Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves – Meet Andy Burnham’s Worst Possible Cabinet
Andy Burnham’s arrival at the top of British politics was always going to raise one enormous question: who would he trust to sit around the Cabinet table?
After years of disagreements, controversial government decisions and growing frustration within Labour, the new Prime Minister faced the difficult task of assembling a team capable of presenting a different direction for the country.
But not every possible appointment would have been welcomed by voters.
For critics of the previous Labour administration, the prospect of seeing familiar faces such as Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves occupying some of the most important positions in government was enough to raise serious concerns.
The argument was not simply about personalities.
It was about economic policy, energy costs, national security, public spending, immigration and whether Burnham would genuinely deliver the political change he had promised.
An opinion piece published ahead of Burnham’s first Cabinet appointments identified several politicians it considered unsuitable for some of the country’s most important ministerial jobs.
Its hypothetical line-up included Miliband as Chancellor, Rayner as Foreign Secretary and Reeves as Defence Secretary.
It also questioned whether other senior Labour figures should return to prominent positions.
These were political judgments rather than established facts about Burnham’s intentions. Nevertheless, they highlighted the difficult choices facing the incoming Prime Minister.
Ed Miliband: The controversial choice for Chancellor
One of the most debated possibilities was Ed Miliband taking control of the Treasury.
Miliband had served as Energy Secretary under Keir Starmer and had become closely associated with Labour’s ambitious net-zero programme.
His supporters argued that he understood the relationship between energy policy, industrial development and Britain’s long-term economic future.
However, critics questioned whether his approach would provide the financial discipline they believed the country needed.
The debate centred particularly on North Sea oil and gas.
Miliband had supported restrictions on new exploration licences, while opponents argued that Britain would continue to need oil and gas for decades and risked becoming increasingly dependent on imports.
Industry representatives warned that domestic production supported employment, investment and tax revenues.
The prospect of Miliband becoming Chancellor therefore raised questions about whether energy policy and economic policy would move in the same direction.
There were also concerns about public borrowing, taxation and the government’s willingness to finance large-scale investment.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham publicly questioned the idea of Miliband becoming Chancellor, arguing that his appointment could create difficulties for the country’s industrial and employment ambitions.
For Burnham, the challenge would have been balancing environmental commitments with the need for affordable energy, economic growth and industrial competitiveness.
Angela Rayner: Could she really have become Foreign Secretary?
Angela Rayner was another prominent figure discussed in the hypothetical Cabinet.
Rayner had previously served as Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary before resigning from government in September 2025 following controversy over underpaid stamp duty on a property purchase.
She subsequently became an influential figure within Labour again.
Her supporters highlighted her experience in housing, local government and devolution.
She had also built a political identity around representing working-class communities and challenging inequalities between different parts of Britain.
However, critics questioned whether her outspoken political style would be suitable for the Foreign Office.
The Foreign Secretary must negotiate with international leaders, manage diplomatic disputes and represent Britain during moments of serious international tension.
Critics pointed to previous confrontational language used by Rayner about political opponents.
They argued that diplomacy requires restraint, particularly when dealing with governments and leaders with whom Britain has significant disagreements.
There was also renewed attention on her tax affairs.
Rayner had settled an additional stamp duty liability, while the independent tax investigation did not find deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness.
The controversy nevertheless remained politically sensitive.
Whether Rayner could have successfully moved into a major diplomatic role was a matter of political judgment, not an established conclusion.
Her experience in domestic government, however, made housing and devolution more natural areas of responsibility.
Rachel Reeves: From the Treasury to Defence?
Perhaps the most unusual suggestion in the hypothetical Cabinet was Rachel Reeves becoming Defence Secretary.
Reeves had served as Chancellor under Starmer and had become associated with the government’s fiscal rules, spending decisions and attempts to manage public finances.
Her tenure also generated considerable controversy.
The decision to restrict Winter Fuel Payments to pensioners receiving qualifying benefits attracted widespread criticism.
The increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions also prompted objections from businesses concerned about recruitment costs and employment.
Supporters of Reeves argued that difficult decisions were necessary to restore stability to the public finances.
Critics countered that the government had placed excessive pressure on households, employers and public services.
The suggestion that she could take charge of Defence therefore raised another question: would the Treasury’s approach to military spending change under a different department?
