Another week, another development in the row over Angela Rayner’s tax affairs. The deputy Labour leader is facing questions over whether she broke electoral and tax law regarding a former council property she owned in Stockport. The allegations – which Rayner denies – stem from Lord Ashcroft’s biography (titled Red Queen) of the woman in line to be deputy prime minister if Labour triumphs as expected in this year’s general election.

The row has been rumbling along for weeks now but is gaining momentum as the Tories ramp up their attacks. It goes back to the properties she and her then husband Mark Rayner owned in Stockport. When the couple married, Mark Rayner owned 126 Lowndes Lane while Rayner owned 80 Vicarage Road – purchasing it in 2007 under the right to buy scheme. Rayner sold the Vicarage Road property in 2015 for £127,500 shortly after she became an MP.

The Tories plan to keep pushing this with hopes that HMRC could open its own investigation

The question is whether Vicarage Road was her main residence or whether her main residence was her husband’s property on Lowndes Lane. Rayner says Vicarage Road was her primary residence despite claims from neighbours that she lived at Lowndes Lane from 2010 to 2016. If her main address was Lowndes Lane then she should have paid capital gains tax on the profit she made on the property. She also could be in breach of electoral law if her main residence was Lowndes Lane when she was registered to vote at Vicarage Road. Under Section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983: ‘A person who for any purpose connected with the registration of electors provides to a registration officer any false information is guilty of an offence’.

Rayner is under fresh pressure over these allegations after the Mail on Sunday published a series of photos appearing to suggest Lowndes Lane was her home. Rayner’s response to all this is that hers is a blended family (she had a son from a previous relationship) so it was normal to split her time between the two properties. The deputy leader has also said she has been given legal advice that no rules were broken. She said she would be happy to present this to the police or HMRC but will not publish it for the general public.

So, how serious is this for Rayner? The row has attracted enough attention so far that shadow ministers are being routinely asked about it when doing media. On Sunday, David Lammy suggested that opposition parties should be held to different standards to those in government. He also suggested that this was a witch hunt, arguing that Rayner was a ‘northern woman’ and suggesting the attacks were unfair.

The difficulty for Rayner is that she has often been the one leading attacks on Tory politicians for police investigations and questions on tax. In many of these cases, her first response is to call for them to resign. The police have already said they are reviewing a decision not to investigate the claims about whether Rayner broke the rules. The Tories plan to keep pushing this with hopes that HMRC could open its own investigation. They believe at that point her position would be untenable.

For now, most in the Labour party believe the row will blow over – with some likening it to ‘Beergate’ when Starmer was accused of a Covid rule breach but it came to nothing. Yet Lammy’s own defence raises questions about whether Rayner would need to publish the tax guidance if in government. What’s more, there are rumours of shadow ministers telling hacks they are ready to step in to take on parts of Rayner’s brief should she need to let go of it.

The problem Starmer has is if Rayner was found to be in an untenable position, she is close to unsackable. As deputy leader of the Labour party, Rayner is elected – like Starmer – by the membership. It means while shadow cabinet briefs are in his gift to give and take away, her position is as deputy is not. She is also viewed by many in the Leader’s Office as one of their better media performers yet has recently limited her appearances. It means at the very least, this row is succeeding in putting one of Labour’s key players on the defensive.

Listen to Coffee House Shots with Natasha Feroze, Katy Balls and James Heale: