I feel sad about Angela Rayner

[Neededa]

OK, I am left leaning so maybe I am already biased, BUT, I do feel sad that a woman who overcame early issues, who was “proper” working class, who didn’t speak the kings English, but rather with a proper local dialect, and achieved a high office without a single spoon in her working class mouth, has gone.

i do understand that many people will agree with what has happened. I would have been fuming if the story played out the way it had as a different party, and I understand that Angela had to go, BUT as a woman who believes in holding up other women, particularly those who aren’t born to certain families, or have expectations placed on them from word go, I do feel a bit sad this morning.

There was a working class woman in the House of Commons. A working class woman was the deputy prime minister of this country. It is not even 100 years since working class women could vote. I feel sad.

Just today Unite frothed about Starmer watering down the Employment Rights Bill.

Why do you think Starmer’s given the bill to a more senior, trusted aide? It’s hardly going to be to beef it up, is it?

And given the growth agenda Starmer’s supposedly pursuing (and desperately hoping will come true), I doubt he wants yet more burden on employers. It was a jolly good wheeze to placate the left of Labour when in opposition. Reality is biting though.

It’s Rayner’s bill, not Reeves’ btw.

It’s scaremongering on Unite’s part. Christina McAnea is pissed off because Rayner’s gone.

I think Lammy has been a solidly good diplomat as Foreign Secretary, which is exactly what the role needs him to be.

The reason why he barely appears in interviews is probably because he’s often out of the country - which I think is the case for all Foreign Secretaries. I actually can’t think of any occasions where previous Foreign Secretaries have been used a lot for government interviews - from memory, it’s mostly domestic Secs of State: ie Home Sec, Chancellor, Education Sec, Work and Pensions Sec (often, the latter two, because the former two have bigger briefs).

I’d never heard of McAnea, but googled her. She seems to be with Unison.

I confess that my knowledge of public sector unions wouldn’t be my specialist subject on Mastermind, but Unite and Unison seem to be independent of each other.

Are Unison also upset at Starmer and threatening penury for Labour?

Nah, all politicians want their faces on the telly as much as possible. Lammy’s obviously being kept away.

A “solidly good diplomat” might be one who works away behind the scenes. Or one who’s quietly hopeless and is scoffed at by the world outside the UK. We can’t know.

I haven’t seen Lammy say or do anything about Ukraine, Israel (apart from some soundbite announcements that parrot Starmer), Syria, Sudan, China, Yemen, Saudi (or the Middle East at all) etc. I haven’t seen him being a voice among allies like Europe (any countries), Australia, Canada, Japan, etc.

He’s certainly managed Trump and Vance on a personal level, as far as we can tell. But if his FCO legacy is holding a fishing rod next to Vance I’d say that was a fail.

Rayner was the unions’ collective choice as deputy leader and they’re all pissed off that she’s gone. “Threatening penury” is a bit hyperbolic. There’s something wrong with a society that can only prosper with minimal employment rights.

Ok, but I thought Unite had suspended Rayner? And she had said she had resigned beforehand?

’Penury’ was a bit hyperbolic. But I doubt Starmer would be at all comfortable with big unions giving him the financial raspberry.

We don’t have ‘minimal’ employment laws. We have a sensible balance.

I don’t agree. Zero hours contracts place all the risk on workers. And that’s just one example. Economic growth won’t happen without a workforce that doesn’t feel exploited. The government is completely fucked without the unions’ support.

Well, ok, there’s a debate to be had about the scope of employment rights.

But the issue was whether Starmer is backpedalling on the bill by putting Kyle in charge of it. The signs are that the big unions want a fight about it, and I’d think that Kyle is more likely to be a Starmer loyalist manning the government barricades than is the nobody he replaced.

Relatedly, if the public sector strikes gather pace we could be in for a ‘fun’ autumn and winter.

I read this article a few weeks ago about his work as Foreign Sec and thought it was interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/02/david-lammy-interview-gaza-israel-trump. I appreciate it’s a newspaper interview, so will have certain biases and agendas, but it is insightful.

The unions only want a fight over the Employment Rights Bill if the government reneges on it. It’s reached its second reading. It would be absolute lunacy for the government to back pedal on it now, particularly since it was a manifesto promise. If Kyle has as much sense as I think he has he’ll leave it alone.

It's really tough for women in politics, but I think she messed up by not doing it correctly. I'd feel the same whatever the party, in such a high position she couldn't afford to not get the correct advice.

Relatedly, if the public sector strikes gather pace we could be in for a ‘fun’ autumn and winter.

I haven’t actually heard about many public sector strikes - only the recent doctors’ strike and an upcoming tube strike the week. There were far more strikes under the Conservatives - tube strikes, train strikes, NHS strikes, barristers’ strikes.

