Briefing war spotlights relationships between three of Labour’s most senior figures | Labour

According to Gordon Brown’s onetime enforcer, one way to eliminate someone who challenges leadership is to push them over the edge.

Damian McBride, in his account of his time at the center of power, wrote that New Labour’s darling David Miliband “tended to treat the rebellion like a reluctant swimmer entering the sea at Skegness”.

“It made sense to push him in from the beginning on the grounds that he would run straight for his towel and not try again for at least six months,” McBride wrote.

Some insiders believe this was the strategy behind the extraordinary decision by Keir Starmer’s closest allies to accuse Wes Streeting of leading a sophisticated plot to replace him as prime minister.

The flaw in this plan – obvious to anyone who has even fleeting contact with Streeting – is that the health secretary, rather than reluctantly putting his foot down, embraces the chance to position himself for leadership with the confidence and enthusiasm of an Olympic diver.

The extraordinary briefing battle at the top of the government has put the spotlight on the personal relationships between the government’s three most senior figures: his chief of staff Starmer, Morgan McSweeney and Streeting, who many in the Labor Party believe will be their next prime minister.

The conventional wisdom in Westminster has long been that Starmer was a tool for McSweeney’s political project to wrest control of Labor away from the hard left, turning the leader into a Neil Kinnock-type figure who would eventually hand Streeting the keys to the castle.

Others argue that this was once true, and even if not everyone agrees it is true, Starmer and McSweeney are now inseparable and their success or failure is mutually assured. The prime minister remained steadfastly loyal to his closest adviser, ignoring other senior aides and ministers at every critical juncture.

However, developments in the last few months have led to a rift between Starmer and McSweeney; So much so that many people question how long Chief of Staff No. 10 can remain in office. Whether he was right or not, he became the bogeyman for some ministers and MPs who blamed him for poor decisions and questioned his judgment and ability to lead the government.

Streeting’s decision to launch a full-frontal attack hours before he was due to embark on his morning broadcast tour is the latest example. The health secretary gave a confident performance, saying the briefings against him were that he spent too much time watching Celebrity Traitors and should switch to Countryfile. Labor MPs and aides agree Streeting has emerged in a stronger position than before.

As one government aide put it: “From a ‘strategic big brain’ point of view – how did you think this would go? You thought Wes Streeting, of all people, would collapse on the morning round and make docile promises of loyalty and be seen as a hypocritical snake by the PLP.” [parliamentary Labour party]? They gave him the best position he could hope for [by saying]’Let’s take on the fight where Wes is at his weakest on breakfast TV.’

A former government aide added: “It’s like an elephant fighting a shark and choosing to do it in the middle of the ocean.”

There are competing theories about when Starmer’s strategists decided to cross the line and condemn plots against him; Some cite his decision to drop off a drink for senior aide Matt Faulding in early November as an “ignition” moment for leadership speculation.

The Prime Minister’s allies have been on high alert for several weeks and have expressed concern that any challenge would worsen an already precarious economic situation and that Starmer’s successor would inevitably turn left, damaging relations with Donald Trump and the EU. Labor MPs ridiculed many of these arguments.

What is clear is that growing fears of an impending threat were shared with the prime minister over the weekend and a coordinated decision was taken to eliminate any difficulties.

Several senior strategists now claim the aim was never to put all the blame on Streeting, but to make it clear that Starmer has plenty of fight in him. But from the outside it looked like a paranoid overreaction.

Some even claimed that the move was designed by McSweeney to benefit Streeting; however, this theory received little attention from insiders. A well-placed senior official who worked with McSweeney said: “I never heard Morgan say a good word about Wes. He thought he was a loudmouth (promises about the NHS) and no pants (zero delivery ability).”

Both McSweeney and other notable figures who worked with Streeting say they are not cut from the same cloth. “I always felt that although Morgan was with Peter Mandelson, she wasn’t with Wes politically, and Mandelson wanted Wes too,” a senior Labor aide said. “Wes has always been more of a classic Blai fan than Morgan,” said someone in the front row.

The same pioneer predicted that when push comes to shove, “Morgan will be more loyal to Keir than Keir is to Morgan.” In recent months Starmer has made some interventions, including within the cabinet, to defend his chief of staff, but there are signs that the relationship between them is no longer the same.

A No 10 source said relations had deteriorated since Starmer’s “strangers island” speech, which he publicly resisted. The Prime Minister is said to have been shaken by criticism from close friends outside politics about the language he used, with MPs saying it echoed Enoch Powell.

This is said to be the point at which Starmer became convinced he had been given bad advice, and it was McSweeney’s team who pushed for tougher language on immigration.

Starmer has since privately expressed his frustration with his aides’ failure to protect him from scandal; such as Jeffrey Epstein’s close relationship with Mandelson, whose appointment as US ambassador was supported by McSweeney.

“Many people have tried to drive a wedge between Keir and Morgan and it has always failed,” a No 10 source said. “But this feels different.”