Starmer’s Spinelessness Lands Him In An All New Scandal!

Right, so the question of who exactly is running the country is not a question that should require debate frankly, Keir Starmer was the leader of the largest party in the UK last year, Labour winning the election, therefore he became Prime Minister. But its been a question for quite some time given he appears to require having his hand held at all times when making political decisions and of course he swings rapidly from one position to another, implying little to no input on his part, therefore who is making the decisions that affect all of us, if not the mandated, elected leader of the Labour Party? Well there’s been a lot of debate over this, but it seems we finally have a definitive answer at last, because as a result of an expose by Ailbhe Rea in Bloomberg, it very much appears that the person dictating the direction the direction this country is taking and the decisions being made in this government, very much is the unelected, not widely known at all but seriously needs to be Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s version of what Dominic Cummings was to Boris Johnson and it is the very worst of Labour policy that appears to be McSweeney’s doing. But why has this come out now? Has McSweeney outlasted his usefulness and this is hanging him out to dry, or is at least one mainstream media outlet actually showing they can investigate and at least one of their journalists can expose the truth?
Right, so Starmer’s Labour Party finds itself gripped in a mess, a scandal all of Starmer’s doing, because frankly if he was a more capable leader, capable at all in fact, capable of making decisions, capable of actual leadership, this isn’t a mess he’d even be in, but instead his apparent ineptitude now sees Labour being battered by a storm of internal disarray and well, confusion for all of us really, so lets try and make some sense of it.
Recent revelations, particularly in this damning report from Bloomberg, have exposed a power dynamic within Labour that raises serious questions about who is truly steering the party—and by extension, the country. According to the report, Keir Starmer, the elected leader and now Prime Minister, wishes to actually scrap the cruel and widely condemned two-child benefit cap to demonstrate Labour’s seriousness in tackling child poverty. It is a deeply unpopular policy, now 8 years old, that isn’t Labour at all and is keeping kids in poverty and as a result many Labour members, if they still are members, absolute hate it, it is everything that Labour is meant to oppose. Yet his chief of staff, his election campaign manager from running to be Labour leader to every election since, Morgan McSweeney, a completely unelected and largely invisible figure to the public, not like Cummings who enjoyed attention, this guy shuns it, lurks in the shadows so to speak, is allegedly the force stopping this change. S the implications are absolutely horrific: the unelected McSweeney, it seems, is dictating government policy, overruling elected ministers, even the Prime Minister and silencing internal dissent.
Therefore there seems to be a case to contend that Keir Starmer is not in charge of either his party or his government. It is Morgan McSweeney, operating behind closed doors, who appears to call the shots. If true, and its been widely speculated for a long time now, that this is the case, then it undermines not only Labour’s credibility as a democratic force but also the broader promise of British parliamentary democracy. At a time when the country desperately needs leadership rooted in compassion, principle, and public accountability, the sort of stuff we used to expect from Labour once upon a time, the founding principles it was built on, what it appears to be getting instead is a politics dominated by strategic spin and autocratic control that’d make the Tories blush and is right up there with Nigel Farage basically calling all the shots where Reform UK is concerned.
The two-child benefit cap, was introduced by the Tories in 2017 and has been one of the most egregious welfare policies of the austerity era. It is plain evil. It limits child benefit payments to the first two children in a family, punishing the most vulnerable families for having more than two children. The argument put out to support this was to stop feckless parents having large families, the media is great a painting a picture of absolute nonsense, because the truth is it just punishes kids for being born, who had no no say in the matter. Multiple studies, including from the Child Poverty Action Group, have demonstrated the cap's devastating impact on child poverty. It has become a potent symbol of economic cruelty, widely condemned across the political spectrum—including, apparently, by Keir Starmer himself.
