Morgan McSweeney resigns as pressure mounts on Keir Starmer after Mandelson fallout

The political ground beneath Keir Starmer shifted again on Monday as Britain’s newspapers united around a single, brutal question. How long can the prime minister survive without the man who helped put him in power.

Morgan McSweeney’s resignation as Downing Street chief of staff has detonated across Westminster. His decision to step aside followed days of escalating anger over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington despite his long documented friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In quitting, McSweeney did not attempt to soften the blow. He accepted full responsibility and told Starmer directly that the advice he gave was wrong.

That admission has proved devastating. McSweeney was not just another adviser. He was Starmer’s most trusted strategist, a central architect of Labour’s landslide election victory and a figure many MPs believed was indispensable to the prime minister’s authority.

The Guardian described a leader suddenly exposed and facing a perilous stretch of policy fights and electoral tests. Labour sources told the paper that without McSweeney, Starmer is now vulnerable to internal pressure at a moment when unity is already fragile. Attention is already turning to looming byelections and to whether the party can hold its nerve.

The Telegraph took a darker view. Its front page suggested the resignation may not be enough to save Starmer at all. One Labour source said responsibility for Mandelson’s appointment ran deeper than a single adviser and warned that the damage to trust inside the party may already be irreversible.

The Daily Mail focused squarely on survival. It asked how long Starmer could cling on as rivals begin to position themselves. Labour MP Brian Leishman said a change in political direction must come from the very top. The paper reported growing speculation around potential successors, including Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting, should the crisis escalate into a leadership contest.

The Mirror captured the mood with stark simplicity. Blame me. It framed McSweeney’s exit as the heart of a widening Labour leadership crisis and reported that his deputies Vidhya Alakeson and Jill Cuthbertson have stepped in as acting chiefs of staff. Their task is formidable. Calm a furious party while restoring confidence in a prime minister under siege.

The Times portrayed Starmer as having sacrificed his closest ally in an attempt to contain the fallout. One cabinet minister quoted anonymously questioned whether the prime minister could even last the week, describing the next forty eight hours as critical.

The Financial Times echoed that sense of urgency. It said Starmer is now battling to save his premiership as scrutiny intensifies from both opposition benches and his own MPs. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch was blunt, arguing that the prime minister must take responsibility for decisions that led directly to the crisis.

The i Paper suggested McSweeney’s resignation may buy Starmer time but not certainty. Some Labour figures told the paper the prime minister remains fatally wounded despite the move, while others hope the sacrifice will draw a line under the affair.

Across the tabloids and broadsheets alike, the same theme dominates. The Epstein files scandal has become a test of judgment, honesty and leadership. McSweeney’s words have amplified that test rather than defused it. By saying blame me, he has also invited the question of who else knew what and when.

Starmer now faces a defining moment. He must convince his party and the public that the Mandelson appointment was an isolated failure rather than evidence of deeper flaws in his leadership. With his most powerful adviser gone and patience wearing thin, the coming days may determine whether this crisis marks a turning point or the beginning of the end.