Angela Rayner says she ‘never' wants to be Prime Minister or Labour leader
The Deputy Prime Minister was asked to rule herself out from the top job after a memo she sent to Rachel Reeves suggesting tax rises was leaked to the press.
Ms Rayner suggested reinstating the pensions lifetime allowance and changing dividend taxes in a memo to the Chancellor with ideas to raise revenue, according to the Telegraph, which saw a copy of the document.
The Deputy Prime Minister said she was 'absolutely not' behind a leaked memo, and ruled out becoming Prime Minister in the future when appearing on Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips.
Ms Rayner was asked to dispel suggestions she may have been behind the leak of the memo, in order to grow support for a future Labour leadership bid.
She replied: 'Yeah, absolutely not, and I don't want to be leader of the Labour Party.'
Pressed on this, she added: 'No, I'm very happy and honoured to be Deputy Prime Minister of this country, and I've got a lot in my in-tray to prove that I can do the job that I'm doing and deliver on the milestones for the people of this country.
'That's what I'm interested in.'
Asked to say the word never, she replied: 'Never.'
Later appearing on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg, Ms Rayner was adamant she had nothing to do with the memo appearing in public.
Angela Rayner told Laura Kuenssberg that she does not leak (Jeff Overs/BBC)
'I do not leak. I think leaks are very damaging. I'm 100% behind our Cabinet and the decisions that we make collectively,' she said.
The Deputy PM also told the BBC there was no 'significant different opinion across government'.
She added: 'The Government has discussions. We do that in private. So I'm not going to comment on any memos or documents that have been circulated, but I can tell you that the Government is absolutely 100% behind our Chancellor, and as a Cabinet we make the collective decisions.'
An inquiry is 'under way' into how the memo was leaked, the Deputy Prime Minister also suggested.
Asked by Sky News if a probe would be launched, Ms Rayner said: 'I think there's one under way, and quite rightly so, because leaks are very damaging.
'It's really damaging, because we have lots of sensitive conversations in the round, all of us, and then we make a collective decision.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
37 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
'For urgent change that's needed, Green voices must be heard'
There are also home truths for the SNP who put a lot into this seat. They tried to be the anti-Reform vote but that didn't work. The immediate reaction of some in the party that they instead need to "hit the independence button" hits home just how little they have to fall back on from their record in government. Greens led a solid grassroots campaign which helped to build profile and support ahead of the Holyrood elections next year, where the proportional voting system means Green votes count more. There are some clear lessons emerging for how Greens need to approach that election. The SNP can't succeed as the anti-Reform vote because they are the political establishment in Scotland that those turning to Reform are hacked off with. It's their cuts to council budgets and their failure to replace the unfair council tax that is responsible for the decline people see in their neighbourhoods. It's their failure to build enough homes or to bring down outrageous rents that are driving the housing crisis. It's their U-turn on climate targets and lack of a proper green industrial strategy that is putting jobs and communities at risk. Greens can put forward a bold manifesto that responds to these things and more. That speaks to real issues facing people, not the bogeymen put forward by Reform. Urgency is vital. Where the SNP is cautious in the extreme, Greens must present a plan to deliver tangible change, quickly. Parties are often pressed on having a costed manifesto. That's important, but I think it's equally so to have a timed plan, not with vague and distant targets, but for real improvement, now. Greens have policies that resonate and are needed, but the biggest barrier we still face is being heard. The BBC Scotland Debate Night programme this week is a clear example of that. The show was a 'Glasgow Special' but it didn't include the Greens, despite being clearly the third political force in the city. Instead, alongside the SNP council leader Susan Aitken, viewers heard from the Tories, who have just one councillor left and are facing being wiped out in Holyrood next year, and shockingly from not one but two Labour representatives (though the show's producers neglected to make the political affiliation of the unelected Baron Haughey of Hutchesontown clear). It's perhaps not a surprise that the BBC won't platform Green voices which challenge the status quo, but it is a real shame. Green representatives are shaping the future of Glasgow, whether that's by working to end rip-off rents, by making our streets and public spaces safer, or by delivering new powers, like the Visitor Levy, which will raise tens of millions more for local services. Greens can deliver the radical and urgent change people want, but to do that Green voices must be heard.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data for now
The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - disagreed with that decision. "The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now --before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by Sotomayor. In March, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland said DOGE was intruding on "the personal affairs of millions of Americans" in a fishing expedition that's based on little more than suspicion." Hollander limited DOGE's access to the information while the courts assess the legality of the Trump administration's actions. The administration argued the judge overstepped, viewing DOGE staffers as the equivalent of intruders breaking into hotel rooms rather than as employees trying to modernize the agency's technology and root out waste - as DOGE officials said they intended to do. "District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads," Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. DOGE has sought access to multiple agencies as part of its mission to hunt for wasteful spending and dramatically overhaul the federal government. Musk has falsely claimed that millions of Americans who are deceased are still receiving Social Security checks. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued the SSA after DOGE began digging into personal data. They told the Supreme Court justices they shouldn't intervene because the administration hadn't shown an emergency need to access data beyond what the district judge allowed. In addition to overseeing Social Security benefits for retirees and disabled people, the Social Security Administration helps administer programs run by other agencies, including Medicare and Medicaid. A divided federal appeals court on April 30 rejected the Trump administration's request to block the district judge's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, said the government hadn't shown a need for unfettered access to the highly sensitive personal information that the American people had every reason to believe would be "fiercely protected." DOGE's mission can be largely accomplished through anonymized and redacted data, which is the usual way the agency has handled technology upgrades and fraud detection, he wrote.
Wales Online
7 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
