Labour backbenchers have delivered an extraordinary ultimatum to Sir Keir Starmer: sack your chief of staff Morgan McSweeney or face a leadership crisis. The public warning from multiple MPs represents one of the most serious challenges to a sitting Prime Minister's authority since Theresa May faced down attempts to remove her during the Brexit crisis.
Karl Turner, Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East, told Times Radio that the atmosphere in the Commons was the "angriest" he had ever witnessed, though he stressed the fury was directed at the Prime Minister's advisers rather than Starmer himself. "My advice to the prime minister is get rid of those advisers who have frankly given terrible advice to him over weeks and months," Turner said.
The ultimatum is unambiguous. "If McSweeney is still in 10 Downing Street the PM is up against it," Turner warned. "If the PM decides he has to be surrounded by advisers who give him shoddy advice the reality of that is the prime minister is going to have to make a decision about his future some point soon."
As they say in Westminster, "the constitution is what happens"—precedent matters more than law. And recent precedent is particularly troubling for Starmer. Dominic Cummings became a lightning rod for backbench Conservative fury, and his eventual departure from Number 10 did nothing to save Boris Johnson's premiership. Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, May's joint chiefs of staff, were forced out after the 2017 election disaster, but May herself limped on for another two years, fatally weakened.
The current crisis centers on McSweeney's role in pushing through Lord Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to Washington. Multiple sources confirmed that the chief of staff personally championed the appointment, dedicating significant time to meetings at the Cabinet Office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to overcome resistance within the bureaucracy.
What has particularly enraged backbenchers is the apparent failure of proper vetting procedures. Mandelson's extensive contacts with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—including meetings after Epstein's 2008 conviction—should have been identified during any competent due diligence process. That they apparently were not, or were dismissed as unimportant, suggests either incompetence or deliberate corner-cutting at the highest levels of government.
Turner revealed he had forwarded messages from angry MPs directly to the Prime Minister on Tuesday night. "He thanked me, and I suspect he thanked those who were then messaging him," he said, suggesting Starmer is keenly aware of the danger.
The comparison to May's travails is instructive. Like Starmer, May was seen as dutiful and serious-minded, but politically awkward. Like Starmer, she surrounded herself with a small circle of advisers and struggled to connect with her own backbenchers. And like Starmer, she found that once MPs lose confidence in a Prime Minister's judgment, recovering it is nearly impossible.
What makes this particularly dangerous for Starmer is the timing. He has been in office for barely months, with a commanding parliamentary majority. For backbenchers to be openly discussing his future at this stage suggests a collapse in confidence that would be remarkable under any circumstances.
The mood in the Parliamentary Labour Party is described by multiple sources as "dire", with MPs who were previously loyal to the leadership now questioning whether Starmer has the political judgment required for the role. One veteran backbencher, speaking on condition of anonymity, compared the atmosphere to the final days of Gordon Brown's premiership, when cabinet ministers were openly maneuvering against him.
McSweeney himself has made no public comment, and Downing Street sources insisted on Wednesday that the Prime Minister retains "full confidence" in his chief of staff. But in Westminster, such statements of support are often the first sign that a position has become untenable.
The next few days will be critical. If Starmer moves to sack McSweeney, it will be seen as capitulation to backbench pressure and a sign of weakness. If he refuses, he risks an escalating confrontation with his own MPs that could become existential. Either way, the damage to his authority may already be irreparable.
As one Labour MP put it privately: "We've been in government for less than a year and already we're in crisis mode. How did we get here so quickly?" It's a question that will haunt Starmer for as long as he remains in Number 10.
