Implosion as “Governance.”
Last week ended with Morgan McSweeney gone. This week has been about what that departure did not fix.
The McSweeney Non-Solution
McSweeney’s resignation was supposed to draw a line under the “judgement” critique that had begun to stalk Keir Starmer. It has not.
The problem was never merely personnel. It was pattern. And the pattern continues: delayed recognition, messy exit, defensive briefing. The issue dogging Starmer is not scandal itself, serious though that is, but the perception of Starmer’s serial misjudgement (Jessica Elgot, Peter Walker & Kiran Stacey, The Guardian, 4th February 2026, “Labour MPs say Starmer’s days as PM are numbered amid fury over Mandelson.“)
Into this vacuum stepped Anas Sarwar, calling openly for Starmer to consider his position. It was an extraordinary intervention from within Labour’s own ranks, and one that briefly made “regicide” feel less like gossip and more like choreography. (Glenn Campbell, BBC News, 9th February 2026, “Sarwar makes his biggest political gamble – but can it pay off?”)
The result was immediate and instructive: a wave of cabinet declarations of loyalty so emphatic it bordered on Kremlin-esque (or Trumpian in the argot of the mid-2020s.) The leadership question, at least publicly, was smothered. The cost was further diminishing the sense that the party is operating through confidence rather than fear.
Mandelson, Pay-Off Politics and the Limits of “Swift Action”
The line from Downing Street had been that Starmer acted decisively once it became clear that Peter Mandelson had misled No. 10 over his continuing friendliness with Epstein. That narrative has been complicated by subsequent reporting about the terms of Mandelson’s departure as Ambassador, undercutting the idea of summary dismissal and instead reinforcing the more familiar Westminster pattern: quiet severance, tidy exit, lump sum payment, no loose ends (Iain Watson, BBC News, 8th February 2026, “Foreign Office to review Mandelson’s US ambassador pay-off.“) A public primed for accountability is unlikely to be impressed by the mechanics of Establishment self-insurance.
Rayner, Streeting and the Half-Hearted Succession Dance
This has been a curiously muted implosion. Angela Rayner continues to circle the leadership conversation, but is herself under HMRC review over stamp duty on her purchase of her Hove second home. (Nick Gutteridge et al, Daily Telegraph – paywall, sorry, but you can get a student sub for £1,00/month, 5th February 2026, “Rayner’s tilt at No 10 hit by tax inquiry.“) The optics are poor, even if the legal outcome proves trivial.
Meanwhile Wes Streeting, long touted as the plausible moderniser, found himself publishing extensive WhatsApp exchanges to demonstrate “transparency” over his relationship with Mandelson (Sky News, 9th February 2026, “Read Wes Streeting’s messages with Mandelson in full.“) The intended effect was candour. The unintended effect was to underscore proximity.
Neither looks like a faction rallying point.
The question in Westminster bars shifted from “Can Starmer survive the week?” to “Who is the moderates’ fallback?” John Healey was then suddenly floated as the least inflammatory compromise candidate. That this is where the conversation has landed says something about the available field. Tumbleweed.
(PS – Young John went to the private St Peter’s School, York and Christ’s College, Cambridge. Is that Bridget “Hertford College, Oxford” Phillipson applauding?)
Communications Collapse
McSweeney’s departure was followed swiftly by the resignation of former Blairite communications director Tim Allan, further hollowing out No 10’s message discipline. (Peter Walker & Pippa Crerar, 9th February 2026, “Keir Starmer’s director of communications, Tim Allan, steps down.“)
This was positioned as allowing Starmer to form a new team at No. 10, but it’s easy to see why a communication expert might understand the importance of removing all connections to the Lord of Darkness pronto.
Meanwhile, Downing Street briefed — aggressively and unmistakably — that Sir Chris Wormald, appointed Cabinet Secretary by Starmer only in December 2024, would be “retired” after barely a year in post, making him the shortest-serving Cabinet Secretaries in British history. (Becky Morton, BBC News, 12th February 2026, “Sir Chris Wormald forced out as head of Civil Service.“)
Probably, but it doesn’t necessarily make Sir Christopher full of the joys of Spring.
The official line is to blame Sir Chris for insufficient progress in overhauling the Civil Service (AFTER 12 MONTHS IN OFFICE! Scaling point: it took 6 months to appoint a chairman of the independent inquiry in to Grooming Gangs. Restructuring the whole Civil Service might take a “little” longer.) The subtext is blame displacement. Wormald’s reported departure package, rumoured to approach £250,000 to enable the announcement that his departure was “by mutual agreement”, sits awkwardly alongside rhetoric about accountability and slots in to place neatly next to Mandelson’s pay-off. Who else has to be paid to mask the failures of Starmer judgement? (Anyone heard the one about Sue Gray? Sorry, silly me, The Baroness Gray of Tottenham CBE, definitely not the PM’s Envoy for the Nations and Regions. Ed.)
This vacuum also risks becoming a proxy battle. When establishment figures such as Lord McDonald of Salford (former Permanent Secretary of the F&CO and now Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge) weigh in critically on possible successors such as Dame Antonia Romero, (James Tapfield, Daily Mail, 12th February 2026, “Whitehall war over Starmer’s ‘plan’ to sack Cabinet Secretary and install Antonia Romeo in top job – with ex-mandarin publicly warning over vetting.”) it begins to look less like renewal and more like pre-emptive factional positioning.
Courts, Competence and Yvette Cooper
Away from the leadership psychodrama, the High Court delivered a more substantive rebuke.
It ruled that Yvette Cooper had failed properly to consider the impact on protest rights when proscribing Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act, and had not followed her own departmental guidance on the threshold for proscription, Haroon Siddique, The Guardian, 13th February 2026, “UK Palestine Action ban ruled unlawful, in humiliating blow for ministers.”)
This matters beyond the immediate case. It reinforces a pattern: bold ministerial announcements colliding with procedural reality. In a week dominated by leadership theatre, the courts quietly reminded government that executive action requires legal discipline. And Yvette Cooper is “the boring one” !
The Cabinet, Supine and United
Sarwar’s early intervention had one predictable consequence: the cabinet closed ranks. Publicly at least, the language shifted from concern to solidarity. The spectacle was less organic unity than choreographed reassurance.
For now, the immediate threat of leadership collapse has receded. But it has done so not because doubts were resolved, but because no alternative command structure is yet viable.
The Larger Question
What makes this week dismal is not that governments experience turmoil. They do. It is that the turmoil appears detached from policy direction. There is no obvious argument about the future of the country underpinning the manoeuvring. Only positioning.
From “Can he last the week?” on Monday to “Who can stop Rayner after Denton?” by Friday, the centre of gravity has shifted from survival to succession without pausing at strategy.
This is politics as containment. A leadership crisis that revolves around personalities, but not programme is a sign not of ideological struggle, but of strategic absence. The question has moved from “Can he survive?” to “Who next?” without anyone answering “To do what?”
In past Labour crises, the argument was at least about the country: Clause IV, Iraq, austerity, Brexit. This one feels oddly procedural. How can we stay in power? Sadly, no-one seems to have what might be called “a clue” in the real world.
Check us out on insta @theworldofukpolitics
Leave a Reply