Best Of

Daily Mail - 'Starmer cried: 'You're supposed to be protecting me'. The showdown between PM and key aide that's the talk of Westminster'

"According to the Whitehall grapevine, it was the moment that growing tensions between the two most senior men in the British Government finally exploded into the open.

'You are supposed to protect me from things like this!' a furious Sir Keir Starmer is said to have bellowed at Morgan McSweeney, the man dubbed The Real Deputy Prime Minister.

'That's exactly what I was trying to do!' Mr McSweeney roared back.

The extraordinary exchange – relayed to The Mail on Sunday by a highly placed source – came after Sir Keir returned to No10 on Wednesday following his Commons mauling over Peter Mandelson's links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

No 10 denies the encounter took place as described – and even tried to deny that chief of staff Mr McSweeney was in the country at the time, before backtracking.

But what is not in question is that the Mandelson scandal has turned into a full-blown political crisis which could lead to the end of Starmer's premiership.

Despairing Labour MPs are looking to Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham for salvation, with Lucy Powell running as his 'proxy' in the deputy leadership election.

Supporters hope Mr Burnham will return to the Commons in a by-election, making him eligible for a leadership bid."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15095781/Starmer-cried-showdown-PM-key-aide-Westminster.html

Backing Powell is starting to look like easy money?

On topic, if the answer is Burnham you asked the wrong question.

Though, it does show what a shambles labour are in, and in particular Starmer and Reeves performance over the last 15 months

It speaks to the paucity of talent in British politics. Every party is led by the second rate. Backed by the fifth rate.

You look at Thatcher’s cabinets - sure, there were one or two clowns. But a good half of them could have been PM.

Well, it's often said we get the politicians we deserve but I think the quality of political journalism and analysis as presented on all media is disappointing. GB News is unwatchable as is Sky. Most questions are presented as simplistic binary options (which they aren't) and nobody is given time to put forward complex arguments for discussion. Trying to "discuss" immigration in two and a half minutes in an informed and reasoned way is impossible unless your sole argument is "sink the boats" or "deport them all".

I think the coming of social media and the 24/7 news cycle and the end of any kind of deference have made an enormous and negative impact to the quality (as distinct from the quantity) of our politics.

What passes for debate now is a series of soundbites and gotchas.

50 years ago this is how it was done. Two heavyweight politicians listening to each other, not interrupting and civil countering each other's arguments.

https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs?si=DUsc53dtVl-Nf0gH

On topic, if the answer is Burnham you asked the wrong question.

Though, it does show what a shambles labour are in, and in particular Starmer and Reeves performance over the last 15 months

It speaks to the paucity of talent in British politics. Every party is led by the second rate. Backed by the fifth rate.

You look at Thatcher’s cabinets - sure, there were one or two clowns. But a good half of them could have been PM.

Well, it's often said we get the politicians we deserve but I think the quality of political journalism and analysis as presented on all media is disappointing. GB News is unwatchable as is Sky. Most questions are presented as simplistic binary options (which they aren't) and nobody is given time to put forward complex arguments for discussion. Trying to "discuss" immigration in two and a half minutes in an informed and reasoned way is impossible unless your sole argument is "sink the boats" or "deport them all".

I think the coming of social media and the 24/7 news cycle and the end of any kind of deference have made an enormous and negative impact to the quality (as distinct from the quantity) of our politics.

What state is the Labour Party in when Burnham is seen as its saviour. Do the people supporting him not remember his pitiful run at the leadership previously. A campaign which made Kamala Harris’s for the Democratic nomination seem inspired.

I think Labour should persist with Starmer, get through the next locals, and Starmer needs to start grooming the next generation and promoting them.

Exactly. He was in charge of the NHS when the Staffordshire scandal happened. His record on grooming gangs in Manchester is not good either. He got a pitiful number of votes when he last stood and he simply jumps from bandwagon to bandwagon.

The Mid-Staffs thing has the potential to become a problem. There was a concerted campaign against the whistleblowers and some politicians actually backed this on a “protect the NHS” basis

I dont think the next Labour leader will be one who served in the Blair and Brown governments. Indeed that is one reason that Corbyn got the gig.

Burnham can have influence, and has reinvented himself as King of the North, but Labour need and want a fresher face.

On topic, if the answer is Burnham you asked the wrong question.

Though, it does show what a shambles labour are in, and in particular Starmer and Reeves performance over the last 15 months

It speaks to the paucity of talent in British politics. Every party is led by the second rate. Backed by the fifth rate.

You look at Thatcher’s cabinets - sure, there were one or two clowns. But a good half of them could have been PM.

And the same was true of those on the Opposition benches. Even when they were wrong (Foot, say) or a bit mad (Benn), they were people of substance.

I think you've pointed out before that people of substance mostly don't want to touch public service through government with a bargepole. Partly because there are easier ways of making a better living, but also... why would you? Why go on the stage when a million Waldorfs and Statlers are going to heckle your every action.

And on top of that, the 'sack the manager' syndrome means that what little talent there is get pushed to the top jobs before they are ready and are quickly binned when they inevitably fail. Since World War 2, the supply of people capable of being an effective PM has been... 1 or 2 a decade? In recent years, demand has exceeded supply.

I know it triggers some when I say it, but Starmer and Badenoch are the least rancid options on the shelf. Changing either of them would be another change for the worse. And the idea that 'the public deserves better' is largely tosh as well. We may not have done it deliberately, but the society around us is the consequence of the totality of the choices we have collectively made over decades. We have almost exactly the quality of politicians we deserve.