Angela Rayner to ignite fresh Labour civil war as Starmer defends record | Politics | News

Angela Rayner will pile further pressure on Sir Keir Starmer’s faltering premiership by demanding “bolder action” in a major speech. The former Deputy Prime Minister, widely seen as a potential successor to Sir Keir, will say Labor needs to have a “bolder story” to tell voters.

A new poll drops a bombshell reveal that Labor could lose up to 2,000 council seats in the upcoming local elections as voters are furious over the winter fuel fiasco, the Channel migrant crisis, the Chagos Islands debacle, the Peter Mandelson scandal, rising taxes and the Prime Minister’s bid to smooth Brexit. Modeling by More in Common shows Labor losing 1,597 seats in the best-expected scenario and 1,738 seats in the worst-case scenario.

And Ms Rayner will increase the pressure on the Prime Minister by backing a range of proposals from two different groups within the Labor Party – the Tribune group and the Labor Growth Group.

Louise Haigh and Chris Curtis, whose groups represent nearly 200 MPs across the party, told The Times that the country was “not moving in the right direction” and that “Labour MPs are as hungry for change as the public”.

They will outline their approach at the Good Growth Foundation’s national growth debate on Tuesday. Woman rayner Afterwards, he is expected to speak at the evening reception.

The pair said Downing Street had “overplayed the role of defender of a broken system while the public rightly expect us to rebuild it”.

They said: “Where the government has been bold, Labor MPs have backed it and called for more. Where reform has stalled, it has largely been because proposals have come in piecemeal and are too disconnected from any clear argument of what they are for. “Labour MPs are as hungry for change as the public.

“The reforms the government proposes are often disconnected from this broader argument. When politics loses its moral core, even necessary reform seems hesitant and managerial.”

More in Common highlighted Sunderland as “the clearest example of the Reformation threat to Labor in the heartlands”.

The city council has been led by Labor since its inception, but the latest modeling now shows that if a general election were held, Reform would win the Sunderland Central constituency, with the party on 37% of the vote, 12% ahead of Labor.

Luke Tryl of More in Common said the Greens were targeting some councils in London, including Hackney, Lambeth and Islington.

He said: “This really should be ground zero for the Green rally.

“At the top end of our projections, they could do really well, especially taking advantage of disappointing progressive voting.”

Mr Tryl added that if it was a good night for the Greens, Labor could fall to “single digits” on Hackney council, where the party has dominated since the early 1970s.

At the jury hearings, rebel Karl Turner said trust in Sir Keir Starmer was fading by the day because of the Lord Peter Mandelson saga, as Labor MPs criticized his peer’s appointment.

Mr Turner, who was stripped of the Labor whip over his opposition to the government’s justice reforms, asked the Prime Minister what he would do to restore confidence in himself and Labor ahead of local elections in just over two weeks.

The Kingston-upon-Hull East MP was joined by former Labor members of Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet who asked why Lord Mandelson had been appointed despite his track record.

Veteran left-wing MP John McDonnell also slammed the Prime Minister’s former official, Morgan McSweeney, who has a close relationship with Lord Mandelson.

“Whatever Mandelson wants, Mandelson gets,” Mr. McDonnell said. He was heckled by cabinet members during his speech.

Mr Turner said: “Anyone who knows the Prime Minister knows full well that he would never, ever deliberately mislead this House.

“But the truth is that this hindsight is completely meaningless when the appointment is political. The problem we all face is that trust in the Prime Minister and politics is diminishing as this sad saga continues.”

“So what does the Prime Minister propose to do to regain the country’s confidence in the 17 days leading up to these crucial elections?”

Mr McDonnell said: “Many on this side of the House today will appreciate his apology, but many of us will still be baffled as to why this appointment took place, despite his warnings.

“Isn’t the fact this: when he tried to realize his ambition of becoming leader of the Labor Party, which had little base within the party, he became dependent on McSweeney, Mandelson and Labor Together to organize and finance his election.

“The reward for McSweeney when he became Prime Minister was control of Number 10 and the highest diplomatic post for Mandelson. The unspoken message to civil servants was that what Mandelson wanted, Mandelson got.”

“This situation has damaged the party of which I have been a member for 50 years,” he said.

Mother of the House Diane Abbott, Independent MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, recalled Lord Mandelson having to resign twice from Tony Blair’s cabinet in the 1990s and early 2000s.

“Peter Mandelson has a past,” he said. “What this House wants to know is to know Peter Mandelson’s history, to go back 30 years… it’s one thing to say: ‘No one told me. No one told me anything, no one told me.’ The question is, why didn’t the Prime Minister ask?”

The Prime Minister said he would not have appointed Lord Mandelson had he known he had failed checks and insisted there was no pressure from No 10 to make the high-profile appointment.

Sir Keir last week sacked Sir Olly from his role as a senior Foreign Office official after learning Lord Mandelson had been given security clearance despite failing checks.

The Prime Minister has been accused of lying to MPs for failing to give the full picture of how Lord Mandelson was given enhanced review (DV) status.

But in a statement on Monday he refused to mislead the Commons when telling MPs the correct process was followed.

“I accept that the information that I should have had, that the House should have had, the information that the House should have had, but I did not mislead the House and that is why I have given the full account,” he said.