Why is Morgan McSweeney now a lightning rod for Labour rebels?
Morgan McSweeney's allies are fiercely loyal. This week the prime minister's chief of staff has been the subject of a series of vitriolic attacks from Labour MPs who are blaming him for the debacle surrounding the government's welfare reforms.
Ministers have accused him of presiding over a 'bunker mentality' in No 10 and some rebels have called for him to be removed from office as part of a 'regime change'. The time has come, they argue, for the 'overexcitable boys' to move on.
In the wake of the attacks, one government adviser shared a post on social media suggesting that removing McSweeney could spell the end of Sir Keir Starmer's premiership.
The post said: 'After losing him it will be nothing but legislating on MP pet projects, the civil service running the country … while Starmer is left running around chasing media stories until the [parliamentary Labour Party (PLP)] panics after the 2028 local elections and replaces him.'
McSweeney's influence cannot be overstated. The Irishman played a key role in transforming Starmer from a bastion of the soft left — a former human rights lawyer who backed a second referendum and was an arch-defender of free movement — into the man who took on Jeremy Corbyn and overhauled the Labour Party.
• Profile: Who is Morgan McSweeney?
With McSweeney at his side, Starmer moved firmly to the centre ground, helping Labour to a landslide victory in the election in the process. The Starmer of today has put defence and security and a strong dose of patriotism at the heart of his premiership, while also promulgating fiscal responsibility at every turn and taking a hardline stance on immigration.
Given Starmer's transformation, it is perhaps not surprising that McSweeney has become a lightning rod for criticism over the government's welfare reforms. Labour rebels see the cuts as part of a broader plan to shift the party to the right and appeal to Reform UK voters who want a tougher line on benefits.
• Starmer is dangerously vulnerable over welfare reforms
The cuts, they argue, are being driven by a combination of an 'arbitrary' approach to balancing the books and political opportunism. They are highly critical of the handling of the policy in No 10. MPs say that a rebellion that was eminently avoidable has blown up into a full-blown crisis for Starmer because Downing Street stopped listening.
For some rebels it is deeply personal. 'I wouldn't be f***ing backing down now anyway, not after the 'noises off' comments [from Starmer at a press conference this week] and the briefing that they had 'cleared the self-indulgent rubbish out',' one said.
'Who the eff do they think they are? It's just desperation and it's sickening. Do you remember when Dominic Cummings went to Barnard Castle and the story became about him? When the story becomes about you, it's time to go, so when is Morgan going to go?'
A senior government source said: 'There clearly needs to be a complete reset in how we approach the party. No 10 did not listen and did not engage until it was far too late and now they're in a hole of their own making.'
Where once McSweeney, the mastermind of Labour's landslide, was untouchable, today the briefings abound. 'There's a bit of 'emperor's new clothes' going on,' one government source said. 'When you see him up close, you see he's not what everyone thinks he is. He isn't this brilliant mastermind. He's a man of the moment who's taken advantage of it, but he has manoeuvred himself into these positions.'
Others believe that McSweeney is being used as a proxy for wider unhappiness with Starmer; that, like so many senior No 10 advisers before him — Sue Gray, his predecessor as Starmer's chief of staff, and Cummings, Boris Johnson's senior adviser — he has become an easy target.
Far from being political, they say, the move to curb the benefits bill is born of a moral and economic necessity; that with 1,000 extra people claiming disability benefits every day, the current system is broken and unsustainable. People are being denied the dignity of work — a view shared by both McSweeney and Starmer.
McSweeney clearly divides opinion. Members of the 100-strong Labour Growth group were quick to defend him. 'It's very clear he gets that [the] cost of living is the crucial issue facing people and knows we've got to be on the side of people who are feeling that,' one member said. 'There was clear alignment on how ambitious we need to be in turning around the economy so we can do that.'
• Call for 'regime change' as Keir Starmer aide faces welfare backlash
The trouble for both Starmer and McSweeney is that the Labour Party is becoming ever more recalcitrant as the reality of the party's collapse in the polls sets in.
