Disgraced Angela Rayner Strikes Deal to Return as Deputy PM if Burnham Topples Starmer
Angela Rayner’s political career has taken another extraordinary turn, with speculation mounting that the former deputy prime minister could return to the heart of government if Andy Burnham succeeds in removing Keir Starmer from Downing Street.
For a politician who was forced to resign from government after the controversy surrounding her property tax arrangements, such a comeback would be remarkable. For Burnham, meanwhile, bringing Rayner back could represent an attempt to reunite different wings of Labour and build a powerful political coalition around his leadership.
The possibility has immediately raised difficult questions.
Would Rayner’s return represent political rehabilitation, or would it simply demonstrate how quickly Westminster forgets a scandal when a politician becomes useful again?
And if Burnham really is preparing for a leadership battle, could Rayner become one of the most important pieces on the board?
The political circumstances have changed dramatically.
Rayner resigned as deputy prime minister and Labour deputy leader in September 2025 after an investigation into her failure to pay the correct amount of stamp duty on a property. The independent adviser on ministerial standards concluded that she had not met the highest standards expected of a minister, prompting her resignation.
At the time, her departure represented a major blow to Starmer.
Rayner had been one of the most recognisable figures in Labour and had played a central role in the party’s electoral victory. Her political appeal was also different from Starmer’s. While the Prime Minister built his image around competence, discipline and professional government, Rayner represented a more traditional, combative Labour style.
She had strong links with trade unions and was particularly popular among Labour’s left and soft-left supporters.
Her resignation therefore created a significant political gap.
But Westminster has a habit of giving former ministers another opportunity.
As Starmer’s political position weakened, Rayner gradually re-emerged as an influential voice inside Labour politics. Rather than launching a leadership challenge herself, she publicly backed the idea that Burnham should be allowed to return to Parliament and play a bigger role in national politics.
That was a significant intervention.
Burnham had spent years building his reputation as Greater Manchester’s mayor. He had become one of the most recognisable Labour politicians outside Westminster, while repeatedly attracting speculation about his long-term leadership ambitions.
Rayner’s support for Burnham therefore mattered.
It suggested that at least some of the Labour coalition that once surrounded Starmer was beginning to look towards an alternative.
The possibility of Rayner returning to senior government under Burnham takes that relationship one step further.
If Burnham were to become Prime Minister, he would need to construct a government capable of demonstrating that Labour had changed direction. Bringing back Rayner would send an unmistakable political message.
It would tell Labour’s traditional supporters that the new administration was prepared to bring back figures associated with a more openly working-class and trade-union-friendly politics.
It could also help Burnham build bridges with Labour MPs who remain sceptical of the party’s current direction.
Rayner’s political instincts are very different from those of many Westminster technocrats.
She understands Labour’s internal politics, knows the trade union movement and has spent years communicating with voters in a direct and highly personal style.
For Burnham, that could be extremely valuable.
A Prime Minister does not simply need ministers who are competent.
He also needs politicians capable of communicating a political story.
Burnham could present himself as the leader of a new Labour government focused on regional inequality, public services, devolution and working-class voters.
Rayner could become one of the most effective messengers for that agenda.
The potential return of Rayner would nevertheless come with obvious risks.
Her previous resignation would not disappear simply because Labour had changed leaders.
Opposition parties would immediately remind voters of the circumstances surrounding her departure.
Every appointment would be examined.
Every interview would be scrutinised.
Every reference to tax, housing or standards in public life would invite questions about her previous controversy.
Burnham would therefore need to decide whether Rayner’s political strengths outweighed the baggage attached to her name.
That is not an easy calculation.
Yet politics is often about precisely these calculations.
If Burnham believes that Rayner can help him reconnect Labour with voters who have become disillusioned with the party, he may conclude that the political benefits are greater than the risks.
There is another reason why Rayner could be particularly important to a Burnham government.
She could help prevent Labour from becoming overly dependent on Burnham’s personal popularity.
One of the biggest dangers for any new leader is creating a political movement that revolves entirely around one individual.
Burnham already has a strong personal brand.
He is associated with Greater Manchester, devolution, transport policy and a more interventionist approach to government.
But if he wants to create a durable Labour administration, he needs a team.
Rayner could be part of that team.
The question would then be what role she should occupy.
A return as deputy prime minister would be the most dramatic option.
It would restore her to one of the most senior positions in government and place her directly alongside Burnham at the centre of national politics.
But there are other possibilities.
She could hold a major domestic portfolio, focus on housing and local government, or take responsibility for a broad programme of regional devolution.
Indeed, her political background makes her particularly suited to a government that wants to transfer power away from Westminster.
This would fit closely with Burnham’s own political philosophy.
Greater devolution has been central to his career as mayor, and his administration has placed considerable emphasis on giving regions greater control over economic development and public services.
Rayner has also become associated with the argument that power should be moved closer to communities.
