t be easy. Labour’s left will never forgive him. Especially if it works.
Personally, I’m not convinced Burnham has the stomach for it. I suspect he’ll end up as Keir Starmer Mark II. His easy charm and dark blue T-shirt can only take him so far. But maybe I’m wrong. Because Burnham has suddenly flashed his teeth, and the recipient isn’t smiling. Labour MPs are excited now, and not just because they’ve ditched dreary old Sir Keir. They’re hoping to bag a high-profile job in the new regime. Burnham is besieged by job hunters. He can’t hire them all.
The battle is especially fierce at Cabinet level, where those who smoothed Burnham’s path to power expect to be rewarded with one of the great offices of state. Most attention has focused on the Chancellor’s job, the one closest to the PM. Ed Miliband is desperate to bag it. Most sane people are equally desperate that he doesn’t. But there’s another leftie ally Burnham needs to keep happy. Her name? Angela Rayner.
We haven’t heard much from Red Ange lately, which is unusual. She’s normally impossible to miss. Perhaps the furore over her stamp duty bill has dimmed her flame-haired ambition? I’m kidding. It burns as brightly as ever.
When she resigned from Starmer’s Cabinet, I instantly predicted she’d be back for revenge. Sir Keir’s head has now been served up on a plate, but that was never going to satisfy her. She’s after a senior role in Burnham’s administration. This week, though, she suffered an uncomfortable setback.
Rayner isn’t part of Burnham’s inner circle, which includes political titans such as, er, Louise Haigh and Anneliese Midgley. Even so, she clearly expects a Cabinet post. According to the Financial Times, she may not get one. The paper says Burnham has sidelined her. Ouch. So maybe he does have teeth after all.
One Rayner ally admitted: “There have been reports that Rayner is being frozen out and there have been reports that she is advising Andy on devolution. The truth is somewhere in the middle.” So she’s still in with a shot, but it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of one of Labour’s biggest hitters after Burnham himself.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Rayner has been making her pitch. In a speech last night, she openly grovelled for a senior position, brown-nosing Burnham’s Greater Manchester Bee Network as devolution’s “biggest success story outside London”. She also praised him for having a plan “worth fighting for”. I hope Burnham got the message. It’s pretty easy to decipher: “Gis a job!”
Rayner reportedly wants her old brief at the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but Burnham is said to be considering breaking it up instead. So has he got the guts to slap down her ambitions?
Personally, I don’t think he has. Rayner will make an awful lot of noise if she’s frozen out, and Burnham does hate upsetting people. So I think he’ll cave. Our next PM is very good at making friends. At some point, he’ll have to make enemies too. But I reckon he’ll duck this tough call. And all the other ones too.
Andy Burnham Just Showed His Teeth – by Sinking Them into Angela Rayner
Andy Burnham has found himself at the centre of a growing Labour power struggle, with Angela Rayner emerging as one of the most closely watched figures in the party’s internal debate. As Labour attempts to establish a new political direction under Burnham, the relationship between the prime minister and the outspoken former deputy leader could become an important test of his leadership.
The language of political warfare may be dramatic, but the underlying tensions are real enough to deserve attention. Rayner has demonstrated that she is prepared to challenge colleagues publicly when she disagrees with their policies, while Burnham has promised to move away from the factionalism that he believes weakened Labour under the previous leadership.
The question now is whether the two politicians can work together despite their differences—or whether competing priorities will expose deeper divisions inside the governing party.
Burnham’s Message to Labour’s Rival Factions
Since taking the leadership, Burnham has attempted to present himself as a politician capable of uniting different parts of Labour. His message has centred on the idea that the party cannot succeed if its members feel excluded from important decisions.
He has criticised the factional atmosphere that he believes characterised the previous administration and argued that Labour needs to give different voices a meaningful role in shaping its future.
That promise sounds straightforward, but delivering it could prove difficult. Labour contains politicians with sharply contrasting views on economic policy, immigration, workers’ rights, public ownership and Britain’s relationship with Europe. Bringing these groups together requires more than encouraging everyone to participate in discussions. It also means deciding which proposals will become government policy and which will be rejected.