Lord Blunkett, a former Labour home secretary, said: 'We may have a very large majority, but many backbenchers are looking at the opinion polls and wondering where they will be in three and a half years' time.'
The risk, according to some, is that the Labour Party will become ungovernable. 'Keir has been completely deluged by world affairs,' said one MP close to Starmer. 'He's been told by his massive team that they have this under control when they do not. This is on them.
'No 10 has entered complete bunker mentality. Last week, they were calm. Now, they are irate. They think that if they give in now the PLP will be ungovernable. But we're past that point. Pandora's box has been opened with the backbenchers.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
21 minutes ago
- Times
Times letters: Fixing the amateur way Britain is governed
Write to letters@ Sir, Munira Mirza's assessment of where we are going wrong appears spot on, and her scathing criticism of our politicians also rings true ('Here's how we can fix the way Britain is run', Jun 26). One hopes that the efforts of her Fix Britain group will bear fruit. However, given that, as she says, there is no shortage of sound input from think tanks, the issue would seem to have less to do with lack of sound advice than an unwillingness to act on it by those who govern us. As to her closing statement about people's reluctance to vote for a political party unless it can tell them exactly how it will fix Britain, the electorate appears to be showing no reluctance whatsoever. If opinion polls are to be believed, Reform is surging ahead — with only the merest nod to the 'how' and no nod at all as to the means by which Britain might be BrowneDatchet, Berks Sir, Munira Mirza is unsparing in her critique of career politicians, whom she characterises as ignorant of their subject and the machinery of government, and as rabbits caught in headlights or consummate bluffers, seeking celebrity but lacking competence. Her proposition, however, is another think tank, a sector with which, as she points out, we are richly blessed. But the difficulty with think tanks is that the thinkers in them have no responsibility for the ideas they propose. They too seek celebrity, their job titles often being 'fellow' or some other quasi-academic handle. Perhaps she could instead found a school for politicians to teach them the machinery of government, and she and the other nine members of Fix Britain's advisory board could take their expertise properly into politics by standing for election as BrockFowlmere, Cambs Sir, Many of us would endorse Munira Mirza's observation that 'something is fundamentally broken about Britain and the way we are run', and applaud the ambition of Fix Britain to 'prepare a prospectus for government' by putting 'the right plan' in place. But the right plan will make little difference if our political system itself remains unreformed, for it is within that system that the fundamental weaknesses of government in the UK exist. These include the lack of professional competence; the inability to create, take and implement strategic decisions in a timely manner; the excessively confrontational nature of party politics; the lack of a genuinely democratic mandate; and the pandering of political parties to the whims of today's voters rather than the needs of future generations. Without profound and coherent reform of our political system I fear that any plans made by Fix Britain will fall on stony General APN CurrieWinchester Sir, Munira Mirza says the measure of success for her Fix Britain group will be 'a future in which no party stands for election without publishing a detailed and credible programme for government'. Yet within a short time of coming to power, any government will face issues entirely unforeseen during the programme-planning stage — Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, Israel-Gaza etc — that will render its detailed and credible programme obsolete. As Mike Tyson said: 'Everyone has a plan until I punch them in the mouth.'Lucian CampLondon NW1 Sir, Emily Fabricius says that 'grateful patients' are surely the biggest reward for doctors (letter, Jun 26). As a consultant diagnostic histopathologist in NHS labs for 39 years, diagnosing 5,000 patients' diseases/pathology each year, I received a total of two letters from grateful patients. Both were consultant colleagues. My motivation was nevertheless for patient welfare, even though their gratitude may not have been explicit. Diagnosticians are the hidden and unrecognised back-room doctors but are nevertheless John McCarthyRet'd consultant pathologist, Newcastle upon Tyne Sir, I couldn't agree more with Phillip Alderman about the importance of continuity of care (letter, Jun 25). Training to be a doctor, of whichever chosen speciality, is an apprenticeship — one in which the value of watching, absorbing, asking questions and being supervised by senior members of the 'team' should not be underestimated. The sense of belonging this brings, together with ownership of the patient and their journey, has been lost in the change to a shift pattern with reduced working hours and therefore the exposure to pearls of wisdom that you cannot glean from a book. The issue of continuous 'handovers' occurs not only in a hospital setting but also in GP practice, where almost exclusive part-time working contributes to loss of information and the inevitable Siobhan CarrollConsultant anaesthetist, Guildford Sir, Phillip Alderman correctly links continuity of medical care with patient safety. Two systematic reviews have found that continuity is associated with lower patient mortality. Given the usual emphasis on patient safety, the policy blindspot on continuity is Sir Denis Pereira GrayFormer chairman, Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; Exeter Sir, As a relative, friend and former nurse I have had the great privilege of sitting with people of many ages who are dying. Just being able to alleviate some of their distress and discomfort; holding their hand, moistening their lips and wiping their forehead. Praying, if it helps them, reading and softly playing their favourite music, remembering that hearing is the last sensation before consciousness is lost. And frequently reminding them how loved they are by everyone. That is my interpretation of assisted dying. Of course, this scenario is not always possible but I believe that, above all, love must be the dominant factor when you are comforting someone who is WickhamDorking, Surrey Sir, Dr MWM Upton speaks of the palliative doses of morphine that are given when a patient is in great distress towards the end of their life (letter, Jun 24). My mother and father, and recently my husband, were allowed to die in this way. The kindness and mercy of such a palliation were profoundly helpful to them, and to me, as I sat with them at the end of their CoshBournemouth Sir, Wes Streeting says there is no 'budget' for setting up an assisted dying service in a constricted NHS (news, Jun 26). He should surely balance against this cost the savings gained in not having to treat those patients who opt for assisted dying during the final six months of a terminal GrayIffley, Oxon Sir, I agree with all of Alice Thomson's excellent article (Jun 25; letters, Jun 26) save for its headline 'Too many women see childbirth as traumatic'. This should have read: 'Childbirth is too traumatic for too many women.' The young women of my daughter's cohort were all traumatised by their birthing experiences, none being straightforward or without significant, unplanned interventions. Several have cited it as their reason for adopting a 'one-child' policy — devastating for an already declining birthrate and an indictment of our maternity services. Wes Streeting should roll his sleeves up and sort this SlaterStowmarket, Suffolk Sir, Edward Lucas is right to highlight the cowardice of Nato ('Nato's Potemkin summit sends lethal signals', Jun 26). At a time when Ukraine needs to feel the support of Nato, the Nato summit was an appeasement of a maverick and unpredictable US president. It should have been a summit in which European nations reassured Ukraine of their commitment. At a time when civilian targets are being increasingly attacked in Ukraine, air support is essential. The attack on Dnipro train station on Tuesday was only a success because local units had run out of air defence missiles. Talk of increased Nato defence spending in the future is of no comfort here. I hope we don't live to regret Nato's EdwardsZhytomyr, Ukraine Sir, I beg to differ with Georgi Holley about Glastonbury festival (letter, Jun 24). I live within a short walk of Worthy Farm and find the disruption minimal. Yes, we have a proliferation of pop-up camping sites but only for two weeks before the festival. Our lanes 'designed for horses and traps' are regularly visited by overlarge lorries, so no change there. Most of the festival is on-site and provides a gloriously memorable week for those who attend. The atmosphere is one to treasure and it is a safe environment for young people to celebrate the end of their exams. My husband and I have volunteered there and regularly benefit from the free Sunday ticket given to locals. My children and grandchildren (ranging in age from 3 to 50) will join us this year and there will be something for all of us. I feel privileged to live in this glorious area and am glad to share it with others. Within a fortnight, all vestiges will have disappeared and we can return to our 'normally sleepy hollows'.Linda DaviesNorth Wootton, Somerset Sir, I take issue with Alan Ward's suggestion that 'there are many more for whom a life on benefits is always going to be preferable to getting out of bed every morning to go to a job that is likely to be thankless, tedious and not even financially beneficial' (letter, Jun 26). In my experience of being forced on to benefits because work was not available — or because men aged over 50 were not wanted — I found few who enjoyed the experience. Benefits