Starmer vs Starmer!

I laughed when Sir Keir Starmer insisted in the Commons yesterday that he has “never authorised” attacks on his cabinet ministers, calling briefings against them “unacceptable”. This is the careful use of language, as we shall discover later on.

The tricky bit here for Starmer is that several of “his allies” had told numerous media outlets that he could face a leadership challenge from another cabinet minister such as Health Secretary Wes Streeting. The fact that they went as far to NAME Streeting was a deliberate and contrived act.

There has been a lot speculation about the extent to which Starmer was aware of these anonymous briefings, which were aimed at shoring up his position. Had he encouraged them in some way? Put it this way, they didn’t just come out of the blue. There was nothing spontaneous about any of this.

In true political tradition, Streeting has absolutely denied he was lining up a leadership bid, and called on those behind the briefings to be sacked. But who were they?

Asked at an NHS conference in Manchester if he would fight alongside Sir Keir if there were any plots to oust him as PM, Streeting said: “Yes.”

LOL. This is called brass neck.

“The bizarre thing about some juvenile briefing overnight is it’s people in No 10 who’ve said the PM is fighting for his job. I don’t think that’s a helpful or constructive thing to say, I also don’t think it’s true,” he added.

Streeting has attacked the “toxic culture” inside No 10, but has said he does not think the PM is behind the briefings. Who is running this “toxic culture?”

Asked whether he thought Sir Keir’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney was responsible for the culture in Downing Street, Streeting spluttered

“I am not going to add to the toxic culture by contributing to the toxic culture and going after individuals. I don’t think that is a constructive or positive thing to do. One thing I would say for Morgan McSweeney is there wouldn’t be a Labour government without him.”

That’s damning with faint praise. McSweeney RUNS the Downing Street media and the idea that this could happen without his explicit approval is unthinkable.

Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch piled the pressure on by claiming McSweeney was responsible for the culture in No 10 and asked if the prime minister still had confidence in him.

Starmer replied:

“Morgan McSweeney, my team and I are absolutely focused on delivering for the country. Let me be clear, of course, I’ve never authorised attacks on cabinet members, I appointed them to their post because they’re the best people to carry out their jobs.”

He may not have “authorised” the attacks but who else but McSweeney could be behind these briefings?

Well, speaking after PMQs, the prime minister’s press secretary told reporters the briefings against Streeting had come “from outside No 10” and that the prime minister had full confidence in McSweeney. Is that a bit like he had full confidence in Angela Rayner and Peter Mandelson?

The obvious question is did McSweeney use well placed attack media dogs to carry out these briefings whilst maintaining plausible deniability himself?

This was a PRO Starmer media campaign designed to quell dissent about his faltering leadership. McSweeney is bound to have “insight” into this activity and he is inextricably linked to Starmer. For the Prime Minister to deny his knowledge is odd. For his Chief of Staff to deny all knowledge seems implausible.

The Starmer regime is in the Number 10 Bunker and they seek to deny reality!