Yet Labour’s position on this issue has been nothing short of schizophrenic. Last year, as you might remember, seven Labour MPs were suspended for voting against the cap after being whipped to support it. Now it emerges, according to Bloomberg’s reporting, that Starmer actually agrees with them—but apparently is being either overruled by McSweeney or doesn’t dare challenge him. I’m minded to remember that both Zarah Sultana and John McDonnell remain suspended from this event, so if true this suspension that they continue to endure is actually one Starmer supports. So this raises a disturbing question doesn’t it? If Starmer genuinely believes in lifting the cap, why did he allow his party to discipline MPs who stood for the very policy he supports? The answer, it seems, lies in his complete dependence on McSweeney’s guidance. That and it was an opportunity to clobber the left of his party who he hates, but either way, this is not leadership. It is utter cowardice masquerading as pragmatism that is punishing hundreds of thousands of kids, keeping them growing up in poverty.
So who is Morgan McSweeney, and why does he wield such immense power over government policy? It’s a question I’ll reiterate periodically, because this guy hides behind the scenes and more people need to know about him. McSweeney is Starmer’s chief of staff, a director of strategy, a behind-the-scenes operator with no electoral mandate and virtually no public profile. Yet, by all accounts, he functions as Labour’s unelected kingmaker, the architect of its electoral messaging, and—more importantly to all of us—apparently the gatekeeper of its policy platform.
Labour insiders have long known McSweeney’s influence runs deep, but the Bloomberg report marks the first time the public has been confronted so directly with the implications of that influence. What does it say about the state of our democracy when a man who has never stood for public office can singlehandedly overrule the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on a policy that could lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty?
It goes further than just Starmer. Even Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves and DWP boss Liz Kendall, have apparently both also previously expressed support for ending the cap, have reportedly backed down after McSweeney said no. Claims that McSweeney has the power to block worked-up plans by elected ministers have been vociferously denied by Labour sources—but the cap remains in place doesn’t it? So surely the conclusion writes itself.
There’s another take we can address here though. In regards to the two child benefit cap, no Labour ministers have been hammered over the failure to lift it, like Starmer, Reeves and Kendall have. So is this Bloomberg article all about trying to rehabilitate their images and is this the first sign that perhaps McSweeney is being hung out to dry? I think putting him in the frame as the boss in government is a bad way to go about that, it still implies a dearth of real leadership and begs the question what will they do without him? It’s easy to believe that this could be a move against McSweeney, because Reeves and Kendall have been particularly nasty about benefits and claimants, Reeves is married to one of the top civil servants from within the Tory run DWP, she has long crowed about being tougher on benefits than the Tories even in opposition, so there is a whiff of rehabilitation attempts with this story. If they are trying to do to McSweeney what was done to Cummings though, expect the mainstream media to be talking an awful lot more about McSweeney going forwards though.
The real issue here though is Starmer’s blatant political weakness. A strong leader would take a stand, not let himself be overruled by one of the staff. Perhaps he’s doing that now, but it’s a bit late, when you’re already seen as weak and needing to take instruction from another. If he did ditch McSweeney, who would replace him? We’d assume there would be someone. A serious Prime Minister would face down internal advisors who stand in the way of progress. Yet time and again, Starmer has demonstrated a troubling reliance on McSweeney. Whether it’s policy development, media strategy, or internal party management, McSweeney’s word appears to be the final ones.
This isn't the first time Starmer’s lack of independence has been questioned either. He has flip-flopped on key pledges, from nationalising utilities to abolishing tuition fees. Every shift is couched in the language of “pragmatism,” but it increasingly resembles a chronic fear of upsetting McSweeney’s carefully curated electoral strategy. The whole 5D chess game, but its not even Starmer playing it is it? Rather than leading the party, Starmer is following his aide’s script—a script that prioritises political caution over moral clarity, polling over principle. Optics over the change Starmer promised.
This is therefore a completely dysfunctional government. The lack of an actual elected leadership dynamic is not just a diplomatic issue—it is causing real damage to Labour’s prospects. The decision to keep the two-child benefit cap, along with other unpopular measures like the winter fuel allowance cuts, has alienated core supporters and driven a dramatic decline in party membership. According to LabourList, the party has lost 11% of its members since the general election—amounting to one member every ten minutes cutting up their membership card under Starmer’s leadership.
