
The complete unknown who could wreck Labour
Several things were notably unusual about the gathering. The first was that it was hosted by the right wing thinktank Policy Exchange and its director, the Conservative peer Dean Godson, and had among its participants Munira Mirza, who ran the No 10 policy unit during Boris Johnson's premiership.
On November 6 last year – the day after Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in the US election – around 30 influential figures gathered for a closed-door symposium to discuss the future of the left in Britain, looking at everything from the aftermath of the August riots to how the left should tackle the rise of populism.
Also, there were two vocal critics of liberalism, the broadcaster Trevor Phillips and former Prospect editor David Goodhart, who now works for Policy Exchange. On hand, naturally, was Maurice Glasman of the Blue Labour campaign group, who preaches about 'conservative socialism' and says the party should 'represent the working class rather than be the party of the aspirant middle classes'.
The handful of participants who might still be described as of the left were former Labour MP Jon Cruddas, Sunder Katwala of the British Future think tank, and Blue Labour stalwart Jonathan Rutherford. But the gathering was expecting one particularly high-profile speaker – No 10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, perhaps the most influential man in government, and one whose voice is rarely heard.
What he would have said about Keir Starmer's plans to tackle populism and their shared vision for the future of the left, alas, remains a mystery. McSweeney appeared in the room during a prolonged monologue from Glasman, and after surveying those present for a time, quietly slipped out without saying his piece.
Whether he was simply bored by Glasman's overly long remarks, or whether he realised that comments from No 10's chief of staff the day after a Trump victory might be unwise, we will never know.
Such intrigue tends to follow the enigmatic McSweeney everywhere. It was once perceived as a strength. But now, with Labour battered by local election defeats, tanking in national opinion polls and apparently trying to resist the surge of Reform with what seem to be illiberal and ill-considered moves on immigration, the focus is firmly on McSweeney. Having taken credit for election success last July, he is being blamed squarely for almost all of what has come since.
The reason is that McSweeney has risen to an astonishing level of power and influence with the government, not least through the brutally effective removal of internal rivals, such as his predecessor, Sue Gray. His control over Starmer's operation – and allegedly over Starmer himself – has already been chronicled in a book and seems likely to feature in many more.
He follows the Dominic Cummings mould of the campaign chief who goes on to run the No 10 operation; something that did not end well for either Cummings or his PM, Boris Johnson. But what McSweeney actually thinks remains mostly unknown, even to those within the government.
Despite being invisible to most voters, the 48-year-old Cork native's rise to the chief of staff job is fairly well documented. His origin story is that he helped to run the campaign to dislodge the BNP from east London and retain Labour's seats there, when the far right party was in the ascendancy locally – and did this largely by focusing on services: getting the bins emptied reliably and on time.
From there, he went on to run Liz Kendall's ill-fated 2015 leadership campaign (she finished a distant fourth, with less than 5% of the vote) before founding the think tank Labour Together, which essentially served as the internal resistance to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
As the coalition that grew about Labour Together began to look for candidates who might succeed Corbyn once his leadership was done – Owen Smith's disastrous 2016 challenge showed the perils of going too early on that front – Starmer's name eventually emerged, and McSweeney backed him. He served for a time as Starmer's chief of staff in opposition, but was shifted aside in 2021, reportedly against his will but without too much protest.
He then served as Labour's campaign chief and is credited with its strategy in 2024 to focus on marginal 'red wall' seats, rather than piling up liberal and left wing votes in safe Labour seats. After a relentless and aggressive public briefing war against Gray, Starmer's first chief of staff, over her competence, pay, handling of issues and more, McSweeney returned to the role last October.
He is now more than six months into the job, and they have not been happy ones. Though Starmer is often praised for his statesmanship, his personal numbers are under water and Labour has not led in any of the last 16 opinion polls. The strategy that won the general election appears to be in tatters, with Reform taking hold in the red wall and left wing Labour voters who do not like the McSweeney-driven tough talk on immigration and benefit cheats peeling off to the Greens and Liberal Democrats.
Obsession with the aides around the prime minister is a perennial habit of the media and dates back decades – as the New European's own Alastair Campbell knows only too well. But senior Labour figures insist things really are different when it comes to McSweeney.
Campbell, they note, was surrounded by figures of similar stature, even if not all of them were as well known to the public. Tony Blair was also advised by Jonathan Powell (then No 10 chief of staff, now serving as national security adviser), Sally Morgan, Anji Hunter and Peter Mandelson.
