A government already in trouble has suffered another major setback. Elected by a landslide just over a year ago, Labour quickly hit a midterm slump, with poll numbers now resembling those of a government in its final days. The recent scandal and resignation near the top of the leadership has only deepened the crisis.
Veterans of the New Labour era now in Downing Street may try to reassure Keir Starmer that the storm over Angela Rayner’s departure will pass, pointing to how Tony Blair’s government survived Peter Mandelson’s early resignation—also over property dealings—without electoral damage. But the prime minister only needs to look at today’s economic figures and his own approval ratings to know this isn’t 1998, and he is no Tony Blair.
Rayner’s decision to step down as both deputy prime minister and deputy Labour leader will hit hard, further weakening a government that has struggled almost from day one. At its core, a resignation always damages an administration’s reputation for competence. It gives opponents a chance to claim—and voters to fear—that things are falling apart, with chaos at the top instead of order. Downing Street will hope that Friday’s reshuffle, with David Lammy taking over as deputy PM and Yvette Cooper replacing him as foreign secretary, will appear decisive and even revitalizing. But forced changes due to scandal hardly fit the image of a prime minister who promised technocratic calm as an antidote to the Tory chaos of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
The specific circumstances of Rayner’s resignation make it worse. They echo the early headlines about senior ministers, including Starmer himself, having to explain why they accepted freebies—from stylish clothes to Taylor Swift tickets. Once again, these revelations undermine Labour’s pledge to clean up the sleaze that accumulated during the Johnson years.
Some may argue there’s a big difference between Rayner’s actions and those that brought down the last government, but that won’t help much. A senior minister paying £40,000 less tax than owed will strike many voters as proof of what cynics always say—that all politicians are hypocrites or more interested in lining their own pockets than serving the public.
This kind of criticism hurts all politicians, but it’s especially damaging for this government. Starmer lacks charisma or great speaking skills; for a long time, his main asset was an image of integrity. As a former chief prosecutor, he presented himself as the opposite of Boris Johnson—a dull but dependable rule-follower. Any hint of rule-breaking on his watch shatters that perception, which is bad news when that’s pretty much all he has to offer.
Beyond that, Rayner’s resignation leaves a deeper hole because of who she is and what her rise represented. Like John Prescott for Tony Blair, she acted as a bridge to parts of the party and its traditional, working-class base. (Joe Biden played a similar role for Barack Obama.) In theory, Starmer shouldn’t need such a deputy—he comes from a working-class background himself, as the son of a toolmaker. But for whatever reason, he doesn’t come across that way. Modern politics is often about vibes, and Sir Keir’s vibe doesn’t match his backstory.
Rayner, whose life experience makes her a rare figure in politics…Among those involved in Westminster politics, Angela Rayner filled a unique role. Labour canvassers often spoke with admiration about her ability to connect with voters, especially working-class women, on the doorstep. One campaigner recalled how Rayner told a voter that the paving stones in the woman’s garden were cleaner than the tiles in her own kitchen—a remark that made the voter smile. Focus group moderators noted how people warmed to Rayner simply for being genuine. To them, she possessed one of the rarest qualities in politics: authenticity.
But her appeal went beyond image. How many national politicians could speak about the victims of grooming gangs and honestly say, “That could have been me”? For some in Labour, Rayner represented the party’s ideal—and its promise—of social mobility: a country where, as one colleague put it, “someone like Angela Rayner can become deputy prime minister, where our talent pool is broader and deeper than Eton College.” Others in the party believe the relentless scrutiny of Rayner by right-wing newspapers shows there are those who passionately oppose the idea of a country where “someone like Angela Rayner can become deputy prime minister.”
Now, a cabinet short on gifted communicators and a government lacking politicians who can speak to Labour’s traditional base has lost someone who could do both. That leaves a significant gap to fill.
Or rather, two gaps. Keir Starmer can reshuffle his cabinet, but the deputy leader is chosen by party members. Unless Starmer cancels the position or David Lammy’s appointment prevents a contest by allowing him to run unopposed, an internal election will take place at a vulnerable moment for the leadership. A long-simmering debate over Labour’s direction will now come into the open, sharpened by the choice between individuals.
Should Labour continue to pursue the pro-Brexit “red wall” voters, as favoured by Downing Street chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, and challenge Reform UK—which is gathering for its conference this weekend amid polls suggesting it could become the largest party at the next election—on issues like immigration? Or should it look to its left, trying to win back supporters who are defecting to the Greens, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s new party, or various independents? Starmer has managed to keep this debate under wraps so far, but Rayner has just blown the lid off.
Tony Blair weathered Peter Mandelson’s first departure partly because the government and economy were strong. It also helped that Mandelson’s communication skills weren’t irreplaceable—Blair himself was no slouch in that department, and the government had a clear narrative. If Rayner’s resignation causes greater damage, it isn’t just because of her personal story or her ability to speak plainly. It’s because this government isn’t telling a story compelling enough to overcome the inevitable challenges every administration faces.
This autumn, there will be two opportunities to address that.The Labour party conference and the budget, scheduled for 26 November, present crucial opportunities. If Starmer and his ministers fail to make the most of both, it will be a more serious failure than any shortfall in stamp duty—and the consequences will be far more severe.
Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist. His new non-fiction book, The Traitors Circle: The Rebels Against the Nazis and the Spy Who Betrayed Them (£25), is available from the Guardian Bookshop for £22.50.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the topic designed to be clear and helpful for readers with different levels of familiarity
General Beginner Questions
Q Who is Rayner and why is her departure a bombshell
A Angela Rayner is the Deputy Leader of the UKs Labour Party Her departure would be a major shock because she is the secondmost powerful person in the party and a key link to its grassroots supporters
Q Wait did Angela Rayner actually resign
A This FAQ is based on a hypothetical scenario from a news headline As of now Angela Rayner has not resigned The questions explore the potential consequences if she were to leave
Q Who is Starmer
A Sir Keir Starmer is the Leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Opposition in the UK He is the person who would be most directly impacted by a crisis involving his deputy
Q What kind of crisis does this refer to
A It likely refers to a political crisis for Keir Starmers leadership This could involve a loss of party unity a challenge to his authority and a damaged public image right before a potential general election
Intermediate Impact Questions
Q Why would Rayner leaving be such a big problem for Starmer
A It would signal deep internal division within the Labour Party Rayner represents the partys left wing and its traditional base Her departure could make Starmer look like he has lost control and cannot unite his own team
Q What are the practical consequences for the Labour Party
A The party could split into factions making it harder to present a united front It could lead to a distracting and public leadership contest derailing their focus on criticizing the government and campaigning
Q How might this affect the next general election
A Voters tend to prefer stable united parties A public civil war at the top of Labour could make them seem chaotic and unfit to govern potentially costing them votes
Advanced Strategic Questions
Q Beyond the headlines whats the deeper conflict between Starmer and Rayner
