Keir Starmer has full confidence in his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney,Downing Street has said.There have been calls by backbenchers for the sacking of McSweeney, whom many blame for his ally Peter Mandelson’s appointment to the ambassadorship.
Asked if the prime minister agreed with calls for his chief of staff to be sacked, the prime minister’s official spokesperson said:
It’s full confidence.
Really? In similar circumstances, would you, would I, would any of us?
It’s not looking good is it? What’s the wisdom of this crowd regarding how long he might stay as PM and leader of the British Labour Party?
Wes Ferry noted yesterday that:
Odds on resignation and when will Keir Starmer resign?
According to Odds Checker, which aggregates odds from a number of bookmakers, Starmer is unlikely to make it through 2026 in his current job.
A departure in 2026 is the most likely outcome, followed by an exit next year.
The full odds are below:
2026:
William Hill: 1/4
BetFred: 1/3
Ladbrokes: 1/3
Coral: 1/32027:
William Hill: 11/2
BetFred: 7
Ladbrokes: 7
Coral: 72028:
William Hill: 9
BetFred: 9
Ladbrokes: 8
Coral: 82029 or later:
William Hill: 6
BetFred: 7
Ladbrokes: 13/2
Coral: 13/2What are the odds on who the next prime minister could be? Who will replace Keir Starmer?
OddsChecker also features a list on who is most likely to be the next Labour leader and thus prime minister should Starmer step down.
Those odds are as follows:
Angela Rayner: 13/8
Wes Streeting: 3/1
Andy Burnham: 6/1
Shabana Mahmood: 7/1
Ed Miliband: 14/1
Yvette Cooper: 14/1
Lucy Powell: 16/1
David Lammy: 20/1
Keir Starmer has confirmed for the first time he knew about Peter Mandelson’s longer-term relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him US ambassador, saying the former peer had “lied repeatedly” about the extent of his contact with the child sex offender.
Questioned repeatedly at prime minister’s questions, Starmer said Mandelson had “betrayed our country” in his dealings with Epstein.
“He lied repeatedly to my team, when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador,” the prime minister said. “I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never been anywhere near government.”
But what convinced him that someone with such issues – even if he was given verbal assurances, would be a good fit for a serious job?
Worse, Starmer did his usual trick of prevarication, before the inevitable climb-down – first suggesting that the Westminster security committee would not be involved in vetting Mandelson’s files before having to accept that, yes, it would. For a matter of such unique seriousness – one involving a Labour government where a Cabinet member was apparently involved in ‘leaking market-sensitive information to Epstein’ – you’d think he’d come out hands in the air and seeking full transparency.
But no, and what of this?
Badenoch accused the prime minister of using national security as “a red herring”, saying the Tory motion would also take account of national security. She added: “The national security issue was appointing Mandelson.”
She went on to criticise Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff, who is seen as having been instrumental in pushing for Mandelson to get the Washington role, asking if Starmer still had confidence in him.
Starmer said: “Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour party and win an election. Of course, I have confidence.”
Labour MPs have warned that Keir Starmer’s days as prime minister are numbered after a day of fury over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.
The government was on the brink of a defeat in the Commons until a mid-debate amendment brokered by Meg Hillier and Angela Rayner to force the release of documents about Mandelson’s appointment and the depth of his relationship with the convicted child sex offender.
MPs said the eventual release of the documents – which may be delayed by a police investigation into Mandelson – could trigger a leadership challenge. “We need all the poison to come out,” one MP said.
One former minister said: “We’ve had a lot of bad days recently, but this is the worst yet, I think,” while another MP warned: “Trust is finite. I’m personally not sure I could trust myself to back the prime minister in a confidence vote.”
“The most terminal mood is among the super-loyal,” an MP from the 2024 intake noted.
The key moment?
MPs said that Starmer’s admission at prime minister’s questions that he had known about Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein before his appointment was a clarifying moment.
“You could feel the atmosphere change; it was dark,” one MP who had previously been close to Starmer said. No 10 said afterwards that the prime minister was only aware of what was already in the public domain.
“It’s just indefensible,” said one backbencher. “They knew all about Peter’s relationship with Epstein but gave him the job anyway.
“It’s like Chris Pincher on steroids,” they added, referring to the scandal that eventually brought down Boris Johnson. “The moment Keir admitted it then that was it – it’s over.”
Another former minister said: “We were meant to be the ones who didn’t do this stuff. It’s time for a fresh start, the sooner the better.”
This is toy town politics, it’s the pretence that those involved are making supposedly ‘grown-up’ decisions. It’s the sort of stuff we read on a weekly basis this side of the Irish Sea about ‘senior hurling’, supposedly an exercise in steely eyed realpolitik but in actual fact a toadying and cosying up to power in whatever form – or a demand that others should do so too in order that those in power remain in power.