Since Gray was ousted, few advisers around Starmer have had anything like the clout or connections of McSweeney.
Stuart Ingham, who heads the policy unit, enjoys a close relationship with Starmer, but there are rumours of tension between McSweeney and Liz Lloyd, recently brought in as Starmer's director of policy delivery and innovation. Neither, though, attracts anything like the level of internal speculation or conversation as McSweeney. Now the talk is overground; Nigel Farage mentioned him often on the local election campaign trail, with the narrative that Starmer was his puppet.
Part of the problem is that McSweeney seems to do everything himself: he was the campaigns director, but now occupies the job most directly involved in delivering and executing policy. He is known to brief select figures in the media himself – rather than leaving it to the comms team – and what McSweeney is reportedly thinking often appears in the pages of the newspaper.
The media is, in fact, often the only way to know what McSweeney is thinking, according to No 10 staff and those who have seen him briefing the cabinet. When McSweeney presents, he comes with a slide deck and notes, reads from his prepared script, and then stops. The rest of the time, he will be listening rather than speaking. If compelled to offer a few words, he speaks extremely softly, and is much more likely to ask a question than offer an opinion.
Far more people guess what McSweeney is thinking than ever hear it from the man himself. He is believed to be behind No 10's ambivalence – sometimes bordering on antipathy – towards net zero. 'He talks a lot about immigration,' according to one senior Labour source. He has taken his bins strategy from east London and transformed it into a plan to tackle Reform by fixing potholes.
Some are beginning to worry that the silence isn't serving to hide the moves of a master strategist, but is instead masking the absence of a plan – and validating the fears of a Reform-obsessed government making policy via focus group.
There is mounting alarm as to whether McSweeney is more fired up by battles within the Labour Party than outside it. He was a core foot soldier in the internal resistance to Corbyn during his leadership, and was behind efforts to stamp out dissent once Starmer won. He helped to oust Gray. He and Pat McFadden were widely believed to be behind briefing wars against Ed Miliband and his £28bn net zero investment after Labour lost the Uxbridge by-election.
Labour's only cabinet departure so far – transport secretary Louise Haigh – was a Miliband ally, dumped over a spent criminal conviction of which Starmer had long been aware. This string of internal and internecine conflicts – and the departures caused by them – have not escaped the notice of Labour's backbenchers. 'Almost immediately after we were elected, the scale of off-record briefing and factionalism felt more like the dying days of a government rather than an insurgent new one,' says one.
McSweeney's love of a scrap might be making him the subject of increasingly waspish and frustrated conversations within Labour – where MPs and staffers alike despair at how a government with a landslide majority feels lost less than a year after an election – but others feel he may just be unlucky to be a lightning rod.
There are few other aides with any kind of media profile, or who are getting attention among MPs, and since the speculation has to go somewhere, it is all heading in his direction, they suggest. Others counter that the resurgence of the culturally conservative Blue Labour faction is coming from somewhere – and while reports that Glasman and McSweeney are talking are said to be incorrect, he is believed to be in regular contact with the more reasonable face of the movement, Jonathan Rutherford.
The biggest danger to McSweeney, though, is hubris – at least according to several of those around him, more than one of whom said they were keen to see him stay involved in the operation, though perhaps in a more curtailed role. All point to Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund's book Get In: The Inside Story of Labour Under Starmer.
McSweeney did not speak on the record to Maguire or Pogrund for the book, but manages still to be quoted at length in it through recollections of his remarks at the dining table of Roger Liddle, head of the Labour think tank Progressive Britain (Wes Streeting is rumoured to have bought a blue plaque for that table to honour its supposed role in the party's political resurrection).
The book paints McSweeney as the pivotal figure of Labour's rise to power – even more so than Starmer himself. One analogy, offered unprompted by several people in the book – so it must have originated from somewhere – was that the PM was being allowed to sit at the front of London's driverless Docklands Light Railway trains pretending to be in control, while McSweeney steered remotely.
The quote may not have come directly from McSweeney, but people were aghast that it was ever used – regarding it as terrible for Starmer and even worse for McSweeney; the kind of thing that, if said at all, should come out years after power, not one year into government. Starmer is famously 'very fucking competitive', according to one close confidant, and will not have appreciated his apparent demotion to frontman of convenience one iota.
