The recent resignation of Morgan McSweeney, Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has drawn sharp criticism from within the Labour Party. Many MPs view McSweeney's departure as a reflection of the failures in Starmer's leadership, particularly in response to criticism regarding their handling of appointments like that of Peter Mandelson as Washington ambassador. While the resignation has been celebrated by some factions within the party, it also raises questions about Starmer's decisiveness and strength as a leader.

For critics, McSweeney's exit signifies a broader issue with Starmer's political approach, wherein the resignation is seen as emblematic of a lack of control and direction in his leadership. Some Labour MPs express concern that allowing McSweeney to resign rather than forcefully dismissing him showcases the prime minister's perceived weakness. This internal dissent reflects a growing sentiment of frustration amongst party members regarding the effectiveness of Starmer's governance.

Furthermore, Morgan McSweeney possesses a level of influence likened to that of Dominic Cummings during Boris Johnson's leadership, which underscores the significance of his departure. As he was instrumental in shaping Starmer's path to leadership, his exit may result in ripple effects that affect both the structure and strategy of the Labour Party moving forward. The reliance on McSweeney's guidance has led to speculation about who will now fill the power vacuum and how this may lead to a re-evaluation of the party's direction under Starmer's leadership.