I know we’re only a year into this Labour government, and the Conservatives were in power for much longer comparatively (14 years), but I recall at least a few strikes each year since 2021/22, but haven’t come across any since Labour’s election apart from the two I mention above

Nah, all politicians want their faces on the telly as much as possible. Lammy’s obviously being kept away.

I don’t agree with this at all.

Firstly, it’s pure speculation.

Secondly, my point that Foreign Secs rarely do broadcast interviews still stands. It also links well, I think, to your above suggestion that all politicians want maximum TV exposure. That’s because I’d suggest both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss (2 previous Foreign Secs) were known for wanting lots of media exposure - especially as they were both ambitious within the party and both went on to become PM - yet neither gave any broadcast interviews whilst they were in the role.

There he was, generating goodwill and trust in the UK with his solid diplomacy. Too busy for interviews as he befriended his counterparts around the world and impressed them with his detailed knowledge of far-flung events. Good work. And all very much needed by the UK in a war-torn and dangerous world.

Why the fuck was he sacked in the first big reshuffle then?

He’s now in charge of judges, prisons, and the probation service. The Lord Chancellor’s role was neutered by Blair years ago: it doesn’t mean any more than Justice Secretary now. The Deputy PM position is meaningless. There was an expectation that Starmer might well abolish it. Lammy was very obviously demoted.

I will be very surprised if he’s still in the cabinet after the next reshuffle.

Well - all political careers end in failure. Lammy did his tour of duty. He got to hold one of the great offices of state for a significant period. There's plenty to do with the CJS & prisons, and he has a legal background.

Yvette Cooper was excellent at HMT earlier in her career - she is a superb economist.

I don’t doubt Cooper’s strengths. She’s probably the only cabinet minister with anything like a big reputation. As I’ve said, I suspect Mahmood may turn out to be a big hitter too.

My bewilderment is at any high view of Lammy.

He used to hold the shadow Justice role. He’s gone a long way backwards.

All good points, and I agree it’s a demotion for Lammy. I don’t know why he was demoted, but my feeling is Keir Starmer thinks he’ll be a safe pair hands at Justice - which I I think he will, especially because he was shadow Justice Secretary for a while when in opposition.

I don’t see it with Cooper. She seems as ready to turn on a dime as anyone in Labour and still out as Home Secretary. Mind you Lammy is better out as foreign secretary too.

Who would you rather have in Cabinet, out of interest? If the shoe was on the other foot and the Tories were in power now, which Tories would you have in Cabinet instead?

I generally think regular changes in government are necessary and a good thing - I am pretty centrist and this pulls things back to the middle overall. But also governments that are in office for a long time run out of ideas and tire. Their politicians age and may wish to retire, corrupt politicians embed themselves, politicians start to take voters for granted, civil servants forget their role, and third sector become too reliant on pleasing the current incumbants in exchange for funding, The SNP in Scotland show the worst of all this. But you also only need to look at councils that have been Labour for decades to see it exists at all levels.

As such the Tories needed time out to refresh, to find new rising stars, to reidentify their core values and reconnect with voters. Until they do this, it will be hard to identify good MPs. They also lost a lot of good ones in the last election.

The big problem now is not the terrible choice of ministers but the excessive majority that Labour hold. This means they are not being held to account by parliament. The same holds true for a different reason in Scotland where the SNP always vote with the party and never with an independent mind. It becomes an elected dictatorship and not a democracy.

I agree with all your points apart from this one: ‘The big problem now is not the terrible choice of ministers but the excessive majority that Labour hold. This means they are not being held to account by parliament.’

I don’t see how having a big majority would stop Parliament from holding them to account. Boris Johnson’s and Tony Blair’s governments both had a big majority and both were absolutely held to account by Parliament. I see things no differently here.

I’d argue Parliament’s main job is to hold the party in power to account, and they are very much fulfilling that role. Labour are definitely being held to account - though parliamentary questions, debates and, of course, Prime Minister’s Questions every week.

I actually think one of the reasons behind Angela Rayner’s resignation - and the other ministers who resigned since Labour won, inc Rushanara Ali, Tulip Siddiq and Louise Haigh - is because of Parliament holding them to account.

I think those resignations were the result of right wing press holding them to account in a way they never did with the previous government. There was rarely a resignation.

Labour has a majority of around 200, Boris had a majority of 80 in a party with a history of rebelling. They are not held to account through questions. They are only held to account by votes. Questions are merely the means to try and gather votes. At the moment it would take over a hundred Labour MPs to rebel against a whip to stop any regulations, including those proposed by the opposition. It takes much more extreme measures before you get that size of rebellion, and it would be nigh on impossible for the opposition to gather that from the Labour benches alongside the votes of other opposition parties with disparate leanings.