Ultimately, McSweeney risks an Icarus narrative. He is the campaign chief, he is now directly responsible for the delivery of government policy, and he still seems to brief the media too – three deeply demanding jobs with often contradictory goals.
Those around him note that if he claims the credit for 2024's electoral victory, he must surely deserve a share of the blame for the party's current calamities. As Labour lines up to offer more cuts, more austerity, and little in the way of good news – leading to reports that McSweeney and Rachel Reeves are now also at odds – No 10 is running out of people to blame.
A reshuffle and relaunch is likely to follow soon, but unless Labour's fortunes change, its architect faces being reshuffled himself.
For now, no one knows what McSweeney is thinking. The danger for him is that they grow tired of waiting to find out.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves sacrifices defence and police for NHS splurge
Rachel Reeves has been accused of sacrificing police and defence spending in favour of a record handout for the NHS. Police chiefs warned that Labour's flagship election promises on reducing crime could be missed after the Chancellor set out her spending review on Wednesday, while former military leaders criticised her 'totally inadequate' plans for the Armed Forces. Instead, the Chancellor prioritised a 'record' funding boost for the NHS, which will now get an extra £29 billion a year compared with 2023-24, despite the lack of a detailed reform plan. Economists said tax rises in the autumn Budget were now inevitable. Treasury documents revealed that the Government was already forecasting a 5 per cent increase in council tax each year until 2028, meaning an extra £395 for the average Band D property. Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow home secretary, said: 'Despite the biggest tax rises for a generation, this Labour Government has made the wrong choices and is leaving our country's national security at risk. 'The military are not receiving the money they need to face a dangerous and uncertain world and it is likely we will not see the record police numbers I delivered as police minister last year being maintained.' Boris Johnson also told The Telegraph that Labour's 'feeble' spending on defence would leave Britain at the mercy of Russia. The spending review set out three years of day-to-day spending and four years of capital investment, with an extra £300 billion spent after money-raising measures last autumn. Ms Reeves told MPs: 'I have made my choices. These are my choices. These are the choices of the British people.' Writing for the Telegraph, she added: 'We are keeping our country safe.' But there was immediate scrutiny of the Chancellor's priorities, which Sir Mel Stride, the Conservative shadow chancellor, described as a 'spend now, tax later'. There were also accusations of questionable accounting as critics asked whether Ms Reeves was being fully transparent on spending levels. Health spending will rise by £17.2 billion a year between 2025-26 and 2029, almost 90 per cent of total additional day-to-day spending, leaving budgets in real terms flat or falling per person for most other Whitehall departments. The real budgets for daily running costs for defence, including the Armed Forces, will rise by just 0.7 per cent per year over the next three years. That compares with a day-to-day budget increase of 3 per cent for the NHS. However, Ms Reeves's cash injection for tanks, warships and military bases will mean the overall defence budget rises by an average of 3.8 per cent until the next election. The Resolution Foundation said the surge in health spending would 'leave little to rebuild other public services'. The think-tank described increases for defence and education as 'small'. Extra funding for the police is expected to amount to just £200 million in real terms by the end of the decade. The policing budget will rise by 1.7 per cent a year. Police chiefs criticised a Treasury suggestion it was increasing by 2.3 per cent, noting that the figure included a past boost to cover the National Insurance increase. Documents released alongside the spending review suggested that higher council tax police precepts would form part of 'additional income' used to increase police budgets, alongside funds from central government. Senior officers warned that the lack of funds puts at risk Labour promises to deploy an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, as well as halve violence against women and girls and reduce knife crime. Gavin Stephens, the chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council, said: 'It is clear that this is an incredibly challenging outcome for policing. 'In real terms, today's increase in funding will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases for officers and staff ... the amount falls far short of what is required to fund the Government's ambitions and maintain our existing workforce.' Tiff Lynch, the acting chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: 'When this Government came in, they said they had the police's back. It feels like we have been incredibly let down.' The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said that 'the funding announced is not enough to deliver the Government's Safer Streets mission'. Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, also claimed it would mean cuts in the number of Metropolitan Police officers. He called the funding 'insufficient'. Earlier this year, it was announced that defence spending would rise from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent. However, new plans for the 2028-29 financial year show the Government will not go further, despite the stated 'ambition' to reach 3 per cent in the early 2030s. It threatens to undermine Britain's expected endorsement of an even more stretching 3.5 per cent target, which is set to be adopted at a Nato summit this month. Earlier this week, Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, warned that failure to invest in defence would mean 'you could still have the NHS … the pension system, but you better learn to speak Russian'. Mr Johnson, the former prime minister, told The Telegraph that the lack of new defence funding beyond February's uplift was a 'wasted' opportunity. He said: 'My view is that this Government is completely failing to show the leadership that is needed to defend Britain and defend Europe. Labour are congenitally hostile to defence spending. Their grass roots are still basically Corbynistas who think Russia is a great thing. Those views are still highly influential in Labour.' The Treasury also came under fire for allegedly massaging its numbers after Ms Reeves confirmed intelligence services spending would be included as defence spending, taking the figure to 2.6 per cent. Sir Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, said: 'Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. 'They have now folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along.' Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, said the figures presented on Wednesday were 'totally inadequate' and warned that the UK would be 'embarrassed' at the Nato summit in the Hague later this month. By contrast, the NHS was one of the big beneficiaries of the spending review. Whereas the defence spending uplift largely came in capital investment, the health budget rise was in day-to-day spending. An extra £29 billion a year for the running of the health service was announced, with Ms Reeves promising 'more appointments', 'more doctors' and 'more scanners'. Another winner was Lord Hermer, the Attorney General criticised for defending alleged terrorists before he took the job. A long-standing friend of Sir Keir Starmer, his law officers were given a spending increase of 5.3 per cent, although the rise was small in cash terms. The Chancellor defended her approach in an article for The Telegraph. She said: 'I have announced record investment in the NHS, with £29 billion more a year to improve patient care. 'But let me be clear: this investment comes on the condition of reform. It's not enough to spend money on a broken system. It is about investing to reform services so they are fit for the modern century.' Ms Reeves insisted she was a defender of national security, writing: 'We are keeping our country safe with an £11 billion real-terms increase in defence spending, making sure our Armed Forces have the equipment they need. And we are boosting funding for our security and intelligence agencies, so they have the tools they need to respond to new threats.' But Sir Mel countered in his own article for The Telegraph: 'Rachel Reeves confirmed that she is a 'spend today, tax tomorrow' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course in the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously?' There were other claims of questionable accounting. The Government vowed to eventually find £14 billion a year of efficiency savings. But a document some 50 pages long detailing claims by each department on how those savings would be made included loose promises such as better use of artificial intelligence. The Chancellor also pledged to end the 'costly' use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this parliament. However, the Home Office will still be paying £2.5 billion a year by then to support migrants.


The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Fact check: 2025 spending review claims
We've taken a look at some of the key claims. How much is spending increasing by? At the start of her speech Ms Reeves announced that 'total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms'. That headline figure doesn't tell the full story, however. Firstly, 2.3% is the average annual real-terms growth in total departmental budgets between 2023/24 and 2028/29. That means it includes spending changes that have already been implemented, for both the current (2025/26) and previous (2024/25) financial years. The average annual increase between this year and 2028/29 is 1.5%. Therefore, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said, 'most departments will have larger real-terms budgets at the end of the Parliament than the beginning, but in many cases much of that extra cash will have arrived by April'. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 2.3% figure includes both day-to-day (Resource DEL) and investment (Capital DEL) spending. Capital spending (which funds things like infrastructure projects) is increasing by 3.6% a year on average in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30, and by 1.8% between 2025/26 and 2029/30. Day-to-day departmental budgets meanwhile are seeing a smaller average annual real-terms increase – of 1.7% between 2023/24 and 2028/29 and 1.2% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. Which departments are the winners and losers? Ms Reeves touted substantial spending increases in some areas (for example, the 3% rise in day-to-day NHS spending in England), but unsurprisingly her statement did not focus on areas where spending will decrease. Changes to Government spending are not uniform across all departments, and alongside increases in spending on things like the NHS, defence and the justice system, a number of Government departments will see their budgets decrease in real terms. Departments facing real-terms reductions in overall and day-to-day spending include the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (this factors in reductions in aid spending announced earlier this year to offset increased defence spending), the Home Office (although the Government says the Home Office's budget grows in real terms if a planned reduction in asylum spending is excluded) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Did the Conservatives leave a '£22 billion black hole'? Ms Reeves made a claim we've heard a number of times since it first surfaced in July 2024 – that the previous Conservative government left a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances'. That figure comes from a Treasury audit that forecast a £22 billion overspend in departmental day-to-day spending in 2024/25, but the extent to which it was unexpected or inherited is disputed. The IFS said last year that some of the pressures the Government claimed