A fierce row erupted on Thursday’s Good Morning Britain as Conservative party chairman Kevin Hollinrake was branded a hypocrite for insisting Angela Rayner should resign immediately.

Kate Garraway pointed out that it had not been proved that Rayner had ‘avoided’ paying tax and could have received some ‘duff’ advice after she was found to have not underpaid when buying a second home in May. Kate was backed by co-host Ed Balls who said Boris Johnson had kept numerous Tory MPs including Priti Patel who was accused of bullying – when allegations about Tory Sleaze and misdemeanours hit headlines during their time in power.

Hollinrake said the Deputy Prime Minister must go after breaking ‘the letter of the law’ by underpaying tax duty by £40,000 and for how vocal she has been about tax avoidance by others.

Kate immediately interrupted to say former Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi had underpaid tax by £5million while he was chancellor.

On Wednesday, Rayner held her hands up to her mistake and has referred herself to the independent ethics commissioner who will determine whether the avoidance was an inadvertent mistake. However, Hollinrake believes it’s too late as a tense clash erupted on GMB.

Kate Garraway and Ed Balls jumped to Angela Rayner’s defence
( Image: SKY NEWS)
“I think she should resign, I don’t think her position is tenable,” Hollinrake said this morning. “The situation is she’s deputy prime minister, Housing Secretary and this is a matter that relates to housing. The information is readily available. If you look on the HMRC website it clearly sets out on the first page that trust count in terms of a primary home.”

Hollinrake then continued to say that it had to be taken into account that both Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner have been “so outspoken in terms of tax avoidance”.

Continuing, he said: “This goes beyond tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is the lawful mechanism to reduce tax, but this is not lawful,” as he said he “doesn’t see how she can just categorise this as an error.”

Kate Garraway then stepped in and said the chairman had made a lot of accusations but said they were waiting for the independent inquiry. She then went on to mention former Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi who paid nearly £5m to authorities to settle his tax affairs.

She then questioned why Angela Rayner was being held to a different standard to which Hollinrake replied: “She’s held herself to a different standard. If this had been a Conservative member today, she would be calling for their resignation.”

Kevin Hollinrake joined GMB this morning as he called for Angela Rayner to be sacked ( 
Image:
ITV)
Kate wasn’t having any of it however, as she interrupted: “You’re now calling for her resignation, you’re saying that she’s unlawful. Does that mean anybody in opposition who accuses anything of a government has to resign even if it turns out it’s been proved that she’s made a mistake? Which she’s admitted and paying the money – you’re now saying she should go automatically?”

Hollinrake then went on to claim that Angela had broken the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law” after taking a moral position in the past that tax avoidance was wrong.

However, Kate stepped in to reiterate once again that it hadn’t been proved that she was avoiding tax – and she could have had bad advice.

“And you’re somehow jumping the gun and saying she should go anyway?”

Kevin Hollinrake went on to say that Angela had admitted that she hadn’t paid her tax – again saying it was “beyond avoidance”.

He then claimed Rayner had taken the position “that if you’re guilty of this stuff, you should resign.”

Former Shadow Chancellor Ed then stepped in to fight back, claiming the the argument Hollinrake was trying to make was “rather unusual”.

Kate Garraway said Kevin Hollinrake was ‘jumping the gun’
( Image: ITV)

Angela Rayner sparks explosive GMB row as Kate Garraway and Ed Balls jump to defence

Viewers tuning into Good Morning Britain expected the usual blend of politics, current affairs, and celebrity chatter, but instead they were treated to an extraordinary live row that has since dominated social media feeds. Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner found herself at the centre of a heated clash that quickly spiralled into a shouting match, leaving co-hosts Kate Garraway and Ed Balls in the rare position of leaping to her defence. The exchange was raw, emotional, and unpredictable—television at its most combustible.

It all began with what was supposed to be a routine political grilling. Rayner appeared on the programme to discuss Labour’s latest policy proposals, particularly those linked to housing, public services, and the ongoing debates about workers’ rights. However, the conversation quickly took a combative turn when a guest panellist—introduced to provide “balance”—accused Rayner of “dodging accountability” and “hiding behind soundbites.” The charge immediately set the tone for what was to come.

Rayner, never one to back down from confrontation, shot back with her trademark bluntness. “I’m not hiding behind anything,” she retorted sharply. “What I’m doing is fighting for people who’ve been ignored by your party for over a decade.” Her response drew applause from some corners of social media, but in the studio the temperature was rising. The panellist interrupted, Rayner snapped, and within moments the discussion had devolved into overlapping voices and barbed insults.

As the row escalated, it was Garraway who first tried to restore order, urging both sides to let each other speak. But when the panellist accused Rayner of being “too emotional” and “out of her depth,” Garraway visibly bristled. Leaning forward, she interjected: “Hang on a second—that’s not fair. You can disagree with her policies, but dismissing her as ‘too emotional’ is frankly patronising.” The remark sparked a flurry of nods online, with many praising Garraway for calling out the gendered undertones of the attack.

Ed Balls, himself a former Labour politician, soon joined in. Though critics often accuse him of being overly soft on Labour guests, on this occasion his intervention felt more like a matter of principle than partisanship. “Let’s stick to the issues,” Balls insisted, his voice rising above the chaos. “Angela is answering your questions, you might not like the answers, but personal attacks won’t get us anywhere.” His defence prompted an awkward silence, before Rayner seized the chance to return to her point.

What followed was a remarkable show of resilience from Rayner, who channelled the drama into a passionate plea about working-class communities. She spoke about her own background—growing up in Stockport, raising her son as a teenager, and experiencing the struggles of the very people she says Labour is fighting for. “You can try to shout me down,” she said firmly, “but I know what it’s like to live on the breadline, and I will never apologise for speaking up for those who’ve been ignored.”

The row might have ended there, but social media ensured it lived on long after the cameras cut. Clips of the clash spread rapidly, with hashtags like #RaynerRow and #GMB trending within hours. Viewers were sharply divided. Supporters praised Rayner for standing her ground, applauding Garraway and Balls for pushing back against what they saw as patronising attacks. Detractors, however, argued that Rayner lost her cool and revealed a “thin skin” not befitting someone aiming to hold high office.

What added fuel to the fire was the panellist’s refusal to back down after the show. In interviews later that day, they doubled down on their criticism, accusing Rayner of playing the victim card and hiding behind her personal story to deflect from Labour’s weaknesses. That only inflamed debate further, with critics accusing the guest of tone-deafness and a lack of empathy. Meanwhile, Rayner’s allies in Labour seized the moment to highlight her authenticity, contrasting her fiery defence of ordinary people with what they called the “robotic detachment” of her political rivals.

Inside Westminster, the clash quickly became gossip fodder. Some Labour MPs privately admitted they wished Rayner had kept her composure, fearing the spectacle played into stereotypes her opponents are eager to weaponise. Others, however, saw it as a sign of her strength, a willingness to confront detractors head-on rather than retreat into carefully managed talking points. As one ally put it: “Angela is real. That’s what people connect with. She doesn’t sound like a focus group, and that terrifies her opponents.”

The timing of the row could not be more significant. With the political climate in flux and Labour attempting to cement its credibility as the government-in-waiting, every public appearance by senior figures is under intense scrutiny. For Rayner, the GMB appearance was supposed to showcase Labour’s policy depth. Instead, it turned into a trial by fire—a test of character played out live before millions. Whether voters see her performance as defiant strength or combustible vulnerability could shape perceptions in the months ahead.

As for Garraway and Balls, their interventions added another layer to the story. Viewers have long debated whether GMB leans too aggressively in its political interviews, often creating more heat than light. By defending Rayner against what they felt were unfair personal attacks, the hosts shifted the dynamic and, in doing so, may have reset the boundaries of acceptable discourse on the programme. It was a rare moment of solidarity in a show more often defined by conflict.

In the end, the explosive row has achieved something Rayner and her party could never have planned: it made her the centre of the national conversation. Supporters see her as a fighter who won’t be cowed, while critics cast her as too volatile for leadership. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, but what cannot be denied is the impact. Rayner’s name, face, and words are now etched into the headlines, and every political operative in Britain will be analysing what that means for Labour’s trajectory.

For Good Morning Britain, it was television gold—unscripted, messy, and impossible to look away from. For Angela Rayner, it was another reminder of the high-wire act she must perform: being authentic enough to connect with voters, yet composed enough to withstand relentless scrutiny. And for viewers, it was proof that live morning TV can still deliver the kind of drama that reverberates far beyond the breakfast table.