Morgan McSweeney gone - What Now For Number 10?

Well said , Mamie. Similar comments started denigrating Keir Starmer started straight after the election.In fact I get the impression that their joy is unconfined as stitches are dropped..I wonder if they have acknowledged that good things have happened, which have been listed several times here.Never mind the Mail etc.

Trouble is westendgirl, in which newspapers or other MSM could we expect to see praise for Labour achievements?

I’ve just heard the phrase “has taken full responsibility” or “takes full responsibility” in a news item about Reform and the news item about the Labour Party.
Is this going to be the in phrase for being able to pass the buck in politics?

I can remember being thrilled when Tony Blair was elected in May 1997. 🥴😐😕

I am curious about why politicians all lose their ability to make sound decisions as soon as they are in the driving seat.
Perhaps there's something in the seat?......

If they decamp from the building while it's renovated, it could be interesting.

westendgirl

Well said , Mamie. Similar comments started denigrating Keir Starmer started straight after the election.In fact I get the impression that their joy is unconfined as stitches are dropped..I wonder if they have acknowledged that good things have happened, which have been listed several times here.Never mind the Mail etc.

I agree, westendgirl. When I hear people complaining about what the government has done, I ask myself why they would object:
Minimum wage up - are they people who expect staff to live on less than £12.51 an hour?

Worker's rights increased - do they employ people with poor conditions and want to retain things like the right to fire and rehire, or refuse to pay sick pay?

Phasing out zero-hours contracts - again, do they want to employ people on a piecemeal basis meaning that they can't get mortgages or pay bills on time?

Tenants' rights increased - do they have more than one house and rent out to people they have been exploiting, or whom they want the power to evict for no good reason?

Breakfast clubs rolling out to all children - do they object to today's parents getting something they didn't?

If not, what is to object to in those measures?

There are many other things that are more 'niche', such as Homes for Heroes and a new deal for farmers, that won't have an impact on most of us, but are good for those who do benefit. There are others that are more ideological, such as scrapping the 2-child benefit cap, forging closer ties with Europe, or renationalising the railways, and people may well object to things like that for political reasons, which is fair enough; but so far a lot has been done that I would have thought would be popular.

I don't benefit directly from any of the things in this post, but I can see beyond my own interests and am pleased that they have been (or are being) done. What is that people think has been so badly mishandled?

Thank you Doodledog👏👏👏

At the helm right now, we have a Chancellor, who is devoid of any business acumen, appears to have no foresight and possibly doesn't give a proverbial about what she's wrought on businesses with the most punitive measures. In hindsight national economy actually worksthis administration came in on a "we're going for growth" mantra. Definitely some ambiguity in that message, there has in fact been plenty of growth in businesses going to the wall, and unemployment rising as a result.

It's not so much Reeves' lack of business acumen that is at fault as her complete lack of understanding of how a national economy actually works.

Her failing is that she appears to be fixated on the myth that only businesses 'create wealth'. This has no logic to it all because the only source of money/wealth in the economy is the state. No business can create money, it can only acquire the state created money that is already in the economy.

Money is issued into the economy in two ways. It is issued by the state spending on goods and services, or by banks, under licence from the state, making loans (for every loan that that a state licenced bank makes is completely new money.

I know that people firmly believe that state spending is financed by tax revenue, but it isn't. As an example, Quantitative Easing, which has been resorted to at least twice in the last 25 years (after the GFC and during Covid) is pure money creation by the Bank of England under orders from the state. There is no tax revenue involved in it. No pretence that it came out of tax revenue as there is about everyday state spending. The two are pure money creation. Taxation is intended to reclaim some if the issued money in order to avoid inflation. (That isn't taxation's only function but in this instance it is only relevant to avoidance of inflation)

Once the money has been issued its function is to enable economic activity in the state. In the case of money issued by banks there is no permanent increase in the money supply because loans have to be repaid in full. Once they have been repaid the money ceases to exist. It doesn't swell the coffers of the bank, it ceases to exist. The only part of the loan that swells the bank's coffers is the interest payable on it which is paid out of money which already exists. Before it has been repaid the loan money can be used to promote economic activity.

Money spent into existence by the state functions slightly differently. It is the same in that it pays state employees' wages and salaries, it goes to the private enterprises which the state buys goods and services from, so promoting rounds of economic activity as their employees spend their wages and the enterprises buy goods and services to support their businesses.

Both bank loans and state spending put new money into the economy and in both instances the money creates economic activity. But there is an essential difference between the two.

Bank money is ultimately completely destroyed on repayment of the loan. You cannot save any money from a bank loan as it has to be repaid in full, plus the interest.

State issued money can be saved, either long term or short term because the state doesn't directly take it all back in tax. There is always some outstanding, some of which, if it is spent in another country, the state will never get back (unless it can be returned in payment for exports) the rest of which is people's savings

The difference between what the state spends and what it gets back via taxation is the 'deficit'. Without a deficit we wouldn't be able to save our money or spend it abroad.

This is a simplified version of how a national economy works but the essentials are there. It shows that businesses are not wealth creators, they can only acquire money which has been issued/created by the state and they acquire it by selling to the citizens of the state, who have only state created money with which to purchase their goods and services.

The wrongness of a chancellor believing that only taxation can pay for state services and then raising taxes to 'pay for them' while simultaneously cutting the money available to state services ('efficiency savings, aka ;austerity') is shown in the effects which *BlueBelle describes. It reduces the money supply, reduces the money available to people to pay for goods and services they need or want and puts the suppliers of the goods and services out of business because people can't afford to buy what they are producing.