Mandelson’s situation appears to be one form of corruption, but this is equally pernicious. And destructive to the first nominally British Labour government since the 2000s.
A shambles from start to finish.
What is wrong with these people?
The Irish Times offers this today about their latest poll:
Support for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael has stabilised while Sinn Féin has slipped back since last year, according to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos B&A opinion poll, the first of the year.
The personal rating of Taoiseach Micheál Martin has recovered after a slump in the wake of Fianna Fáil’s disastrous presidential election campaign last year and he is now once again the most popular party leader.
Stabilised? Recovered? Strong words. Until one sees the actual polling figures.
The state of the parties, when undecided voters and those unlikely to vote are excluded, is: Fianna Fáil on 19 per cent (up two), Sinn Féin on 24 per cent (down three) and Fine Gael on 18 per cent (no change).
Among the smaller parties, the Social Democrats are at 7 per cent (up two), Labour is at 4 per cent (down two), the Green Party is at 4 per cent (up one), People Before Profit-Solidarity is on 2 per cent (no change), Aontú is at 3 per cent (no change) and Independent Ireland is on 4 per cent (up two).
Independents/others are at 16 per cent (down one). The comparisons are with the most recent Irish Times/Ipsos poll last October.
And this:
Satisfaction with the Government is down by a point to 30 per cent, continuing a slide in the second half of 2025. This is the lowest level, in terms of the Government satisfaction figure, since just before the 2020 general election, when the Fine Gael-Independent government was in office.
Margin of error – plus or minus 2.8%.
Fianna Fáil at 19%, Fine Gael at 18%. Some recovery. Some stabilisation.
Nigel Farage’s two-day trip to Davos cost more than £50,000 after he was given two guest passes by an Iranian-born billionaire, documents show.
The Reform UK leader officially declared his attendance at the conference on the register of MPs’ interests, after giving speeches at the Switzerland summit in which he pledged to “put the global elites on notice”.
Despite previously having dismissed the World Economic Forum as a jaunt for “globalists”, Farage also accepted £1,100 of luxury hotel accommodation from the conference organisers.
The Guardian revealed last month that Farage had his trip to Davos paid for by Sasan Ghandehari, which the Reform UK leader refused to confirm at the time. He was registered at the forum under the banner of HP Trust, which is the family office of Ghandehari and describes itself as having a portfolio value in excess of $10bn (£7.4bn).
So says Independent candidate Thomas Welby, who is supported by Noel Grealish and other Independent TDs. He thinks, according to this report in The Irish Times:
As a founding member of Independents Together, a national support group for Independent councillors, Welby can count on the backing of the likes of Noel Grealish, Senator Gerard Craughwell and a variety of councillors from all over the constituency.
“The Independents in Galway are more like a party. But we are independent, we have our own individuality and we are not tied to any organisation. I will have seasoned politicians from as far away as Donegal coming to canvas for me,” he says.
While he rates his own prospects in this election, Welby believes that “if the left come together and are organised, they will win this seat, there is no doubt about that”.
Whomever Sinn Féin chooses to run will also be a strong contender, especially if the “vote left, transfer left” pact materialises. The party has yet to identify a likely candidate or set a date for a convention.
Does that count in the context of multiple left candidates? Already there’s a Connolly continuity candidate in the field, in the form of Sheila Garrity who is running as an independent. Then there is Helen Ogbu of Labour who says:
the left will be a “united front” for this election. “We campaigned for [Connolly]. All the left wing parties came out together and there was an understanding and a collaboration,” she said.
“We want to make sure that this seat will be occupied by a left candidate. What I am saying to people is, give me your number one, and then vote for other left candidates.”
Does an explicit or tacit vote transfer pact work in this instance? Curious as to the answer.
Useful point made on RTÉ’s politics podcast that the Independents supporting this government do not fulfil a vital role for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil that the Green Party did in the last one.
They’re much less visible than the Greens. They’re in Government sure, but they’re not seen as a single bloc. This is, no doubt, of great benefit to them and their re-election prospects but problematic for the Government, which no longer has a party to point at and blame for this policy or that policy, as the GP experienced time and again. This has been the cause of friction for the larger parties because there’s nowhere to hide. Sme on the panel appeared to suggest that this was causing the parties to blame one another and for relations to be worse than previously.
One might add that the actual structural aspects of the government likely add to that. With Fine Gael only holding the position of Taoiseach for around two years and a smaller number of Cabinet positions than Fianna Fáil their more junior position is reinforced.
Though an interesting precedent has been set, surely, for future governments in the state – say an FF/SF coalition?
All told, not a happy crew.
And how many years left to go?
The Cedar Lounge Revolution 