Angela Rayner yesterday joined the pragmatic side of the debate over Labour’s green investment plan, describing the £28bn-a-year figure as “arbitrary”. This is important because I thought he might ally himself with Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, to defend his commitment.
Miliband has fought hard behind the scenes to maintain the £28bn figure and it appears he could rely on Rayner, who has his own power base in the party as deputy elected leader. The green investment figure is popular with party members and Miliband has masterfully built a coalition to defend it against the “Blairites” (another Edstone, if you will) who see it as a millstone around the party’s neck.
Yesterday Rayner appeared to split the difference between the two sides in this debate, letting the £28bn figure slip – something shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves conspicuously did not do the day before – but described it as “arbitrary”.
So he appeared to agree with Keir Starmer, mentioning the figure but qualifying it in a way that made it meaningless. But his words clearly led him to Reeves’ view: “This isn’t about just throwing a number in there willy-nilly and saying we’re going to put it in.” He talked about the financial rules that “Rachel” follows, saying: “It’s about determining where the money goes and when and how quickly we can deliver it in a sustainable way.”
This is interesting because it shows that he will keep his distance from the “go green or go bust” trend in the party and identify with the fiscally orthodox majority in the shadow cabinet.
It may be a small thing, but it’s worth noting that his comments were made while he was campaigning in the East Lothian constituency where Douglas Alexander is the Labor candidate. If elected, Alexander will be one of four Labor MPs serving as cabinet ministers, alongside Yvette Cooper, Miliband and Hilary Benn. He is a possible foreign secretary in a Labor government and it could be important that Rayner is working with him.
This also makes some of the things he said in an interview during his campaign visit important. He attracted attention with his comments regarding the security of MPs, saying that he changed his behavior as a result of physical attacks against MPs since the day he was elected. This is clearly more important than any speculation about who is superior and who is inferior, and it must be hoped that his words, and those of Conservative MP Mike Freer, who stood down because he felt threatened, will be taken to heart. .
But he also talked about the policy he hopes to be responsible for if a Labor government is formed: employment rights. He must have been pleased with the headline Sky News put on his interview: “Labour deputy leader doubles down on promises on workers’ rights after backtracking reports.”
He pulled off the trick that Miliband couldn’t. Labor policy on employment rights was indeed changed to be more realistic and therefore more likely to be effective in the long term, but Sky News portrayed him as a strong leader who stood up for what he believed in. For example, Labour’s promise of “full employment rights” has been sensibly modified to allow for a reasonable trial period when starting a new job.
His political skills have been underestimated in the past. Starmer thought he could push him aside and leave a responsibility to his deputy leader. He responded with unexpected ferocity, securing employment rights and making a firm promise to be deputy prime minister if Labor won. Indeed, at the lowest point of Starmer’s leadership, after Labor lost the Hartlepool by-election in 2021, I was told that he was dead serious about preparing to replace him as leader – before being rescued by Labor overtaking him towards the end of the year. Conservatives in opinion polls.
He is also likely to be a force to be reckoned with in a Labor government. He will present himself as a fighter for workers’ rights, focusing on job security and raising low wages, possibly with an unspoken emphasis on bread-and-butter issues rather than green circuses. Therefore, when forming alliances within the Labor Party cabinet, he may be relatively popular with party members and unions, as well as with significant sections of the electorate.
Rayner’s appeal to voters is a clear advantage for Starmer. But his power within the Labor government could also create problems for the leader who is supposed to keep him around. It’s too early to consider succeeding Starmer, but Rayner may find himself in a stronger position than people currently think.