McSweeney’s resignation statement eases the heat, but spin culture holds on 

After days of pressure on the government, Morgan McSweeney’s exit as Number 10’s chief of staff felt inevitable.

As resignation statements go, it made a fair attempt to own his part in a scandal that could still engulf his boss.

It admits his role in advising the Prime Minister to appoint Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador, acknowledges the damage caused, and owns the failure.

It stands up well against a political culture that too often denies responsibility at all costs, even when the evidence screams otherwise.

Other parts of the statement – included here and in full below – landed less well though.

Spin like you’re winning

The fourth paragraph is heavy with boilerplate references that you see in any statement and misses the moment.

Claims that ‘only a Labour government’ can lead the country to ‘a better future’, even though it isn’t doing a great job, feel out of place.

The obligatory reference to ‘pride in all we achieved’ jars. It conjures up memories of Tory ministers resigning in scandal and using their letters to talk about what a great job they did – even when the opposite was true.

And this comes before any mention of the victims trafficked and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. Even though the statement itself says — ‘firstly, and most importantly’ — we should remember them. Just not before shoehorning in lines about how good the government is.

Making a statement

Working in government is relentless and unforgiving. Much of the media had made its mind up about Keir Starmer before he entered Number 10.

Statements like McSweeney’s must strike a careful balance between explanation, protecting the administration and colleagues who remain in post, and not making a bad situation worse.

In this case saying: “I messed up. I own the failure. Here’s what should happen now,” would probably suffice.

Set against a political culture where failure is rarely admitted, and often stridently denied in the face of overwhelming evidence, owning the failure could be presented as virtuous.

There will be plenty of opportunity for McSweeney and supporters to make a confident argument for his record in government. Yesterday wasn’t the time to try.

What the statement didn’t (and the government won’t) say

I’m also struck by the gradual and sudden nature of this scandal breaking. It existed in plain sight for years before the Epstein files landed.

Government statements, and almost all the media commentary I’ve seen, ignore an obvious point about Mandelson’s appointment, which McSweeney advised on. He was seen as the right appointment for the situation, with the gravitas, charm and influence to keep a volatile Trump administration on side.

Former White House adviser, UK-born Fiona Hill, writes in her 2022 book of her time working for the president during his first term. A global expert on Russia and a pre-eminent voice on ‘left behind’ places, she writes about Trump’s ‘autocrat envy’, misogyny and hostility to those he regards as establishment figures. These traits were as well-known as Mandelson’s glaring failings.

I’m not suggesting that he was ever a good choice. But many did at the time. Until they didn’t. Titles like The Times praised the appointment last year and now ask: Why was Peter Mandelson ever trusted?

Where this leaves us

Starmer could still pay a heavy price for the appointment. But we can’t let that obscure a more fundamental question: what’s happened to trust in politics, and how can we restore it? Continued attempts to address this with a speech or a statement without taking the action alongside it don’t help. People are tuning out.  

It all stems from the same place. What we quaintly termed ‘spin’ in the mid-1990s during Mandelson’s pomp set the path to the post-truth era we’re in today. Deflection, obfuscation, and manipulation paved the way for shock jocks, online pile-ons, bare-faced lies and ‘flooding the zone with shit’.  

For those who have been around for long enough to see this play out, it’s no surprise to see Mandelson appointed over a qualified diplomat to represent us in the White House. It’s also entirely consistent that those welcoming this call at the time call for heads to roll when it goes wrong.

Set against this tawdry backdrop, I applaud Morgan McSweeney for his statement and taking responsibility. He’s not the first to see that it’s easier to comment on failure than it is to own it.

But spin culture remains. It has run so deep that it’s poisoned public discourse. I fear we’re years away from finding a solution.

I’d like to think that one is possible. It starts with recognising that Westminster politics and the media that reports on it is bust, and holding an open and honest discussion on how to fix it.