The situation has become so dire that the party has stopped publishing membership figures altogether now apparently, a move condemned by members of Labour’s own National Executive Committee. The reason is obvious: the party is haemorrhaging support, and the leadership is terrified of the optics. They have always been published before, so there’s no justifying this.
Financially, Labour is also in a precarious position. It is operating under a financial recovery plan right now, you might be interested to know and is expected to be £4 million short of what it needs to fight elections next year. It is an irony too bitter to ignore that a few years ago, Rachel Reeves celebrated falling membership as a sign that Labour was purging itself of “the wrong sort” of people. Now, it’s those lost members who are leaving a gaping hole in the party’s budget—and reputation and it hardly instils confidence in running the economy, when they can’t even fund the running of their own party now.
The two-child benefit cap debate has become symbolic of the broader disillusionment with Starmer’s leadership, or should I say McSweeney’s leadership. Even mainstream media outlets who have generally been sympathetic to Labour are warning that unless the party changes direction, it will continue to lose support.
Furthermore, the argument that “Labour voters support the cap,” as McSweeney is claiming as his justification for keeping the cap, does not hold up to scrutiny. Multiple polls show that Labour supporters overwhelmingly back action to tackle poverty and inequality, and lifting the cap is among the most cost-effective ways that could be done. £2.5billion to lift 540,000 people under 20 out of absolute poverty, that’s kids basically being raised in households where there income is 60% or below average income. So McSweeney’s claim is not only incorrect but disingenuous—yet it appears to be driving policy.
What is perhaps most tragic about this entire episode is that it undermines the very strategy it is supposed to serve. The logic behind keeping the cap is that Labour must appear fiscally responsible and electorally cautious. But the result has been anything but successful. Instead of gaining ground with swing voters, Labour is losing its base, bleeding away to the Lib Dems and Greens. Instead of appearing economically competent, it is now embroiled in a financial crisis of its own making, both nationally and as it happens within its own party at the same time.
Labour doesn’t just need good policies; it needs good news stories. Lifting the cap could be one. It would signal compassion, competence, and a willingness to lead with principle, though it would have to come with Starmer’s departure as well in my mind, because he’s too widely seen as compromised, too widely seen to change him mind, too widely seen as an abject liar that nobody can possibly trust. The party even if it does right by kids finally after this, is mired in the optics of contradiction, because it is led by a man who says one thing and does another, whilst also being beholden to a strategist who is unelected, unaccountable, and apparently unchallengeable as well.
This is not how democracy is supposed to work. In a functioning parliamentary democracy, it is the elected representatives who make decisions, accountable to their constituents and the broader public. When unelected aides wield this level of influence, it distorts the democratic process and erodes trust in politics. Morgan McSweeney may be brilliant at strategy – I know, I can hear you laughing, permit me to play Devils Advocate for a minute - but he was not elected to lead this country. Keir Starmer was. If Starmer cannot assert that leadership, then he must ask himself why he is in the role at all.
Labour has a choice to make. It can continue down this path of strategic short-sightedness, controlled by backroom advisors and paralysed by fear of missteps, which they’ve ended up making anyway. Or it can reassert democratic leadership, guided by values, accountable to its members, and committed to real change.
The two-child benefit cap must go to do that, but frankly so must Starmer and McSweeney. The policy must go because it is cruel and counterproductive, it keeping it is symbolic of everything that is wrong with the current Labour leadership, which is why in my view they have to go too. If Keir Starmer wanted to prove he is not merely a puppet, he needed to do it a long time ago. Its too late now and this story be it an expose of McSweeney’s control, or an orchestrated political move against him being facilitated by this Bloomberg article, won’t make any difference as long as Starmer still leads. Eve if McSweeney goes, the optics are still going to be on who replaces him and whether Starmer is now the leader, or whoever the replacement is instead?
Meanwhile, this isn’t Keir Starmer’s only problem, a distinctly Jeremy Corbyn shaped one has appeared too and he’s bringing a bill that will damn Starmer whether he backs it or opposes it, the number of messes Starmer has made for himself is testament to his political ineptitude, he really does need to go, but will Corbyn’s latest move hurry that along? Find out all the details of that in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks