The departure of Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, has thrown Westminster into turmoil, exposing deep fissures within the Labour party and raising questions about the Prime Minister’s future leadership. The resignation, reportedly stemming from the fallout over the appointment of Peter Mandelson to a senior advisory role, has been described as a significant blow to Starmer, who relied heavily on McSweeney’s political instincts.
According to a Labour source quoted by the BBC, Starmer “is facing into the storm as the most talented campaigner in modern politics leaves his team. He would not be PM without Morgan, I wonder if he’ll be PM for much longer now.” The exit is particularly jarring given initial reports suggesting McSweeney’s position was secure. Just hours before the announcement, two sources indicated no changes were planned, with senior minister Pat McFadden even stating on air that there would be “no point” in removing him.
The speed of the shift has surprised even cabinet ministers, who, like McFadden, had been led to believe McSweeney would remain in post. This sudden reversal underscores the complexity of the situation and the extent to which Starmer’s inner circle has been destabilized.
Laura Kuenssberg, presenter of Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, highlighted the unusually close working relationship between Starmer and McSweeney. She noted that the Prime Minister depended on McSweeney’s political judgment “much, much more than Boris Johnson on Dominic Cummings, Theresa May on Gavin Barwell, or David Cameron on Edward Llewellyn.” This reliance suggests McSweeney’s departure leaves a significant void at the heart of Starmer’s operation.
McSweeney’s role was also crucial in Labour’s rebuilding efforts following the party’s heavy defeat in the 2019 general election. His expertise in campaigning and strategic planning was instrumental in shifting Labour’s fortunes and positioning it as a viable contender for power. Losing such a key figure represents a setback for the party’s long-term ambitions.
The resignation also highlights the challenges Starmer faces in maintaining unity within the Labour party. McSweeney’s presence was seen as a stabilizing force, helping to manage internal tensions and keep critics at bay. His departure suggests those tensions are now more difficult to contain, potentially opening the door to further challenges to Starmer’s leadership.
The circumstances surrounding McSweeney’s resignation center on the appointment of Peter Mandelson, a controversial figure within the Labour party. McSweeney has taken “full responsibility” for advising the appointment, according to the BBC, suggesting he believes the decision was a misstep. This admission raises questions about the judgment of those involved and the internal dynamics that led to Mandelson’s inclusion in Starmer’s team.
The disruption caused by such a high-profile departure is likely to be significant, particularly at a time when the government is already facing numerous challenges. Starmer’s critics will undoubtedly seize on this opportunity to question his leadership and push for change. The coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining how the Labour party responds to this crisis and whether Starmer can regain control of the narrative.
As Kuenssberg observes, Starmer’s critics now have a “scalp,” and the question now is what they will do with it. The political fallout from McSweeney’s resignation is likely to reverberate throughout Westminster for some time to come, leaving the future of the Labour party and its leader uncertain.
