Internal Conflicts Raise Questions About Starmer Administration's Stability

“These past 24 hours haven’t represented our most successful period in office,” a senior government figure confessed to me, following reciprocal accusations, some public but many more private.

The situation originated with unattributed briefings to journalists, including myself, that Keir Starmer would resist any leadership challenges - and that cabinet members, including Wes Streeting, were planning potential contests.

Streeting affirmed his allegiance to the prime minister and demanded dismissal of those responsible for the briefings, while the PM declared any attacks on his ministers “unacceptable.”

Questions regarding whether the PM authorized the initial briefings to identify potential challengers - and whether those responsible acted with his awareness, or approval, became additional considerations.

Would an investigation into information leaks occur? Would terminations result from what Streeting characterized as a “poisonous” Number 10 operation?

What objectives were those close to the prime minister pursuing?

I have conducted numerous consultations to reconstruct actual events and assess the implications for Keir Starmer’s administration.

Two fundamental realities underpin these developments: the government lacks popularity, as does the prime minister.

These circumstances fuel the continuous discussions I encounter regarding Labour’s response strategies and potential implications for Sir Keir Starmer’s Downing Street tenure duration.

But let’s examine the aftermath of these mutual accusations.

The prime minister and Health Secretary Wes Streeting communicated by telephone Wednesday evening to reconcile differences.

I understand Sir Keir apologized to Streeting during their brief conversation and they agreed to further discussion “shortly.”

They didn’t address Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s chief of staff - who has become a focal point for criticism from diverse sources including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch publicly to Labour figures at various levels privately.

Broadly acknowledged as the architect of Labour’s electoral landslide and the political strategist behind Sir Keir’s rapid ascent since transitioning from Director of Public Prosecutions, McSweeney also faces early criticism when the Downing Street apparatus appears to falter, stumble, or completely malfunction.

He isn’t responding to commentary requests, while some demand his dismissal.

His detractors argue that in a Downing Street environment where McSweeney exercises significant political judgment authority, he should accept responsibility for these developments.

Other administration insisters maintain no Downing Street personnel orchestrated any briefing against cabinet ministers, following Wes Streeting’s statement that those responsible should be terminated.

Within No 10, there’s implicit recognition that the health secretary managed his scheduled Wednesday morning interviews with dignity, competence, and humor - despite confronting persistent questions about his ambitions due to those briefings occurring hours earlier.

For certain Labour parliamentarians, he demonstrated agility and communication skills they wish the Prime Minister possessed.

It also likely attracted notice that some briefings intended to reinforce the prime minister ultimately created opportunities for Streeting to echo colleagues describing Downing Street as toxic and sexist while demanding termination of those responsible.

What a complicated situation.

This video can not be played

“I remain loyal” - Wes Streeting rejects leadership challenge speculation against Starmer

The prime minister, I’m informed, feels “furious” about these developments and is investigating their origins.

From No 10’s perspective, both intensity and focus appear to have deviated from intentions.

First, they possibly naively expected the briefings would generate some media coverage, but not comprehensive headline dominance.

The coverage proved substantially more extensive than anticipated.

I would suggest that a prime minister permitting such communications via supporters, less than eighteen months following an electoral landslide victory, would inevitably dominate front pages and lead news bulletins – as indeed occurred.

Secondly, regarding emphasis, they insist they hadn’t anticipated such extensive focus on Wes Streeting, subsequently amplified by his pre-scheduled Wednesday morning interviews.

Others, it must be acknowledged, concluded this was precisely the intention.

These represent additional days where government Labour members discuss learning lessons while backbenchers express irritation at what they perceive as absurd theatrics they must first observe then attempt to justify.

They would prefer avoiding both.

However, a government and prime minister whose anxiety about their situation exceeds their substantial parliamentary majority will likely experience similar episodes repeatedly, unless they can rapidly address the profound unpopularity driving these events.