Their political partnership could therefore have a coherent ideological foundation rather than simply being a personal arrangement.
But the phrase “deal” deserves caution.
Political negotiations in Westminster frequently involve informal promises, conversations and expectations that never become formal agreements.
A politician can support a leadership candidate without receiving a guaranteed job.
A potential Prime Minister can discuss future Cabinet roles without making binding commitments.
And journalists can interpret those conversations as evidence of a deal long before anything is formally agreed.
That distinction matters.
There is a difference between saying that Rayner is a likely candidate for a senior role in a future Burnham government and claiming that she has secured a guaranteed return as deputy prime minister.
The first is entirely plausible.
The second requires much stronger evidence.
What is clear is that the political relationship between Burnham and Rayner has become increasingly significant.
Both politicians occupy a distinctive position within Labour.
Both have strong links to the party’s traditional voter base.
Both have criticised aspects of the direction Labour has taken under Starmer.
And both have an interest in presenting an alternative political vision.
That does not necessarily mean they are plotting a formal coup.
Leadership challenges are extraordinarily risky.
A failed challenge can destroy careers, split parties and strengthen the incumbent.
But once enough MPs begin believing that a leader is incapable of winning the next election, the political calculation changes.
At that point, conversations about succession become inevitable.
This is where Rayner’s potential return becomes so interesting.
She may not need to challenge Starmer herself.
Instead, she can become part of the coalition surrounding another candidate.
Burnham provides the leadership experience and electoral credibility.
Rayner provides connections with Labour’s grassroots and trade-union traditions.
Together, they could appeal to different sections of the party.
That would make a Burnham leadership project considerably stronger.
It could also explain why Rayner’s support for Burnham’s return to Parliament was politically significant.
She was not simply supporting an old colleague.
She was helping reopen the possibility of Burnham playing a central role in national Labour politics.
For Starmer, this is an uncomfortable development.
A leadership challenge does not necessarily begin with an official declaration.
It begins when MPs start discussing alternatives.
It begins when influential figures stop defending the incumbent.
It begins when former ministers start publicly demanding change.
And it becomes dangerous when potential successors begin to look credible.
Rayner’s involvement therefore matters even if she never personally challenges Starmer.
Her support can help legitimise the argument that Labour needs a different direction.
Burnham’s challenge, if it eventually materialises, would also be about more than personalities.
He would need to explain why he could solve problems that Starmer has struggled with.
He would need a clear economic programme, a strategy for public services, a position on immigration and a convincing response to Reform.
Most importantly, he would need to persuade Labour MPs that he could win the next general election.
Rayner could help with that argument.
Her political style is closer to the language of Labour’s traditional supporters than the technocratic vocabulary often associated with Westminster.
That could become particularly valuable if Reform continues to attract voters from former Labour communities.
A Burnham-Rayner partnership could therefore be presented as an attempt to rebuild Labour’s connection with those voters.
But there is a danger in relying too heavily on nostalgia.
Britain has changed.
The Labour electorate has changed.
The political environment has changed.
Simply bringing back familiar faces would not guarantee electoral success.
Rayner would need to demonstrate that she had learned from the controversy that ended her previous Cabinet career.
Burnham would need to prove that his mayoral record could translate into effective national government.
And both would need to persuade voters that this was more than an internal Labour power struggle.
Ultimately, the potential return of Angela Rayner illustrates just how rapidly political fortunes can change.
A politician who appeared to have reached the end of her ministerial career could once again find herself at the centre of government.
A mayor who spent years outside Westminster could become Prime Minister.
And a Prime Minister who once appeared politically secure could find his authority challenged by figures from within his own party.
That is the brutal reality of British politics.
Nothing is permanent.
The former deputy prime minister’s possible comeback would certainly be controversial, but it would also be politically significant.
If Burnham succeeds in replacing Starmer, the question will not simply be who gets a Cabinet job.
It will be what kind of Labour government Burnham wants to build.
And if Angela Rayner is standing beside him at the top of it, that government will send a very clear message: Labour’s political centre of gravity has shifted once again.
For Starmer, that possibility should be deeply uncomfortable.
For Burnham, it could be the beginning of an entirely new political era.
And for Rayner, it would be one of the most extraordinary comebacks in modern British politics.
:::{“fallbackMarkdown”:””,”reference”:{“matched_text”:” “,”prefix”:null,”start_idx”:12848,”end_idx”:12848,”safe_urls”:[],”refs”:[],”alt”:””,”prompt_text”:null,”type”:”sources_footnote”,”sources”:[{“title”:”Threat to Keir Starmer grows as Angela Rayner backs …”,”url”:”https://www.ft.com/content/3425ec9e-8b27-4e1e-b97e-50794fd48a9c?syn-25a6b1a6=1&utm_source=chatgpt.com”,”attribution”:”Financial Times”}],”has_images”:false},”showLoginRequiredCard”:false}