Can Starmer’s chief No 10 aide Morgan McSweeney survive the PM’s latest fiasco?

As Labour MPs and journalists huddled in the bars, tea rooms and corridors of Westminster to discuss the latest leadership crisis to engulf Downing Street one name was on all their lips.

Strange as it may seem the name in question was not that of Sir Keir Starmer, the man whose leadership appears to be on the political equivalent of death row.

No, the person they were all talking about was Starmer’s shadowy but all-powerful No 10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch was the first publicly to point the finger of blame at McSweeney over reports that Downing Street had accused health secretary Wes Streeting of a plot to bring down Starmer.

The explosive allegation, widely reported in the media, was attributed by journalists to unnamed figures in Downing Street. None of the reports named McSweeney – or anyone else.

However, the fact that several prominent political journalists claimed to have received near identical No 10 briefings suggests that they came from a senior level in Downing Street and were orchestrated in some way.

Since McSweeney’s authority is questioned by none in No 10, the general inference, rightly or wrongly, was that any such briefing was either done by him in person, or by those acting on his behalf, knowingly or otherwise.

It led to Starmer being forced to declare his public support for McSweeney.

The prime minister also appeared to endorse, via his Downing Street spokesman, a call by Mr Streeting to fire whoever in No 10 had spread poison about him.

The spokesman said Starmer had “full confidence” in Streeting, adding: “Any attacks on cabinet ministers are completely unacceptable and will always be dealt with.”

For his part, Mr Streeting was careful to avoid blaming McSweeney. Instead he praised him, saying: “One thing I would say to Morgan McSweeney is that there wouldn’t be a Labour government without him.”

At first glance it might seem a curious statement to make. In fact, it is in part a recognition of the extraordinary degree of influence over the Labour Party and the government wielded by McSweeney.

With Starmer’s ratings at rock bottom and the ambitious Streeting knocking at the door, they are currently on different sides of the fence.

Yet far from being long-standing political foes, Streeting and McSweeney are political kindred spirits.

Streeting was a key figure in the Labour Together campaign group set up by McSweeney and credited with toppling Jeremy Corbyn as leader and replacing him with Starmer.

It stemmed from McSweeney’s deep loathing of Corbyn and his far Left acolytes, a passion shared by Streeting.

Indeed the charismatic Streeting was once described as McSweeney’s “poster boy”.

The extent of McSweeney’s huge influence over Labour - and, crucially Starmer - was described in great detail in the book Get In, co written by influential political journalist Patrick Maguire of The Times newspaper.

The book, an account of Starmer’s rise to power, gave the impression that he was little more than a convenient vehicle for McSweeney’s own political aims. Coincidentally or not, the first journalist to disclose that Downing Street was gunning for Streeting was Maguire.

He did not mention McSweeney in his initial report.

However in a notable subsequent commentary on the matter Maguire said he had been told by a “senior Cabinet Minister” that “if Keir didn’t approve of it (the attack on Streeting) he should sack Morgan (McSweeney)”.

The gist of Maguire’s book Get In is that McSweeney and co plotted to make Starmer leader not because of any admiration for his personal or political qualities, but simply because they thought he was their best bet to ditch Corbyn whom they regarded as an electoral liability.

The grim reality for Starmer is that many in his party now have the same view of him: for Corbyn the Labour liability, read Starmer the Labour liability.

The implications are obvious.

Starmer may or may not end up having to fire McSweeney over the ‘Streeting plot’ debacle.

But if he does, given Starmer’s dependency on McSweeney for getting him into Downing Street and keeping him there, it is more likely to hasten his own departure from it rather than prevent it.