Rayner represents a particularly important voice within that debate. She has a substantial political profile, a history of campaigning on social justice and an ability to communicate with voters who feel disconnected from Westminster.
Her willingness to speak openly about disagreements can be valuable to a government that wants to demonstrate internal debate. At the same time, public criticism from a senior colleague can complicate a prime minister’s efforts to establish a consistent message.
Burnham therefore faces a delicate balancing act. He must allow genuine disagreement without allowing every policy dispute to become a public test of authority.
Angela Rayner Is Not a Politician Who Easily Disappears
Rayner’s political influence extends beyond any single government position. Her background, campaigning style and connections within the Labour movement have helped establish her as a recognisable figure among party members and supporters.
She has often presented herself as a politician willing to challenge conventional thinking, particularly on issues affecting working people and families under financial pressure.
That approach can create tension with colleagues who prefer a more cautious style of government. Yet it can also give Labour a valuable connection with voters who want politicians to speak plainly about the consequences of policy decisions.
Rayner’s recent comments on immigration policy illustrate the point. She has criticised proposals that would make it harder for some migrant workers to qualify for permanent settlement, arguing that changing the rules can unfairly alter expectations for people who have already built their lives in Britain.
Her position has exposed disagreements within Labour over how to balance tighter immigration controls with fairness towards people who came to the country under existing arrangements.
Such disputes are politically significant because they involve competing priorities rather than a simple disagreement over presentation. The government must consider public concerns about immigration while also addressing the needs of employers, communities and workers.
Rayner’s willingness to challenge the government’s approach means that she is unlikely to remain silent whenever a policy conflicts with her principles.
For Burnham, that creates a choice: treat her criticism as a threat to his authority or recognise it as part of the wider debate he says he wants to encourage.
The Pension Triple Lock Could Become a Major Flashpoint
One of the most revealing policy debates concerns the state pension triple lock, which determines how the basic and new state pensions increase each year.
Burnham has suggested that the policy should be reviewed as Labour considers how to fund improvements to social care. Rayner has supported the idea of starting that conversation, arguing that pensioners could accept changes if they could see that the money was being used to deliver meaningful improvements rather than disappearing into general spending.
The debate illustrates the difficult choices facing the government. Pensioners need financial security, particularly when the cost of living remains a concern. At the same time, an ageing population places increasing demands on health and social care services.
Maintaining pension increases while expanding care provision can create significant pressure on public finances. Reforming the triple lock might release resources for other priorities, but it could also leave older people worried about the future value of their retirement income.
Burnham needs to demonstrate that any review would be part of a credible, transparent plan rather than a convenient way to reduce spending.
Rayner’s position may offer him some political reassurance because she has indicated that discussing reform is reasonable. But support for a conversation should not automatically be interpreted as agreement with every possible change.
The details would matter enormously. Would the government protect pensioners on the lowest incomes? Would changes apply immediately or gradually? How would the policy affect people approaching retirement?
Until such questions are answered, the debate is likely to remain politically sensitive.
Is Burnham Really Trying to Put Rayner in Her Place?
The suggestion that Burnham has deliberately targeted Rayner makes for a compelling political headline, but a public disagreement does not automatically establish a personal campaign against her.
There are several possible interpretations of their relationship.
One is that Burnham genuinely wants to encourage a broader debate within Labour and accepts that senior figures will sometimes challenge government proposals. Under this interpretation, Rayner’s interventions demonstrate that the party is no longer attempting to suppress disagreement.
Another possibility is that Burnham wants to establish clearer boundaries around public criticism. A prime minister must be able to explain the government’s position consistently, particularly when decisions involve difficult trade-offs. If every disagreement becomes a separate public controversy, the government can struggle to communicate its priorities.
A third interpretation is that both politicians are aware of their own political standing and the importance of being heard in a party undergoing significant change.
These explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Political relationships often involve cooperation, disagreement and competing ambitions at the same time.
What remains uncertain is whether their differences will develop into a more serious confrontation. Without clear evidence of a deliberate attempt by Burnham to undermine Rayner, it would be premature to describe the relationship as an outright political war.
Nevertheless, the situation provides an early indication of how Labour’s leadership intends to manage strong personalities within its ranks.
