Angela Rayner - a tabloid favourite for her work, or her working-class background?

Image - Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing street

‍

From care work to an MP, a year at the helm, and now dismissed from Government in disgrace, former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has certainly seen it all. She made a name for herself as an MP that never went to university, and had a baby on the way as she left education, with no qualifications. Before her appointments in Parliament, she was a union official, battling zero-hour contacts and working conditions. In 2020, she took her former role as deputy leader of the opposition, and eventually deputy Prime Minister. She was a favourite for the tabloids throughout, always quick to broadcast her mistakes. Her most recent tax scandal has garnered plenty of attention - but were the tabloids calling for her resignation to appease the right? Or was it a truly independent analysis?

Across X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and of course, the tabloids, you don’t struggle to find posts or articles slating Rayner, whether for her vaping, holidays or simply sipping a glass of wine on the beach. Yet some media outlets seem bent on distorting her image, taking away from her successes and trying to shame her for using her time like a normal person, when not stood at the dispatch box. The Daily Mail continually pushes a narrative against Rayner, for example, scoffing at her use of an expensive coat (a reference to their frothing at the mouth over her £175 DryRobe), or going for a paddle in a canoe, vape in hand. So the question remains: why her? Perhaps they enjoyed going in for the kill, as her second tax scandal was prime content to target. Or are the tabloids just enjoying touting their bias against her, for being a working class woman, who worked her way to the top, and now suffers the consequences of following misguiding advice? A trip to Ibiza in 2024 was supplemented by a freebie DJ booth experience, of course later registered on interests. Yet there were still snide comments about whether it was ‘entirely appropriate’ given she had been in meetings earlier that day. Her response, broadcast via Sky News, embraced her working class roots, reminding those listening, reading and watching, that she was a normal person, and that everyone needs ‘downtime’.

In late August, news broke from the Telegraph that Rayner had purchased a new flat in Hove, and had managed to save on Stamp Duty (a tax paid when purchasing a house in the UK). It later emerged that there was doubt around whether her tax-saving was legitimate, as she appeared to have changed title deeds and primary residences, to ‘save’ £40,000. Rayner initially stood by her actions, reported by both major media outlets and tabloids, claiming in a statement that she had sought advice from lawyers, but as it later transpired they had not considered the circumstances surrounding her son’s trust, and the way in which she had accrued the money for the deposit. Following this, she publicly admitted that the accusations that she had not paid enough tax, were in fact true, and that she was now cooperating with HMRC and ethics advisors on what the best next step would be. Her heartfelt statement explained the personal situation, even lifting a privacy order for her son and his trust, to reveal intimate details. Yet her, albeit eventual, clarification, was met with attacks from all sides of the House, despite PM Kier Starmer’s resounding support for her. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Opposition, accused Starmer of having no backbone during PMQs on the 3rd of the month, saying that if he did, he would ‘sack her’, and referenced a time when the PM said that ‘Tax evasion is a criminal offence, and should be treated as fraud’. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride, used a clip of Rayner on X, where she is quoted saying ‘One rule for them, another rule for us’, captioned by his disbelief at her failure to keep rules that she has set.

‍

Eventually, advice from the Ethics committee and more senior lawyers, concluded that she had under paid, due to technicalities with the contract of her son’s trust. She tendered her resignation as Deputy Prime Minister, but also as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. She will remain as an MP for Ashton-under-Lyme.

‍

As a result of this current debacle, she has fallen victim to excessive media coverage, about her, her life, her disabled son and his trust, being pushed into publicising personal information that isn’t directly about her. Yet the tabloids are driving this narrative that she is persona non grata for… buying a second home? The absurdity of the situation isn’t going unnoticed. Many MPs own second homes, and some of them profit by renting them out - a hypocritical undermining of the government’s push for more homes for the nation. Furthermore, the Telegraph, who were first to jump on the bandwagon against Rayner’s Hove Flat purchase, published 2 articles, both about saving money on second homes, and one more specifically about skipping out on Stamp Duty tax. Whilst one could argue these were only coincidentally released on the same day, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Scolding one woman’s actions, whilst encouraging others to do the same, and to follow their unprofessional guide, seems rather hypocritical, especially as Rayner only claimed to have been following advice from actual professionals. Interestingly, they’ve thus far failed to mention Nigel Farage’s melee with Stamp Duty, by allowing his partner to take the deeds on his constituency property, saving them £44,000 worth of Stamp Duty tax, as it’s her only property in the UK. This feels like a clear right-bias, designed to smear the left, yet protect Farage and his infamous reputation.

‍

More recently(before the tax news came to light), there was still a smear-campaign against the deputy PM for supposedly ‘owning’ three homes. Attempts to label her as ‘three pads Rayner’ in a snobbish reference to her former home in Ashton-under-Lyme, her new flat in Hove and her Grace-and-favour flat in Admiralty House in London, were unsuccessful. These slanderous comments depicted her as a property tycoon, as if she were making millions in profit from rental income. In reality, she isn’t part of the 13% of Parliamentarians that make over £10,000 a year letting out their other properties to turn a profit. It seems every move she makes, she is hounded - after her Opera attendance in 2022, she was likened to being a ‘champagne socialist’ by Tory MPs about her lack of presence on picket lines. The MP in question, Dominic Raab, was privately educated, and holds degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, perhaps a perfect example of the elitists that push to keep politics a tight circle of like-minded individuals, engineering success for themselves at the expense of others. As ever, the tabloids picked up these comments, taking them from the House of Commons, to spread them across the media in a disinformation campaign that left most of us confused - had she missed an important meeting, or perhaps shirked responsibility? Were the tickets coming out of the taxpayer pocket? No, she was just attending an operatic performance, with a rather fitting plot - in her words, ‘a working-class woman who gets the better of a privileged but dim-witted man’.

‍

Some will certainly be sad to see the end of Rayner’s reign, others less so. It will be interesting to see any impact that her departure may have on the division of the left, as front bench working-class representation diminishes - will this perhaps spur a boost in interest in the newest Corbyn/Sultana ‘Your Party’ group. Or will loyal Labour supporters stay true to their party and its manifesto, even when such a driving force has disappeared?

‍

Every MP should face scrutiny; it’s part of what keeps democracy strong, by ensuring that we are not being taken advantage of by those we trust to act in our best interests. And tabloids are, at the end of the day, just another news outlet. But when certain people fall under excessive observation, especially those who aren’t fitting into the stereotype, one is forced to wonder whether it’s always entirely justified. But perhaps the witch hunt against the former minister is coming to an end, as she steps out of the limelight. Only time will tell.