The first rule of being a political adviser is to stay out of the headlines. Sir Keir Starmer’s appointment of Sue Gray as his chief of staff made news. However, since Labour’s general election victory, she has been the subject of intense and largely negative media scrutiny. During her time in office, Ms Gray stirred discontent by tightly controlling access to Sir Keir, modelling her approach, it seemed, after Jonathan Powell, the influential chief of staff behind Tony Blair’s inner circle, who wielded enough power to determine the fate of cabinet ministers. With the public mood souring on Sir Keir, Ms Gray was made a scapegoat.
Voters are unlikely to be impressed by a reset that the prime minister was forced into. Downing Street’s new chief of staff is Morgan McSweeney, who clashed with Ms Gray, as did his supporters among the ranks of Labour’s functionaries. It’s not hard to draw conclusions about the changing of the guard. As lawyers often ask: cui bono (who benefits)? Mr McSweeney, who played a pivotal role in orchestrating Labour’s election victory, worked closely with his ally in the Cabinet Office, Pat McFadden. Mr McFadden has been spearheading efforts to create a unit in Downing Street focused on delivering Sir Keir’s five missions: growth, the NHS, green energy, education, and crime reduction.
Reports indicated that Ms Gray was sceptical about the proposed unit. Critics argue that while the unit aims to bring together ministers and outside experts to pursue government priorities, it risks sidelining traditional cabinet committees and slowing down the decision-making process. Mr McSweeney and Mr McFadden, both committed Blairites, are pushing a plan that echoes the 1997 reforms that prompted the historian Lord Hennessy to warn of the decline of cabinet government. He quoted one Whitehall insider as saying “to be a minister outside the inner loop is hell. To be a civil servant is impossible”.
The reported views of Ms Gray chime with such an assessment, unsurprising maybe, given her time in Mr Blair’s Cabinet Office. Every government strives to meet its objectives while shaping public opinion through effective media management. Mr McSweeney’s appointment signals an acknowledgment from Sir Keir that a sharper political instinct is needed in No 10. However, it would be naive to believe that personnel changes alone can solve Labour’s challenges. The party’s weakness lies in its lack of a cohesive political vision.
After 100 days in office, the government has yet to provide a meaningful analysis of why Britain finds itself in such a dire situation, or what concrete actions are needed to address it. This would require holding accountable the individuals and institutions responsible. Without a plan, Labour has found itself pushing instead for cuts in public services and investment. This is precisely the opposite of what Labour voters elected Sir Keir to do.
In the apt phrase of the historian David Edgerton, Britain is in “a bad way”. Yet Labour’s response has been conspicuously absent. Where is the plan to address the deep inequalities in income, wealth and geography – not just for the sake of fairness, but to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the economy? Labour’s disdain for the Conservatives is genuine, particularly when contrasting its commitment to the NHS with the neglect shown by the Tories. But to govern effectively, the party needs to do more than attack the last government; it requires a critical analysis of the broader economic and social landscape.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