A Prime Minister Cannot Afford Endless Internal Conflict
For Burnham, the danger is not simply that Rayner might disagree with him. The greater risk is that Labour becomes consumed by arguments about its own leadership instead of concentrating on the problems voters expect it to solve.
The public is unlikely to judge the government primarily by the relationships between its senior politicians. Voters are more likely to focus on household finances, access to healthcare, housing, employment opportunities and the performance of public services.
Internal disputes become damaging when they appear to distract from those priorities or suggest that ministers cannot agree on the direction of the country.
Burnham has promised a different approach to politics, including greater cooperation across Labour’s internal divisions. That promise will be difficult to maintain if disagreements over major policies repeatedly become public confrontations.
However, suppressing every dissenting voice would create its own problems. A government that discourages criticism can miss opportunities to identify weaknesses in its proposals before they become costly mistakes.
The challenge is to create a system in which ministers can disagree honestly while remaining committed to decisions once they have been properly made.
Rayner’s role could be important in that process. If she can challenge proposals constructively and help the government understand concerns among Labour supporters, her influence could strengthen rather than weaken Burnham’s leadership.
If disagreements instead become dominated by personal accusations and competing political narratives, both figures could suffer.
Labour’s Wider Political Problem
The tension between Burnham and Rayner also reflects a broader question about Labour’s identity.
The party must decide how to combine its traditional emphasis on public services and social protection with the need to maintain economic credibility. It must respond to concerns about immigration while avoiding policies that undermine fairness or create unnecessary uncertainty for workers and employers.
It must also persuade voters that government can deliver improvements after years in which many communities have felt that living standards and public services have failed to meet their expectations.
These challenges do not lend themselves to easy slogans. Different sections of Labour will naturally disagree about the right balance between taxation, public spending, regulation and individual responsibility.
Burnham’s promise to bring the party together will therefore be judged by the decisions he makes, not simply by his language about unity.
Rayner’s willingness to challenge colleagues could help expose the consequences of policies that might otherwise receive insufficient scrutiny. But she will also face questions about whether her own alternatives are practical and financially sustainable.
Neither politician can rely indefinitely on personal popularity or political instinct. Both must demonstrate that their preferred approach can produce measurable results.
The Battle for Influence Inside Labour
Although there is no need to assume an imminent leadership contest, the distribution of influence within Labour is likely to remain a subject of intense speculation.
Burnham must establish that he can lead the party and government effectively. Rayner must decide how best to use her political influence while remaining part of the wider Labour project.
Their interests may overlap on many issues, including improving public services, addressing economic insecurity and giving greater attention to communities that feel neglected. Their differences may become more visible when policies require difficult compromises.
A mature political relationship should allow disagreement without turning every policy dispute into a contest for dominance.
For Burnham, that means demonstrating confidence in his leadership without appearing intolerant of criticism. For Rayner, it means using her influence in a way that advances her priorities without unnecessarily weakening a government she is helping to shape.
The coming months may reveal whether their relationship is defined more by cooperation or conflict. What matters most is whether the government can convert its promises into policies that withstand scrutiny and deliver tangible benefits.
Conclusion: A Test of Leadership, Not Just a Clash of Personalities
The suggestion that Andy Burnham has shown his teeth by sinking them into Angela Rayner captures the drama surrounding Labour’s internal politics. Yet the more important story is the challenge of governing a party that contains competing ambitions, different political traditions and deeply contested policy choices.
Rayner has shown that she is willing to speak out when she disagrees with government proposals. Burnham has promised to give different voices a place in Labour while establishing a clearer direction for the country.
Those two positions do not have to be incompatible. Indeed, open disagreement can improve government decisions when it is based on evidence, conducted honestly and followed by effective action.
The danger arises when political differences become personal battles that distract from the issues voters care about most.
Burnham’s leadership will ultimately be judged by whether he can unite Labour around a workable programme, maintain public confidence and deliver improvements to living standards and public services. Rayner’s influence will depend on whether she can turn her convictions into practical political results.
For now, the relationship between the two remains an important test of Labour’s ability to manage disagreement without allowing it to become destructive. The real question is not simply who wins the next argument, but whether the party can emerge from its internal debates better prepared to govern.