Defence funding had become an increasingly sensitive issue amid international instability and concerns about Britain’s military capabilities.
Former Defence Secretary John Healey had previously criticised the lack of resources available for the armed forces.
Opponents of Reeves argued that the Defence Secretary needed to be prepared to fight for adequate funding rather than simply apply the Treasury’s spending restrictions.
However, appointing a Chancellor to another senior department would not automatically mean that person lacked the necessary abilities.
The real test would be whether the government provided the resources required to meet its defence commitments.
The other names facing criticism
The hypothetical Cabinet also raised concerns about several other Labour politicians.
Louise Haigh was mentioned as a possible Home Secretary.
However, her previous resignation as Transport Secretary in November 2024 followed the emergence of a criminal conviction relating to a false report about a work mobile phone.
Critics argued that appointing her to a department responsible for policing and law enforcement would invite controversy.
David Lammy was another figure questioned over a possible return to the Justice Department.
His proposals for reforming the criminal justice system, including restrictions on jury trials in certain cases, had attracted criticism from legal professionals and opponents.
Supporters of reform argued that changes were necessary to address the Crown Court backlog.
The disagreement highlighted the difficult balance between improving the speed of justice and protecting established legal rights.
Torsten Bell was also criticised in the hypothetical list because of his defence of changes to Winter Fuel Payment eligibility while serving as a pensions minister.
The issue had become particularly sensitive among older voters who feared losing financial support during the winter months.
Liz Kendall faced criticism over welfare reform proposals that had encountered resistance from Labour MPs.
The government had been forced to reconsider parts of its approach after a parliamentary rebellion.
Bridget Phillipson was also included in the list because of disagreements over education policy, including VAT on private school fees and proposals affecting the academy system.
These criticisms reflected particular political viewpoints. They did not establish that any of the politicians were incapable of performing the jobs being discussed.
<Cite refs={[“turn849163search0”]}/>
What Burnham actually decided
The speculation became history when Burnham announced his first Cabinet on 20 July 2026.
The appointments demonstrated that he wanted a team that included several familiar Labour figures, but the final arrangements differed significantly from the hypothetical worst-case list.
Ed Miliband became Foreign Secretary rather than Chancellor.
Angela Rayner returned to government as Housing Secretary.
Rachel Reeves left the Cabinet rather than moving to Defence.
John Healey became Chancellor, while Wes Streeting took responsibility for Defence.
Shabana Mahmood remained Home Secretary, and Yvette Cooper became Health Secretary.
Lucy Powell was appointed Education Secretary and Labour’s deputy leader.
The appointments showed that Burnham was prepared to retain experienced figures while moving others into different positions.
They also demonstrated that speculation about possible appointments should not be confused with the decisions ultimately made.
The new Cabinet was intended to signal a change from the Starmer era, although several prominent politicians remained in senior government positions. <Cite refs={[“turn725540search1″,”turn725540search2″,”turn725540news13″,”turn725540search7”]}/>
A Cabinet faces more than criticism
The real test of any government is not the names printed on its ministerial list.
It is what those ministers actually deliver.
Burnham inherited difficult questions involving economic growth, public finances, energy security, immigration, the NHS and Britain’s military readiness.
Each department faces competing demands, and even experienced ministers can struggle when government priorities conflict.
The Treasury must balance investment against borrowing.
The Foreign Office must defend British interests while maintaining diplomatic relationships.
The Home Office must manage immigration and public safety while respecting the law.
The Defence Department must ensure that the armed forces have the equipment, personnel and funding needed to meet their responsibilities.
Meanwhile, housing and education ministers must address problems that have developed over many years.
These challenges cannot be solved simply by replacing one politician with another.
Burnham’s supporters will argue that his government represents an opportunity to rebuild Labour’s relationship with voters and deliver a different economic and political approach.
His critics will demand evidence that the new administration can avoid repeating the mistakes that damaged the previous government.
The debate surrounding Miliband, Rayner and Reeves captured the uncertainty that surrounded Burnham’s arrival in Downing Street.
But the hypothetical worst possible Cabinet was never the government he ultimately appointed.
What matters now is whether the people who actually received those jobs can demonstrate that their policies improve living standards, strengthen public services and protect Britain’s interests.
For voters, political loyalty and impressive announcements will not be enough.
They will want results.
And that is the challenge that will ultimately define Andy Burnham’s Cabinet.