It really doesn't take a degree in economics to understand this. It does, though take a willingness to discard the belief that taxation funds public services and that businesses are 'wealth creators'.

McSweeney's job was to give advice,the decision to act on that advice was Starmer’s.
The buck stops with the boss, not his underling.

Primrose53

Breaking News
it seems Starmer and McSweeny decided together it was time for McS to move on.

Yeah right!😉

Ladyleftfieldlover

Why do I get the impression that some on these Boards are waiting gleefully for the government to come crashing down? Be careful what you wish for.

Not gleefully, but I am waiting for this government to fall. I cannot believe that it can be possible to have another one that is more ineffectual and rudderless.

It seems that the fault lies absolutely with Keir Starmer. He lacks political ability and has relied almost entirely on his advisors, Mandelson, McSweeney and Powell. His and their politics do not accord with the bulk of Labour supporters or the electorate at large, and his support comes from those who will support Labour whatever the cost.
This is not going to improve; Labour has been elected with an enormous majority but Starmer is not capable as leader. There has to be some painful self-examination and a clear-out of the present cabinet; a focus on the economy and growth. Desperate measures for desperate times.

I’m always a bit sceptical of stories that suggest a government is held together by one unelected adviser. Advisers come and go - that’s normal, and frankly it’s how it should be in a democracy.

I’m not particularly interested in defending Starmer as a personality, but I do think it’s unhelpful to treat behind-the-scenes staffing changes as some sort of existential moment. If a government falls apart because one strategist leaves, that says more about the narrative than the system.

Criticise policies, priorities, outcomes — all fair game. The soap-opera framing just feels more tabloid than analysis.

For those who might be interested the Byline Times supplement has posted the articles about McSweeny written by Peter Oborne for the Byline Times since Labour was first elected.

McSweeny was very much Labour’s Dominic Cummings. Dismissing him as a soap opera character after he has been ruthlessly destroying much of what the Labour party has previously been believed to stand for seems to me to be misreading his significant contribution to the current mess.

www.bylinesupplement.com/p/the-end-of-morgan-mcsweeney-peter

Since McSweeney was widely held to be the power behind the throne, his absence could be an existential moment!

X posts MaizieD

Definitely gives a Sir Humphrey feeling to how it works.

Lurching dramatically from crisis to crisis does have all the ingredients of a soap opera though. If the plot had been more carefully constructed in the first place, and the director had done more takes behind the scenes to get the delivery right, then Starmer wouldn't be racing towards his sticky denouement.
We've had more doof doof moments than Eastenders.

DaisyAnneReturns

I’m always a bit sceptical of stories that suggest a government is held together by one unelected adviser. Advisers come and go - that’s normal, and frankly it’s how it should be in a democracy.

I’m not particularly interested in defending Starmer as a personality, but I do think it’s unhelpful to treat behind-the-scenes staffing changes as some sort of existential moment. If a government falls apart because one strategist leaves, that says more about the narrative than the system.

Criticise policies, priorities, outcomes — all fair game. The soap-opera framing just feels more tabloid than analysis.

Oh I so agree!

keepingquiet

DaisyAnneReturns

I’m always a bit sceptical of stories that suggest a government is held together by one unelected adviser. Advisers come and go - that’s normal, and frankly it’s how it should be in a democracy.

I’m not particularly interested in defending Starmer as a personality, but I do think it’s unhelpful to treat behind-the-scenes staffing changes as some sort of existential moment. If a government falls apart because one strategist leaves, that says more about the narrative than the system.

Criticise policies, priorities, outcomes — all fair game. The soap-opera framing just feels more tabloid than analysis.

Oh I so agree!

I remember the multiple threads and gloating over the Conservative Party advisors on here.

Just goes to show that both of our main parties are currently cut from the same cloth…

Except that whatever Morgan McSweeney’s faults, he wasn’t actively plotting against the government, so it’s not really the same.

What is that people think has been so badly mishandled?

Crime
Boats
Economy
Europe

He has tinkered with politics, at best.

Casdon

Except that whatever Morgan McSweeney’s faults, he wasn’t actively plotting against the government, so it’s not really the same.

How is the general public supposed to assume that?

fancythat

^What is that people think has been so badly mishandled?^

Crime
Boats
Economy
Europe

He has tinkered with politics, at best.

Forgot China. That is a big one in my book.

And "standing by" whatever and whoever he could.

Nothing has come out to suggest otherwise, which it would have done given the massive press attention and digging, and, as it did well before Cummings left.

Casdon

Except that whatever Morgan McSweeney’s faults, he wasn’t actively plotting against the government, so it’s not really the same.

As McSweeny was, by all accounts, directing the government, you're right. But he was actively plotting against anyone with a sniff of what most would describe as traditional Labour values and carrying the government further to the right than many labour members and voters could tolerate.

The 2024 pre election purge of any Labour figures perceived as being more than slightly left of centre mirrored Cumming's purge of the One Nation, pro EU conservatives and was distressing to many Labour ,members who then left the party in significant numbers.

When a current (unnamed) Labour MP is reported as lamenting McSweeny's demise as meaning Labour will now be "full speed ahead to uber woke, net zero rejoinerism" you really wonder if this is the party to support. ( It seems to me that the MP in question should really be in the tory party or even Reform...)