Share this post:

Briefing-gate (can we call it that yet?) has entered a new phase.

Here’s the BBC:

“The prime minister’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney was not involved “directly or indirectly” in briefings against cabinet ministers and will not be leaving his job, sources have told the BBC.

“Sir Keir Starmer has faced calls to sack those who briefed journalists that ministers including Health Secretary Wes Streeting were plotting to challenge the PM.

“Some in government have blamed McSweeney for being the source of the briefings, which have knocked the government off course.

“McSweeney has not responded to calls for comment but people who have spoken to him have told the BBC: “He’s done absolutely nothing wrong. He’s not going anywhere.”

“They added: “I can categorically say he was not involved indirectly or directly.””

If that source is so sure, it suggests they know who really was involved. That information would be genuinely useful – so why aren’t they providing it?

It is now unmistakable that Briefing-gate has entered a new and far murkier phase.

The BBC story shows us that Downing Street is exerting huge effort to clear Morgan McSweeney without offering even the faintest hint over who did carry out the anonymous briefings.

If there is an innocent explanation, nobody is offering it.

If there is a culprit, they are being protected.

And that tells us a lot.

‘It wasn’t McSweeney’ is not the same as ‘The culprit has been identified’

Note the choreography:

Allies insist McSweeney was not involved “directly or indirectly”.

The prime minister repeats assurances that “it did not come from Number 10”.

But nobody has been named.

Nobody has been disciplined.

Nobody has been reported as suspended.

Nobody has even been accused.

In Westminster, when the leadership wants someone exposed, they are exposed. When the leadership wants someone protected, suddenly nobody saw anything.

Why would the culprit be protected?

There are only three plausible explanations:

• The briefer is very senior and politically valuable

This could be a senior aide, comms figure, strategist, or trusted lieutenant; someone Starmer does not want to lose because removing them would weaken his control of government.

• The briefer acted under instruction

If somebody in the leader’s circle authorised the briefing war, directly or tacitly, then naming them would raise the obvious, dangerous question: Who gave the order?

If the answer is Starmer himself, the crisis becomes existential instantly.

That would explain why there is frantic public insistence that McSweeney is innocent while no progress is made in identifying the actual culprit.

• The leadership fears the truth is politically devastating

If the plot was to kneecap ministers seen as potential leadership rivals, the optics are catastrophic: a paranoid prime minister using anonymous smears to shore up his position.

If that is what happened, Starmer cannot afford the story to move to that next stage.

The contradictions are piling up

Starmer says:

• It did not come from Number 10.
• He will “absolutely deal with anybody responsible”.
• He has “full confidence” in McSweeney.

But if the briefings did not come from Number 10, then they came from somewhere very close by:

The party machine?

A faction inside the whips’ office?

A leadership-aligned group of political advisers?

If cabinet ministers can be smeared with absolutely no consequence, then Starmer’s claim to run a “professional” government collapses.

Streeting and Miliband demanded consequences

This is crucial.

Both ministers named in the hostile briefings have said the culprit must be removed. Neither is behaving like someone who is convinced that Number 10 has the matter in hand.

Streeting calls it “silly Westminster soap opera stuff” after receiving an apology, but that does not erase the initial seriousness.

Miliband openly says it was “a bad couple of days” and that “lessons have to be learned”.

That suggests the internal damage was real.

What is really going on?

Someone close enough to the prime minister to be seen as acting in his interests tried to brief journalists that senior ministers were preparing leadership challenges.

That person (or those people) has not been named because doing so would cause unacceptable political harm – to the leadership.

McSweeney is being defended because removing him would be read as an admission that the operation came from Starmer’s core leadership team.

Starmer’s claim that he wants the culprit found is performance, not action, because nobody has been identified despite the fact that journalists know exactly who briefed them. They won’t say anything because journalists never name a confidential source – it would deter others from coming forward in the future.

It is deplorable that Downing Street is using that secrecy – which is necessary in order to ensure corruption, crime and the like are exposed and prevented from festering in our society – is being used to bury its wrongdoing.

The most likely explanation is that a senior leadership figure thought they were doing Starmer a favour, or was instructed to do so, and Number 10 is now trying to shut the episode down without a public blood sacrifice.

But that doesn’t change the realities of the situation:

• If McSweeney did not do it, Downing Street must name who did.
• If the culprit is being protected, that means the leadership wants them protected.
• If the leadership wants them protected, the briefing war almost certainly came from inside Starmer’s own circle.
• If it came from inside Starmer’s circle, Starmer’s denials collapse.

This creates the worst possible image for Starmer: he becomes a prime minister who cannot control what his people do, or -worse – one who secretly directed it.

The longer the delay, the heavier the stench of corruption seeping out of Downing Street.

If you value this kind of independent political reporting, you’ll get even more on The Whip Line.

Subscribe on Substack for deeper daily analysis, extra stories and to support genuinely independent UK political commentary.

Share this post: