‘Shaking up the adviser team’ is a well-known political tactic, although how much good it actually does is contested. An excess of advisers is yet another Thatcher legacy we could probably do without but will doubtless have to continue to live with.
As the conference stands on Merseyside are packed away for another year, following days dominated by Farage, Reform UK, and rumblings about Andy Burnham’s ambitions, one question looms over Labour: has Keir Starmer’s government bought itself time, and is it now better positioned to fend off a Reform insurgency?
Is Labour’s current strategy, confronting Reform’s immigration agenda head-on under the tight direction of chief strategist Morgan McSweeney, the best way to neutralise Farage’s threat? Or, as voices on the party’s left like Leeds East MP Richard Burgon argue, is it time for a course correction and a broader agenda. And would a change in direction mean breaking with Starmer’s most powerful adviser?
Morgan McSweeney is largely attributed as the architect of Labour’s 2024 victory, credited with purging the remnants of Corbynism and rebuilding the party’s electoral machinery.
But discontent is growing among his critics within the party. Some now blame McSweeney for the government’s early missteps, from welfare policy to its stance on Gaza.
“It is to him that these critics attribute the leadership’s sharpest edges, from the iron fist used in matters of party discipline to the aggressive pursuit of Reform-leaning voters – at the expense, they believe, of more progressive ones,” Politics Home noted.
The recent revelations about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which led to Mandelson’s sacking, only deepened concerns among MPs about McSweeney’s judgment, and, by extension, Starmer’s, for placing such trust in him.
Prime ministers have often survived by cutting loose powerful advisers. Theresa May dismissed her joint chiefs of staff after her 2017 election gamble backfired. Boris Johnson ousted Dominic Cummings in 2020 following months of scandal, chaos and internal rebellion.
Could Starmer do the same with McSweeney, who has faced controversy over failing to declare hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations during his time as director of the Labour Together think tank? That particular pressure eased somewhat when the Electoral Commission confirmed it would not reopen its investigation into the undeclared funds linked to a campaign group he led.
Or, as some insiders argue, is McSweeney the one keeping the show on the road? Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, recently came to his defence, calling him a “highly talented individual” and dismissing the revelations as politically motivated attacks by the Tories aimed at discrediting a “formidable opponent” and one of Labour’s most influential figures.
Street-fighting talk
The threat posed by Reform is fast becoming the defining test of the current Labour government. At Conference, the party’s aggressive pursuit of Reform-leaning voters, central to Morgan McSweeney’s strategy, was unmistakable. Stopping Farage is now a core part of Labour’s mission.
“It is a test,” Starmer said in his forthright conference speech. “A fight for the soul of our country, every bit as big as rebuilding Britain after the war, and we must all rise to this challenge.”
It was street-fighting talk, designed to fire up the base. But will it resonate with disillusioned voters drifting towards Reform? Farage doesn’t need detailed policy to dominate the political agenda. His appeal is rooted in rebellion, identity, and grievance, terrain where Labour appears less sure-footed, especially, it could be argued, while tethered to a centralised, technocratic message shaped by McSweeney’s team.
Consider the controversial digital ID proposals. An internal paper from the Tony Blair Institute, commissioned by McSweeney, is understood to make a “forceful” case for digital ID as a way to meet voter demands and blunt Reform’s threat.
It’s a risky move. When Blair introduced ID legislation as prime minister, it sparked a civil liberties backlash and was ultimately scrapped by the coalition government. Reopening that debate now might project toughness on immigration, but also unease about how to reconnect with more progressive voters it’s in danger of losing.
Immigration: playing on Farage’s turf?
The new home secretary Shabana Mahmood used her first conference speech to signal a hardening position on immigration, unveiling stricter rules for migrants seeking permanent settlement. Under the new policy, applicants must meet higher English language standards, pass background checks, and demonstrate community involvement.
Labour argues this approach draws a clear line between the party and Reform, which wants to scrap indefinite leave to remain altogether.
But some MPs fear the shift toward talking tough on immigration, risks reinforcing Farage’s narrative rather than challenging it.
“I’ve said it before and will say it again: chasing the tail of the right risks taking our country down a very dark path,” said Sarah Owen, Labour MP for Luton North.
In his Conference speech, Starmer acknowledged such discomfort, admitting that these would be “uncomfortable decisions” for many in the party, but ones he insists are necessary.
Curtice’s warning: don’t copy the Tories’ mistakes
Speaking at a fringe event in Liverpool, polling expert Sir John Curtice argued that focusing on Reform is a “mistake.” He said that Nigel Farage’s insurgent party is the “principal threat” at the next election but is “far from the only threat.”
He suggested Labour should not “repeat the Tories’ mistake” of focusing on immigration, and that improving the economy and the NHS was more likely to return voters to the party.
In Curtice’s view, the biggest risk isn’t losing to Reform, it’s losing to the Liberal Democrats and Greens, which could split the anti-right vote in key constituencies and allow Farage’s party or the Tories to slip through the middle. Even anti-Farage voters, he argued, weren’t guaranteed to back Starmer tactically.
Curtice said there was no “obvious” glimmer of hope for Labour to reverse its decline unless it shifted focus and quickly.
Leadership speculation
The internal discontent has inevitably stirred leadership rumours. Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham denied plotting a move against Starmer but spoke out about a “climate of fear” within the party’s top ranks.
Others have tried to quash the speculation. Writing for Labour List, North Durham MP Luke Akehurst dismissed it as “tittle-tattle,” warning that it distracts from the urgent task of delivering for voters.
“Anyone engaging in this nonsense from Labour is doing a disservice to everyone across the country that voted for change last summer,” he wrote. “Anyone distracting us from this task would be handing the keys to Downing Street to the most extreme right-wing prime minister in history.”
John McDonnell: ‘Stop dancing to Farage’s tune’
Ahead of the Labour conference, former shadow chancellor John McDonnell was reinstated to the parliamentary party after more than a year of suspension for defying the whip on the two-child benefit cap.
And while Morgan McSweeney has long made clear his disdain for the party’s so-called “hard left,” the feeling appears mutual. McDonnell, speaking during the fallout from the Mandelson scandal, said: “A choice is emerging for Keir – either McSweeney goes or he does.”
Despite having the whip restored, McDonnell has vowed to keep pushing the leadership to the left, arguing that Labour must win back progressive voters who feel abandoned. In an interview with iPaper, he warned that the rise of Reform and the recent wave of far-right street protests should serve as a wake-up call.
“If you look at our polling, we’re now down to 20 per cent… We’ve been consistently anything between seven to 13 points behind Reform.”
To turn things around, McDonnell laid out a clear set of demands: stop the policy missteps, refuse donations from the ultra-wealthy, listen to members and elected representatives, and crucially, “stop dancing to Farage’s tune” by posturing tough on migration.
Is Labour listening?
There are signs Labour is listening. The controversial two-child benefit cap is now reportedly on course to be scrapped in the November Budget. In an interview with Channel 4 News, McDonnell suggested that party pressure had already forced the government to revoke some of the policies which adversely affected people on low incomes, and he anticipated that the two-child benefit cap would be the next to go. Chancellor Reeves would also be driven by fiscal needs to revisit taxation policy. All of which, McDonnell suggested, might bring some success in the May local elections and avert speculation about the leadership.
Back in June, TUC general secretary Paul Nowak praised the direction of travel, arguing that Labour was not only listening but acting.
“Extending free school meals. Restoring the winter fuel allowance. £15bn for public transport in the North and the Midlands. Good steps in the right direction, and proof a Labour government can make a difference when it listens and acts,” he said.
And for some, the Starmer/McSweeney partnership is doing what’s necessary. Confronting Reform head-on is seen by some as the only viable strategy to neutralise Farage’s growing influence. As former Times columnist David Aaronovitch wrote in the Independent this week:
“I don’t really have any doubt that “Confront” was the right option for Labour this year. Not after a summer of attempts to stir up anti-migrant confrontations. There are three more years to concentrate on other things.”
Still, as history shows, no adviser is untouchable. If Starmer decides the strategy needs recalibrating to secure his long-term footing in government, he may yet take a step many prime ministers before him have known well. ‘Shaking up the adviser team’ is a well-known political tactic, although how much good it actually does is contested. An excess of advisers is yet another Thatcher legacy we could probably do without but will doubtless have to continue to live with.
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch
Left Foot Forward doesn’t have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
