Angela Rayner’s department spent public money on Left-wing propaganda seeking to prevent a Reform or Tory government, The Telegraph can reveal.

As deputy prime minister, Ms Rayner announced a £15m “community cohesion” fund to bring people together and prevent further unrest after the Southport riots.

Money from the taxpayer fund was distributed to Left-wing activists for training sessions on preventing the “disaster” of a Reform government and stifling criticism of migration.

Publicly funded material seen by The Telegraph was handed to council staff, offering instructions for steering local voters away from Nigel Farage as well as the “Tory-Right”.

Documents seen by the Telegraph single out politicians on the Right, including Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Boris Johnson.

Even Sir Keir Starmer is criticised for a “shameful” speech in which he raised concerns that Britain could become an “island of strangers” as a result of immigration.

The training was funded at a time of increasing concerns about migration, which reached record net levels of almost one million in 2022, while more than 200,000 illegal migrants have arrived by small boat since 2018.

Training delivered in targeted areas across England offered guidance on preventing “working class communities” from leaning to the Right, specifically by countering “racist narratives” about immigration.

Lectures offered tips on distracting the public from immigration concerns, including fears about small-boat arrivals, and training included role-playing exercises on quelling discontent in “small seaside towns”.

This training was devised and delivered by the Ella Baker School of Organising, a network founded by former members of the Left-wing group Hope Not Hate, which was reported to the Electoral Commission in June over alleged campaigning for Labour in the Makerfield by-election.

Funding received by the School of Organising came from the Community Recovery Fund announced in 2024 by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), when Ms Rayner led the department before her resignation over an unpaid tax bill.

This £15m fund was intended to help areas affected by rioting following the Southport killings. Cash was distributed to chosen local authorities, including Birmingham city council, which was Labour-led at the time.

Announcing the fund at the time, Ms Rayner said: “In the immediate aftermath of the unrest, I was heartened to see the extent to which communities so quickly came together to support one another and their local areas.

“This new Community Recovery Fund will support the work that is already under way and ensure that communities have the resources they need to rebuild.”

The council handed over an initial £13,450 of taxpayers’ money to the School of Organising, which was used to create a pilot training programme titled “Defeating narratives of division”, an 11-part lecture series with an accompanying manifesto.

This pilot was expanded, and Blackpool’s Labour-led council gave £9,000 to pay for a local version of this Left-wing training, made with an arts group called Aunty Social.

It was also delivered to staff working for Sheffield city council, led by Labour and the Green Party, in particular those handling asylum and immigration issues.

Sessions were held in Walsall, Solihull, and council areas within the Liverpool City Region, including Sefton, which covers Southport.

Future sessions are planned, including some in partnership with the Youth Work Training Academy for Wales, a pilot scheme of the government-funded Education and Training Standards Cymru.

An online booking form for training in Glasgow states: “Despite the abject failure of the mainstream democratic parties, there is still time to avert the impending disaster of a Reform UK government.”

Undermining Right-wing parties

The manifesto for this training warns that Reform UK won four million votes at the last election, and states that “Farage is a classic authoritarian populist” who is among political figures “undermining democracy”.

Publicly funded lecture material says: “This is a party that is hostile to multiculturalism, hostile to LGBTQ+ rights, opposes ‘woke’ in the classroom, wants out of the European Convention of Human Rights, and will rip up our already limited climate change commitments.”

One lecture in the training material warns that “our people (the working classes) are voting Reform UK in the belief that migrants are the problem”, and adds: “Toxic forces are asserting a narrative that prioritises the interests of straight, white, men.”

Training material seen by The Telegraph highlights the “vulnerability of working class communities to far-Right, alt-Right and Tory-Right narratives of division and blame”.

To prevent immigration issues delivering electoral success for the “far-Right”, which is said to comprise elements of the “Conservative Party and beyond”, the training sets out to counter “racist narratives”, such as the claim that “migrants put strain on underfunded services and are willing to work for lower pay”.

In fact, a study based on HMRC data suggested earlier this month that a surge in low-paid migrants had lowered salaries for workers outside London by more than £1,000 a year.

The study, by Cambridge Circus Research, a new London-based think tank with undisclosed funding, recommended the Government cut all visas for low-wage work.

Households with at least one foreign national were found by another recent study, by the Centre for Migration Control, to have claimed £11.9bn in universal credit in 2025.

The cost of asylum accommodation is £4bn each year, more than the Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.

‘We have to find ways to influence them’

The manifesto says of the British public that “we have to find ways to influence them to rethink their ideas”, and adds that they should be persuaded to adopt “a more class-based analysis of their problems”.

Lectures offer advice on achieving this, beginning with forming local groups and recruiting “a few committed activists to get the ball rolling” and then moving on to identifying and lobbying influential “community leaders”.

Activists should proclaim a “new story” about shared local identity that can “create a sense of ‘us’ that chimes with people’s experience and feeling”.

The document adds: “How accurate these stories are is less important than the power of their narrative.”

Citing Antonio Gramsci, the Communist theorist who died in 1937, the lecture notes suggest working to undermine certain beliefs, including public concerns that “many asylum seekers are ‘bogus’” and “certain migrant groups don’t assimilate”.

Lectures overall advise distracting from migration concerns with local campaigns for other issues – opposing a school closure for example – and urge would-be activists to “find the right issue to organise around: one that will build an inclusive story of us”.

Training attendees are also asked to do an exercise plotting how they would best pressure a council to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, including working out which community figures would be most influential.

Preventing anti-immigration protests

An entire lecture is dedicated to opposing anti-immigration protests, not only through counter demonstrations, but social media campaigns and slogans.

A set of exercises in this section asks trainees to devise a plan to oppose protests in a declining seaside town that has had an influx of migrants.

Setting out the hypothetical scenario, the material says: “There has been a number of unpleasant stories in the local paper, which has begun to prioritise reporting of petty crimes by migrants (shoplifting, drunkenness etc) and the editorials have begun to suggest that these migrants are unwelcome.”

Another scenario involves stopping Right-wing protests on a run-down estate where social housing is scarce, and “racists” have been arguing that “council housing should be for UK nationals and more specifically local people”. In this context, tensions rise as migrants begin squatting in empty properties on the estate.

Yet another exercise asks trainees to create a plan for an election in a small town, where a group is fielding candidates on a platform opposed to “giving preferential housing to refugees and asylum seekers, allowing school standards to drop because of the presence of children who have English as a second language, and for giving grants to ethnic and other minority groups”.

Training material states that counter demonstration can be effective, and also praises the work of Hope Not Hate for their “big focus on disrupting far-Right candidates at elections”.

The School of Organising received public funding for its material after applying to councils for a share of the Recovery Fund, which aimed to “reduce the risk of further disorder” following the 2024 riots, and “promote cohesion between communities”.

Guidance for the allocation of funding stated that grants should only go to projects involved in “immediate action to safeguard life or property, prevent suffering or severe inconvenience or bringing communities back together as a result of the public disorder”.

A MHCLG spokesperson said: “Councils are not permitted to use taxpayers’ money to fund partisan issues or party-political activity. Councils must make sure money is spent in line with their responsibilities, and we have powers in place to recoup money if it is found to have been misspent.”

Rayner’s Department Funnelled Taxpayer Cash into Anti-Right-Wing Propaganda

Angela Rayner has been drawn into a fresh political controversy after reports alleged that taxpayers’ money from a government community recovery fund supported training materials that criticised Reform UK and Conservative politicians. The revelations have raised serious questions about the use of public money, political impartiality and whether a programme designed to rebuild communities after violent disorder was used to promote a particular political outlook.

The controversy centres on a £15 million Community Recovery Fund announced in 2024, when Rayner was deputy prime minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The fund was intended to help communities recover from unrest following the Southport killings and prevent further disorder. However, documents reported by The Telegraph allegedly show that some funding distributed through local authorities supported political organising training that sought to counter support for right-wing parties and challenge public opposition to immigration. <Cite refs={[“turn631294search0″,”turn631294search1”]}/>

The allegations have prompted criticism from political opponents, who argue that money intended to promote community cohesion should never be used to influence voters against legitimate political parties. The government, however, has rejected the suggestion that councils were permitted to spend public money on partisan political activity.

At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question about the responsibilities of government: where should the line be drawn between promoting social cohesion and using taxpayer-funded programmes to advance a particular political narrative?

The £15 Million Fund at the Centre of the Storm

The Community Recovery Fund was introduced in the aftermath of the disorder that followed the Southport killings in July 2024. The violence and subsequent unrest prompted concerns about community relations, misinformation and the potential for further disturbances.

Announcing the fund, Rayner said that communities had demonstrated their ability to support one another and that additional resources would help local areas rebuild. The stated objective was to reduce the risk of further disorder and promote cohesion between communities.

Yet the programme has come under scrutiny following reports that funding distributed through councils supported training developed by the Ella Baker School of Organising.

According to the reporting, Birmingham City Council provided £13,450 towards a pilot programme, while Blackpool Council contributed £9,000 towards a local version. Training was also reportedly delivered to council staff in Sheffield, Walsall, Solihull and areas of the Liverpool City Region, including Sefton, which covers Southport. <Cite refs={[“turn631294search1″,”turn631294search3”]}/>

These payments have become central to the controversy because of the content of the training materials. Critics argue that publicly funded programmes intended to strengthen community relations should not encourage political opposition to particular parties.

However, the reported payments were made through local authorities rather than establishing that Rayner personally authorised individual training sessions. That distinction matters when determining who made the funding decisions and whether the money was spent in accordance with the scheme’s rules.

Why the Training Materials Sparked Outrage

The most contentious aspect of the allegations concerns material produced for a programme entitled Defeating Narratives of Division.

According to documents described in the reporting, the training included criticism of Reform UK and prominent Conservative politicians. It reportedly characterised Nigel Farage as an authoritarian populist and encouraged participants to challenge narratives linking immigration to pressure on public services, housing and employment.

Other exercises allegedly explored ways to oppose anti-immigration protests, organise local campaigns and influence community leaders.

One reported online booking form warned that there was still time to avert the “impending disaster of a Reform UK government”. This wording became a particular focus of criticism because it appeared to frame the success of a legitimate political party as an outcome that activists should prevent. <Cite refs={[“turn631294search1″,”turn631294search7”]}/>

For critics, such language raises concerns about whether the training crossed the boundary between promoting peaceful relations and campaigning against a political party.

A government-funded programme can legitimately address racism, discrimination, misinformation and threats of violence. It can also help local authorities respond to tensions involving different communities.

However, opponents argue that public funding should not be used to encourage council employees or community activists to steer voters away from particular political parties.

The distinction is especially important in a democracy, where voters must remain free to support Reform UK, Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or other parties without public institutions treating their political preferences as inherently illegitimate.

Reform UK and the Right to Political Dissent

Reform UK has built much of its political appeal around immigration control, opposition to aspects of the established political consensus and demands for changes to Britain’s institutions.

The party’s supporters argue that concerns about immigration, housing shortages, public-service capacity and national identity should be addressed through open political debate rather than dismissed as evidence of prejudice.

From this perspective, publicly funded training that seeks to counter arguments associated with Reform UK risks undermining confidence in the impartiality of local government.

Nevertheless, there is an important distinction between criticising a political argument and preventing people from expressing their views.

Democratic organisations, charities and community groups can challenge political claims they consider inaccurate or harmful. They can also organise peaceful campaigns against policies they oppose.

The central issue in this controversy is therefore not whether organisations should be allowed to criticise Reform UK. It is whether public money allocated for a specific community recovery purpose was used in accordance with the conditions governing that funding.

If public funds were used for prohibited party-political activity, the matter would warrant investigation and appropriate action. If the activities were consistent with legitimate community cohesion objectives, the government and councils should be able to explain why.

The distinction cannot be resolved simply by labelling the training either propaganda or anti-racism work. It requires examination of the programme’s objectives, materials, funding arrangements and implementation.

