Sue Gray’s Ruthless Ouster Points To Pivotal Moment For Keir Starmer

The below content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss this daily briefing.

Keir Starmer has pressed the reset button.

In a ruthless reordering of his No 10 inner circle, Sue Gray has been ditched as the prime minister’s chief of staff. Morgan McSweeney, the political strategist who masterminded Labour’s election victory, replaces her.

Gray, Downing Street announced on Sunday, has taken on an advisory role as Starmer’s envoy for nations and regions. No one really knows what this position entails, other than it reflects a bruising demotion for the former civil servant and “Partygate” sleuth. (Some have suggested “nations and regions” is the Westminster equivalent of Siberia: i.e. Soviet-esque political exile).

Certainly, Gray’s time as a prominent figure in the Labour hierarchy has come to a close. It’s a tragic and dramatic decline for the individual once heralded as Starmer’s lead fixer. Whatever happened to the “cult of Sue Gray” and its loyal subjects?

One way of viewing Gray’s resignation is the climax of a venomous power struggle between the PM’s onetime closest confidant and her successor. Reports of tension between McSweeney and Gray had proved a recurring theme since Labour’s return to government in July. No longer. Starmer has seen to that.

Another non-mutually exclusive view argues Gray’s demise reflects an admission that Labour has made political missteps since entering government — and that McSweeney, the party’s savviest strategic mind, is the individual best placed to right them.

But whatever your chosen interpretation, Starmer’s No 10 operation looks strikingly different to that which entered government, to much fanfare, on 5 July.

Today then: more on Westminster’s lead story. Can Starmer finally find some political direction?

Why Sue Gray was ousted

Labour’s lowest moment since entering government on 5 July came when Keir Starmer was forced to insist, mere months into his new role, that he was “completely in control” of No 10 Downing Street — contrary to popular and media opinion.

The claim followed reports that Sue Gray, his chief of staff, was being paid £3,000 more than Starmer after a post-election pay rise.

This story, in the end, was less significant for the pecuniary sum involved than the vituperative briefing that accompanied its revelation. The anonymous rants — borne of dispossession, spite or genuine righteousness — were coruscating.

“It was suggested that [Gray] might want to go for a few thousand pounds less than the prime minister to avoid this very story”, one source told BBC Newsacidly. “She declined.”

“If you ever see any evidence of our preparations for government, please let me know”, another adviser scathed.

But the magnum opus of Labour’s acerbic anti-Gray leaks, which reached their peak just before Labour conference, was pinged to The Sunday Times’ Gabriel Pogrund. “Sue Gray is the only pensioner better off under Labour”, it read.

Briefing of this intensity, suffice it to say, reflected not just anger within No 10 — but a broader recognition that Labour was struggling. In a standard “honeymoon” period, it’s unlikely resentful advisers would get much of a hearing from journalists; their dispossessed wails just wouldn’t fit the prevailing narrative. And yet here they were, being reported by the national broadcaster and rabidly followed up by the rest of the press gallery.

The briefings also, it should be stressed, filled a political vacuum.

During Labour’s time in opposition, Gray was reportedly been charged with setting the “grid” — or media agenda — for Labour’s first 100 days in government. But as this politically and psychologically significant milestone approaches, it’s still not clear what Starmer’s “mission” in government is.

Of course, what did exist of No 10’s chosen agenda was crowded out by stories surrounding Starmer’s ever-conspicuous chief of staff. It was an untenable situation.

But still, Gray’s departure on Sunday was announced far sooner than Westminster had collectively expected. It is easy to lampoon a government as maladroit and dithering when it comes to the deposition of problem individuals. (By which I mean figures who become net drags on the party operation). But many still expected Gray to survive until Christmas — paving the way for a more totemic New Year reset. Moreover, in acting ahead of expectations, Starmer risks broadcasting the view that Gray’s ouster reflects even deeper problems in No 10.

But decisive action has always been a feature of the Starmer project when it is operating at its best.

Nor is such “ruthlessness” a given in modern politics. It is, for instance, the opposite of Boris Johnson’s style, whose loyal sentimentality (usually in a quid pro quo sense) saw many ministers — and one notable adviser — last far beyond their time. The months wasted before Rishi Sunak sacked Suella Braverman as home secretary only strengthened criticism of him as weak.

Ruthlessness has been Starmer’s primary calling card since becoming Labour leader in 2020 — and Gray’s departure is a timely manifestation. Crises and setbacks are inevitable as a leader; the test is to find the kernel of opportunity shrouded within.

But there are still broader issues for Starmer to reckon with. Gray’s steady descent from media darling — star raised by fawning hagiographies — to erstwhile political boogeywoman is, in many senses, the story of this government. This view rather helps explain why Gray’s profile has captured so much (arguably outsized) attention over recent months.

The court intrigue stories fed into the prevailing narrative — in lieu of any compelling Labour tale — of the government’s decline from its post-election peak. The resultant difficult headlines prompted further internal derision and bellicose briefing. It was an unsustainable doom loop that Starmer felt compelled to break.

As such, Gray’s ejection won’t in and of itself correct Labour’s early missteps. But it was surely necessary to create some space so a new, more overtly political, operation might.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Former Blair adviser says Labour’s lack of political narrative has led to ‘drift’

Lunchtime soundbite

‘It is a day of deep reflection and pain thinking about October 7, the worst attack on the Jewish community since the Holocaust’

— Foreign secretary David Lammy says the anniversary of the 7 October attacks on Israel is “a day of deep reflection and pain”.

Lammy told reporters at the South Tottenham synagogue this morning: “This is a painful day for the Jewish community across this country and across the diaspora.”

He added: “It is a day of deep reflection and pain thinking about October 7, the worst attack on the Jewish community since the Holocaust. And of course, thinking about the many hostages that are still held in Gaza and their loved ones and their pain.

“And particularly we think of Emily Damari, the British hostage, and her family have no word of her fate or how she is doing.”