contributed to this so-called 'black hole' could have been anticipated, but others did 'indeed seem to be greater than could be discerned from the outside'. An Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) review of its March 2024 forecast found an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury at that point in time, but were not known to the OBR as it prepared its forecast. It's true that this review didn't confirm the £22 billion figure, but it also did not necessarily prove that it was incorrect, because Labour's figure included pressures which were identified after the OBR prepared its forecast and so were beyond the scope of the OBR's review. We've written more about how the Government reached the figure of £22 billion in our explainer on this topic. How big is the increase in NHS appointments? Ms Reeves took the opportunity to congratulate Health Secretary Wes Streeting for delivering 'three-and-a-half million extra' hospital appointments in England. The Government has previously celebrated this as a 'massive increase', particularly in light of its manifesto pledge to deliver an extra two million appointments a year. Ms Reeves' claim was broadly accurate – data published last month shows there were 3.6 million additional appointments between July 2024 and February 2025 compared to the previous year. But importantly that increase is actually smaller than the 4.2 million rise that happened in the equivalent period the year before, under the Conservative government – as data obtained by Full Fact under the Freedom of Information Act and published last month revealed. What do announcements on asylum hotels, policing, nurseries and more mean for the Government's pledges? Ms Reeves made a number of announcements that appear to directly impact the delivery of several pre-existing Labour pledges, many of which we're already monitoring in our Government Tracker. (We'll be updating the tracker to reflect these announcements in due course, and reviewing how we rate progress on pledges as necessary). The Chancellor announced an average increase in 'police spending power' of 2.3% a year in real terms over the course of the review period, which she said was the equivalent of an additional £2 billion. However, as police budgets comprise a mix of central Government funding and local council tax receipts, some of this extra spending is expected to be funded by increases in council tax precepts. Ms Reeves said this funding would help the Government achieve its commitment of 'putting 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles in England and Wales', a pledge we're monitoring here. The spending review also includes funding of 'almost £370 million across the next four years to support the Government's commitment to deliver school-based nurseries across England', which Ms Reeves said would help the Government deliver its pledge to have 'a record number of children being school-ready'. The Chancellor also committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, with an additional £200 million announced to 'accelerate the transformation of the asylum system'. When we looked last month at progress on the Government's pledge to 'end asylum hotels' we said it appeared off track, as figures showed the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was higher at the end of March 2025 than it was when Labour came into Government.


ITV News
3 hours ago
- ITV News
Treasury technicalities plus party politics bring more attention for the North East
The Chancellor's big ticket items for the North East came early - which is somewhere between encouraging and disconcerting when we're talking about public transport projects. Around £2.8 billion from the Spending Review was announced last Wednesday for infrastructure in our region, including extending the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington. By comparison, Rachel Reeves' big speech today was a bit of an anticlimax. In the small print afterwards, we found that areas of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Stockton that 'have been too easily left behind' are to receive up to £20m over the next decade for things like improving parks and tackling graffiti. The government are calling them 'trailblazer neighbourhoods', which sounds a bit like a spoof initiative from The Thick Of It, and a lot like the Conservative governments' various funding pots for local regeneration schemes. The Tories talked a lot about what they called 'levelling up', with mixed results. Labour have talked less about tackling regional inequalities, but have made a technical tweak that might make a big difference. They've revised the Treasury's 'Green Book', used to judge value-for-money for investment. London and the South East normally deliver bigger bang for your buck, so have often been prioritised for new infrastructure. The government says: no more, wider impacts will be considered, so regions like ours will be able to compete. Despite some government departments having their budgets squeezed when it comes to day-to-day spending, there is money around for investment due to another tweak to government rules, around borrowing. Rachel Reeves made a passing promise today to set out the government's plans for 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' in the coming weeks. Campaigners say it should mean a high speed rail line from Liverpool to Hull, and up to the North East. It's hard not to be sceptical, given it's been talked about in many forms over many years. The Chancellor spoke quite a bit today about the government being focused on ensuring there's economic growth, and people have opportunity, in every part of the country. She also dedicated a fair amount of time to attacking Reform UK, reflecting the threat they pose to Labour, after their local election successes in places like County Durham. The Chancellor has been accused of doom and gloom in her first 11 months in office, focusing on what she claims has been a horrible inheritance from the Conservatives. With this Spending Review she tried to change gear and set out a more positive plan for the years ahead. The North East will hope to play a big part.