are too low to 'live on', and those seeking work (whether fit or otherwise) wish for routine, company and the sense of worth that work gives, even when it is badly paid. It is just not possible to live on benefits. Many of us now struggle to survive on a pension, so how can anyone survive on benefits, which pay much less? If Mr Ward knows those who can do it there are many who would like to learn from HerriottBraintree, Essex Sir, Further to the letters on weight-loss drugs (Jun 26), I was in a school class with 32 other boys and I never knew anyone who was overweight. Of course, we had the perfect stimulus to avoid being overweight: it was called rationing. It worked, and as far as I know no one died from it. Maybe the government should start issuing ration books SharpScarborough, N Yorks Sir, My Oxford interviewers asked me to define a gentleman (letters, Jun 23 to 26). Frantically I cited Chaucer's Knight ('a verray, parfit gentil knyght') and stepping out of a lift to expel wind. It proved insufficiently intellectual for a scholarship but did sneak me in as a BrooksSutton Coldfield, W Midlands Sir, My late father, a dyed-in-the-wool Yorkshireman, once stated that a gentleman would always hold the door open for his wife when she brought the coal JordanTimperley, Cheshire Write to letters@
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Greens leader Larissa Waters on holding the Labor government to account — Australian Politics podcast
The new leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Larissa Waters from Queensland talks about her vision for the party, the challenges of a shifting political landscape, and why she believes this is a moment for bold reforms
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Members of British Jewish body suspended after criticising Israel to launch appeal
Thirty-six elected representatives to the UK's largest Jewish organisation are to appeal against disciplinary action taken against them after they criticised the Israeli government's operations in Gaza, and have said they remain 'deeply concerned' about the war. The Board of Deputies of British Jews announced on Tuesday that five of the group would be suspended for two years and 31 would be reprimanded for breaching its code of conduct after a two-month investigation. In a statement released on Thursday, the group said they would appeal after taking legal advice. They 'remain deeply concerned about the remaining hostages, the appalling humanitarian crisis and ongoing war in Gaza and the further deteriorating situation in the West Bank', they said. The five deputies who gave media interviews about an open letter that was published by the FT in April had received 'the enhanced punishment of effective expulsion from the board' as they were suspended for the remainder of their terms of office, the statement said. It was 'the biggest mass disciplinary action in the board's history, with over one in 10 elected board members disciplined', it added. The open letter caused a furore among British Jews amid growing divisions over the war and distress at the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. It said that 'Israel's soul [was] being ripped out' by military action that renewed in March, and that the signatories could no longer 'turn a blind eye or remain silent' on the issue. Statements issued by the Board of Deputies since the war began in response to atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 have been broadly supportive of the Israeli government's actions. The board launched an investigation after receiving complaints from other members. It stressed that it welcomed a diversity of opinions, debate and free speech but that its code of conduct required deputies not to misrepresent the position of the board and not to bring the institution into disrepute. The reprimanded group's statement said they stood 'in solidarity with the 70% of Israelis that consistently say they want an immediate end to the war in Gaza, which is the perceived price for the return of all the hostages'. Since writing the open letter, a lack of food and aid had 'engineered conditions of scarcity, which has seen hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Palestinians being killed week after week in the desperate scramble for survival that has been created'. There was 'no justification for the continuing misery and destruction being wrought on Gazan civilians'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Harriett Goldenberg, one of those suspended, said: 'So many Jews in the UK agreed with our sadly groundbreaking letter. We were inundated with thanks from those who said we represented them, and that we were their voice. It is tragic that voice is still needed.' Philip Goldenberg, another suspended deputy, said the board's executive was 'effectively expelling those who spoke inconvenient truth unto power. This is utterly contrary to the Jewish tradition that robust debate is an essential part of a civilised life, and feels more like Putin's Russia.'
