This probably reads a bit random, but i have thought a lot about social class over the years. When i was an 'active revolutionary' and a member of 'The revolutionary Party' (swp), i was surrounded by well intentioned educated people who often had posh accents along with good careers in academia (teachers, lecturers, professors etc). Many amongst their number also had the (accidental) ability to fall back on the bank of mum and dad when things didn't go according to plan. In other words, by comparison with authentic working class people (who sold their labour power to the wealthy) and risked everything in their pursuit of a decent and fair society, they were quite privileged. Obviously, this contrast didn't make those people bad or manipulative, they were simply seeking a better world, but they operated under circumstances quite different from someone dragged up on a tough estate with few economic or social advantages. i was always uncomfortable about that division. Whenever i raised it in conversation, the academics 'explained' that the overwhelming majority of people sold their labour to the boss class and were thus 'working class' by definition, and that my concerns were sort of divisive if not irrational. i could see their (usually cleverly put) points. But that feeling has never really deserted me. These days cynicism means that i quite often view self selecting leaderships of the working class with trepidation..
Where this leads in relation to Rayner i'm not sure. Her background, so obviously working class, has probably led to her becoming a target for class prejudice amongst a certain sector of society who despise her very existence as a 'successful' Labour politician. But surely the truth is that she has been seriously contaminated by the (inevitable?) swirling sparkling temptations of cash and power and entitlement which are alive and kicking in the Labour Party environment. i reckon the bigger picture remains - the Labour Party never was (or could become) a suitable vehicle for transforming the world.