🔗 Share this article

"It's hardly been the government's best 24 hours since taking office," a top source close to power acknowledged after political attacks in various directions, partly public, considerably more behind closed doors.

It began following anonymous briefings with reporters, including myself, that Sir Keir would resist any effort to challenge his leadership - and that senior ministers, particularly the Health Secretary, were plotting challenges.

Streeting asserted he was loyal to the PM and called on the sources of the briefings to face dismissal, while the Prime Minister stated that any attacks targeting government officials were considered "inappropriate".

Questions regarding if the PM had approved the original briefings to flush out likely opponents - and if the individuals responsible were operating with his awareness, or approval, were thrown to the situation.

Was there going to be a leak inquiry? Would there be sackings at what Streeting called a "hostile" Number 10 operation?

What could associates of the PM trying to gain?

There have been numerous discussions to piece together what actually happened and in what position these developments places the current administration.

Exist important truths central in this matter: the government is unpopular as is the PM.

These circumstances serve as the primary motivation fueling the constant conversations I hear about what the party is attempting about it and what it might mean for how long Sir Keir Starmer remains in Downing Street.

Turning to the aftermath following the mudslinging.

Damage Control

The prime minister along with the Health Secretary communicated by phone Wednesday night to mend relations.

Sources indicate the Prime Minister expressed regret to the Health Secretary in their quick discussion while agreeing to talk more extensively "soon".

The conversation avoided the chief of staff, Starmer's top aide - who has become a lightning rod for blame from everyone including opposition leader Badenoch openly to government officials both junior and senior in private.

Generally acknowledged as the strategist of the election victory and the political brain responsible for Starmer's rapid ascent since switching from previous role, he also finds himself subject to blame if the Downing Street machine is perceived to have faltered, struggled or completely malfunctioned.

There's no response to requests for comment, as some call for his removal.

Those critical of him argue that within the Prime Minister's office where his role requires to exercise numerous important strategic calls, he must accept accountability for these developments.

Others in the building maintain no-one who works there was behind any leak against a cabinet minister, post the Health Secretary's comments whoever was responsible ought to be dismissed.

Consequences

At the Prime Minister's office, there exists unspoken recognition that the health secretary handled a round of scheduled media appearances the other day with dignity, aplomb and humour - although encountering continuous inquiries about his own ambitions since the reports targeting him happened recently.

Among government members, he showed a nimbleness and media savvy they hope Starmer demonstrated.

Furthermore, it was evident that at least some of those briefings that tried to shore up the PM led to a platform for the Health Secretary to declare he shared the sentiment among fellow MPs who labeled the PM's office as toxic and sexist while adding the sources of the leaks should be sacked.

What a mess.

"I'm a faithful" - Streeting disputes claims to oppose the PM as Prime Minister.

Government Response

The prime minister, I am told, is extremely angry about the way these events has unfolded while investigating what occurred.

What seems to have failed, from No 10's perspective, is both quantity and tone.

Firstly, they had, maybe optimistically, thought that the leaks would generate media attention, but not continuous major coverage.

The reality proved to be much louder than predicted.

It could be argued any leader letting this kind of thing be revealed, via supporters, under two years post-election, was certain to be headline top of bulletins stuff – precisely as occurred, across media outlets.

And secondly, concerning focus, they insist they didn't anticipate such extensive discussion concerning Streeting, that was subsequently greatly amplified through multiple media appearances he had scheduled the other day.

Others, admittedly, determined that that was precisely the purpose.

Wider Consequences

These are another few days where government officials talk about lessons being learnt and among MPs plenty are irritated regarding what they perceive as an unnecessary drama developing which requires them to firstly witness and then attempt to defend.

And they would rather not do either.

However, an administration and its leader displaying concern regarding their situation exceeds {than their big majority|their parliamentary advantage|their