The Government’s Defence

The government has pushed back against claims that Rayner’s department directly funded partisan organisations.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has stated that councils are not permitted to use taxpayers’ money for partisan issues or party-political activity. It has also indicated that the department has powers to recover funding if money is found to have been misspent. <Cite refs={[“turn631294search2″,”turn631294search6”]}/>

This response places responsibility on councils to ensure that grants are used in accordance with the relevant rules.

Local authorities often distribute funding to community organisations and external providers to deliver projects on their behalf. Such arrangements can allow councils to draw on specialist expertise, but they also create a responsibility to monitor how money is spent and ensure that recipients comply with funding conditions.

The government must therefore answer several questions. What criteria were used to select the projects? What checks were conducted on the organisations receiving money? Were officials aware of the content of the training materials? And what action would be taken if an investigation found that public money had been used for prohibited political activity?

These questions require evidence rather than assumptions about individual motives.

The existence of controversial training materials does not, by itself, establish that Rayner personally directed political campaigning. Equally, the fact that funding was distributed through councils does not remove the need to examine whether the overall scheme operated as intended.

Why Taxpayer Accountability Matters

Public funding carries obligations that extend beyond the immediate goals of any individual programme.

Taxpayers contribute money to support essential services, community safety, infrastructure and other public priorities. They are entitled to expect that funds are distributed fairly, spent transparently and subject to appropriate oversight.

This expectation becomes particularly important when public money supports organisations involved in politically sensitive issues.

A programme designed to rebuild community relations after violent disorder should be able to demonstrate how its activities improve public safety, encourage peaceful coexistence and strengthen trust between residents.

If training materials instead appear to focus on preventing the electoral success of particular parties, the government must explain how those activities relate to the original purpose of the fund.

Transparency is also necessary to protect legitimate community work. Organisations working to prevent discrimination and violence should not automatically be discredited because their activities become politically controversial.

Clear funding rules, independent scrutiny and published evaluations can help distinguish genuine community work from activities that fall outside a grant’s permitted purpose.

If wrongdoing is established, the response should be proportionate and based on evidence. If no breach occurred, the government should explain the reasoning behind that conclusion.

The Political Consequences for Labour

The controversy presents another challenge for Labour at a time when questions about trust in government and the use of public resources remain politically sensitive.

Opposition parties are likely to argue that the allegations demonstrate the importance of stronger oversight and clearer restrictions on publicly funded programmes.

Reform UK may use the issue to reinforce its claim that parts of the political establishment are hostile to its supporters and unwilling to engage seriously with concerns about immigration.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, can argue that public institutions must remain politically neutral and that taxpayers should not be required to finance campaigns against parties they support.

Labour’s response will be important. Dismissing every criticism as politically motivated would risk undermining public confidence. However, treating allegations as established wrongdoing before the facts are examined would also be inappropriate.

The government needs to provide a clear account of how the fund operated, what safeguards were in place and whether any individual projects breached the relevant conditions.

Ultimately, the credibility of the response will depend on the quality of the evidence and the willingness of officials to address legitimate questions openly.

Conclusion: Public Money Must Serve the Public Interest

The allegations surrounding Angela Rayner’s £15 million Community Recovery Fund have raised important questions about political impartiality, taxpayer accountability and the proper role of government-funded community programmes.

Reports suggest that funding distributed through councils supported training materials that criticised Reform UK and Conservative politicians and encouraged activists to challenge anti-immigration narratives. The government has responded by stressing that councils cannot use public money for partisan political activity and that funding may be recovered if it is found to have been misused.

The controversy should therefore be resolved through a transparent examination of the evidence, including the funding decisions, training materials, grant conditions and responsibilities of the organisations involved.

If public money was used to campaign against legitimate political parties in breach of funding rules, those responsible should face appropriate consequences. If the programmes were consistent with their authorised purpose, the government and councils should provide a clear explanation.

Democracy depends on the ability of citizens to debate immigration, community relations and political policy without fear that public institutions will favour one party over another.

Community cohesion is a legitimate public objective, but it must be pursued in a way that respects political pluralism and maintains public confidence.

The ultimate test is straightforward: taxpayer-funded programmes must deliver the purposes for which they were established, operate within the law and remain accountable to the public. That principle should apply regardless of which political party is in government or which political views are being challenged.