Two senior Downing Street exits in 24 hours as Anas Sarwar breaks ranks, but ministers insist the Prime Minister is staying put

PRESSURE continued to mount on Keir Starmer today (Monday) after two of his closest advisers resigned within 24 hours and the leader of Scottish Labour publicly called on him to step down.

The rapid series of events has fuelled growing speculation about the Prime Minister’s authority inside his own party, with critics describing the situation in Downing Street as chaotic and poorly handled.

Starmer first lost his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who stepped aside after taking responsibility for recommending the controversial appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to Washington.

Within hours, his director of communications, Tim Allan, also quit, saying a new team should take charge of the government’s messaging.

Two departures at that level in a single day are highly unusual and immediately prompted questions in Westminster about stability at the centre of government.

The crisis deepened further when Anas Sarwar broke ranks and urged Starmer to resign, arguing that the ongoing Mandelson controversy was becoming a damaging distraction and risked harming Labour’s prospects, particularly in Scotland.

Sarwar is the most senior Labour figure so far to publicly question the Prime Minister’s position.

A row that would not go away

The Mandelson appointment was initially seen as a difficult but containable judgement call. Supporters pointed to his experience and international contacts, while critics raised concerns about his past links to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

However, instead of fading, the story has dragged on for days, prompting criticism of how Downing Street has handled the fallout.

Several Labour MPs privately admit the issue is no longer the appointment itself but the perception that the government has been slow and defensive in responding.

One senior backbencher said: “It’s not the decision that hurts you. It’s looking like you’re not in control.”

Who is backing Starmer

Despite the noise, Starmer still retains public support from much of the Cabinet.

Allies say he remains focused on governing and has no intention of stepping down. Downing Street sources insist he is “getting on with the job” and dismiss talk of an imminent leadership challenge.

Senior ministers have urged colleagues to rally around the Prime Minister rather than fuel instability.

There is currently no formal mechanism under way to remove him, and no obvious successor waiting in the wings.

Political risk growing

Nevertheless, the optics are uncomfortable.

Two senior resignations in quick succession, combined with a public call to quit from within Labour’s own ranks, risk creating the impression of a government losing control of its message.

That perception matters.

Prime ministers are rarely forced out over a single decision. They fall when their own MPs begin to doubt that they can win the next election.

With Reform UK continuing to dominate headlines with simple, punchy messaging and Labour struggling to explain its record, some backbenchers fear that continued communication missteps could erode confidence further.

For now, Starmer remains in office.

But after the past 24 hours, questions about his leadership are no longer confined to the opposition benches.

They are coming from inside his own party.

JOBS and training schemes in Pembrokeshire could be affected by changes to a major UK Government funding programme, with councils across Wales warning that more than a thousand posts may be at risk.

The new Local Growth Fund will replace the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, which currently pays for business support, employability and skills projects delivered by councils and voluntary groups.

Like authorities across Wales, Pembrokeshire County Council uses the existing fund to back frontline services including help for small businesses, training courses, and support for people trying to get back into work.

A coalition of councils and third sector organisations, coordinated by the Industrial Communities Alliance, has written to Prime Minister Keir Starmer urging changes to the scheme.

They say the current plans risk avoidable job losses and service cuts, particularly in poorer communities that rely most on council-led support.

Funding for Wales is expected to total around £547 million over three years under the replacement programme. However, local leaders argue that the overall pot is smaller than previous arrangements and that new spending rules could limit how the money is used.

Under proposals, around 70 per cent of the funding would have to go on capital projects such as buildings and infrastructure, leaving just 30 per cent for day-to-day services and staffing.

Councils say most current schemes depend on revenue funding to pay staff who advise small firms, run skills courses and work directly with residents to help them into employment.

The alliance estimates around 1,500 council jobs across Wales are currently supported through the fund, alongside many more in charities and community organisations delivering services on the ground.

Meirion Thomas, who coordinated the campaign, said: “These programmes support businesses, training and employability. Losing them would hit the very communities the fund is meant to help.”

Both the Welsh Government and the UK Government say the new arrangements are intended to drive economic growth and give local areas greater control over spending decisions.

Ministers have said the fund is designed to create jobs, improve productivity and support communities, and that discussions with councils are continuing.

The Herald has asked Pembrokeshire County Council how many local jobs and schemes currently rely on the funding and what impact the new rules may have locally.

With the new system due to start in April, council leaders say clarity is urgently needed to avoid disruption to services that many businesses and jobseekers in Pembrokeshire depend on.

by Tom Sinclair, Editor
IN POLITICS, mistakes rarely bring down a prime minister. Handling does.

In the space of twenty-four hours Sir Keir Starmer has lost both his chief of staff and his director of communications. Two of the most senior figures in Downing Street have walked away at the very moment the government most needed steadiness and control.

This is not a policy crisis. It is a handling crisis, and handling, fair or not, often matters more than reality.

The original issue, the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite his long-documented association with Jeffrey Epstein, should have been a short-lived Westminster row. A judgement call that some supported for his experience and others opposed on reputational grounds. The sort of story that fills a day’s headlines and then fades.

Instead it has lingered and grown, turning a questionable decision into a rolling argument about judgement at the top of government.

The reason is simple. The Prime Minister did not take ownership quickly enough.

This could have been finished in half a minute. Step outside Number 10, face the cameras, and say clearly that the decision was his, that on reflection it was the wrong call, and that the government was moving on.

Voters tend to forgive honesty. They do not forgive hesitation.

Instead there was silence, followed by briefings and then resignations from close aides apparently taking responsibility. That convinces no one. Everyone understands that decisions of this scale come from the Prime Minister. Watching staff fall on their swords simply makes a leader look weak and defensive.

That is how a small political problem becomes a story about loss of control.

The irony is that Starmer is probably doing exactly what many people said they wanted after years of chaos. He governs cautiously. He focuses on the books. He tries to fix systems rather than chase headlines. It is careful, technocratic politics.

But careful management is almost invisible.

The public does not see departmental reforms or balanced spreadsheets. They see confidence, clarity and momentum. When they instead see confusion and senior figures quitting, they conclude that something is going wrong, whether it is or not.

Meanwhile Nigel Farage and Reform UK offer little detail but communicate relentlessly. Their message is simple and easy to repeat. The country is broken and they will fix it. That alone is enough to dominate the conversation, even without a fully worked-out plan.

It is not competence that cuts through. It is clarity.

That is where the real danger lies for Starmer.

Prime ministers are rarely removed because of one bad decision. They fall when their own MPs start to doubt that they can win the next election. Once that doubt takes hold, confidence drains quickly. Backbenchers get nervous. Donors start asking questions. Quiet conversations begin about alternatives.

Two senior resignations in a day do not just look messy. They suggest that the centre is not holding. If upcoming local elections or by-elections go badly, that doubt will harden.

If Labour MPs begin to believe that Starmer cannot sell a story to the country, that perception alone could end his premiership, regardless of how responsibly he is governing.

The harsh truth is that you can quietly repair a nation and still lose office if nobody notices.

In modern politics, communication is not decoration. It is survival. Right now, that is exactly what Downing Street appears to have lost.