Connect with us

News

Starmer wields the knife after shaky 100 days in office

Published

on

Starmer wields the knife after shaky 100 days in office

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

After almost 100 days in office, Sir Keir Starmer on Sunday finally decided to get a grip on his stumbling administration. “Keir will always wield the knife when it needs to be done,” said one Labour MP. “Now he has.”

The departure of Sue Gray from her key role as Starmer’s chief of staff was the catalyst for Sunday’s complete overhaul of the Number 10 operation. Many were left wondering why it had taken the prime minister so long.

Starmer, who hired Gray in 2023 to help him prepare for government, had been loyal to his chief of staff in office, in spite of fierce internal criticism of her management style.

Advertisement

But those close to the prime minister say that a morose and fractious Labour conference in Liverpool last month convinced him he had to draw a line under the mis-steps that had dogged his first months in office.

“Keir came back from the conference pretty chastened,” said one Labour insider. “He realised he needed to get a grip on things.”

In Liverpool party members expressed their concern at how Starmer had cut winter fuel payments for 10mn pensioners, then appeared unable to contain a row over his receipt of £32,000 in “freebie” suits and glasses.

Gray had become a lightning rod for discontent, with hostile internal briefings about her £170,000 salary and alleged “control freakery”. Labour special advisers, or Spads, claimed she was partly responsible for holding down their salaries.

Gray’s allies said all of this was grotesquely unfair on a hard-working and loyal member of the Starmer team, a view shared by many cabinet members.

Advertisement

But one senior minister told the Financial Times: “It was only a question of when, not if. Not everything was her fault, but the transition to government, the situation with the Spads and the unending freebies clusterfuck were all on her and made her position untenable.”

A person close to the discussions over the Downing Street shake-up said that after returning from Liverpool — via the UN General Assembly in New York — Starmer began lamenting the fact that Gray had “become the story”. 

Gray acknowledged she had become a “distraction”. She will now take up a role as an adviser to Starmer on relations with the UK’s devolved nations and regions, but her grip on the levers of power in Number 10 is over.

The former civil servant was also blamed for being a bottleneck in appointing people to key jobs, a problem that was rectified by the prime minister on Sunday as he announced a dramatic overhaul of his team. 

Morgan McSweeney, who was on the long march in opposition with Starmer, replaces Gray as chief of staff. It was McSweeney who helped to slay the threat of the Corbynite left and then masterminded Labour’s landslide election victory in 2024.

Advertisement

But some question whether he is cut out to be a chief of staff, especially given his lack of Whitehall experience. “Morgan is very popular with Labour staffers — this is like a players’ revolt in a football dressing room,” said one Labour veteran. “But he’s not the sort of person who puts things down on paper.”

There was a long-standing narrative at Westminster that McSweeney was part of a “boys club” around Starmer that was treated with suspicion by Gray. 

Starmer appointed two women to work as deputy chiefs of staff alongside McSweeney — Vidhya Alakeson and Jill Cuthbertson — a move seen by some Labour MPs as a riposte to any suggestion that the boys club had won.

Gray did not have any deputy chiefs of staff, an omission seen in Labour circles as contributing to a lack of grip at the centre and a sign of her unwillingness to share responsibility with others. “That was her choice,” said one ally of Starmer.

While Alakeson and Cuthbertson are highly regarded in Number 10 — the former is Starmer’s political director and the latter is a long-term Starmer lieutenant — Gray’s departure leaves the centre decidedly short of Whitehall experience.

Advertisement

In despatching Gray to the UK’s regions and nations, he has brought into his inner circle people who were already part of his trusted gang. “It’s a circling of the wagons,” said one person close to Starmer.

The exception is James Lyons, a former Sunday Times political journalist, NHS communications chief and TikTok media executive hired by Starmer to beef up his media team, which will continue to be headed by director of communications Matthew Doyle.

Lyons will have a strategic comms role, including oversight of Downing Street’s “grid” of future announcements. It is a common complaint of Labour staffers that the grid, previously under Gray’s control, has been chaotic.

Pat McFadden, cabinet office minister and part of Starmer’s inner circle, is said by party insiders to have played a key role in the shake-up, being close to both McSweeney and Lyons. 

The result of Sunday’s upheaval is that Starmer ends his first 100 days in office with what looks more like a functioning Number 10 operation. Many Labour MPs, privately, believe it is not before time.

Advertisement

News

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

Published

on

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump returned from the spectacle of a Chinese state visit to a less than welcoming U.S. economy — with the military band and garden tour in Beijing giving way to pressure over how to fix America’s escalating inflation rate.

Consumer inflation in the United States increased to 3.8% annually in April, higher than what he inherited as the Iran war and the Republican president’s own tariffs have pushed up prices. Inflation is now outpacing wage gains and effectively making workers poorer. The Cleveland Federal Reserve estimates that annual inflation could reach 4.2% in May as the war has kept oil and gasoline prices high.

Trump’s time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears unlikely to help the U.S. economy much, despite Trump’s claims of coming trade deals. The trip occurred as many people are voting in primaries leading into the November general election while having to absorb the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, utility bills, jewelry, women’s clothing, airplane tickets and delivery services. Democrats see the moment as a political opportunity.

“He’s returning to a dumpster fire,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank focused on economic issues. “The president will not have the faith and confidence of the American people — the economy is their top issue and the president is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’”

The president’s trip to Beijing and his recent comments that indicated a tone-deafness to voters’ concerns about rising prices have suggested his focus is not on the American public and have undermined Republicans who had intended to campaign on last year’s tax cuts as helping families.

Advertisement

Trump described the trip as a victory, saying on social media that Xi “congratulated me on so many tremendous successes,” as the U.S. president has praised their relationship.

Trump told reporters that Boeing would be selling 200 aircraft — and maybe even 750 “if they do a good job” — to the Chinese. He said American farmers would be “very happy” because China would be “buying billions of dollars of soybeans.”

“We had an amazing time,” Trump said as he flew home on Air Force One, and told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that gasoline prices were just some “short-term pain” and would “drop like a rock” once the war ends.

Inflationary pain is not a factor in how Trump handles Iran

Trump departed from the White House for China by saying the negotiations over the Iran war depended on stopping Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

That remark prompted blowback because it suggested to some that Trump cared more about challenging Iran than fighting inflation at home. Trump defended his words, telling Fox News: “That’s a perfect statement. I’d make it again.”

Advertisement

The White House has since stressed that Trump is focused on inflation.

Asked later about the president’s words, Vice President JD Vance said there had been a “misrepresentation” of the remarks. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the “administration remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the homefront” while indicating actions would be taken on grocery prices.

But as Trump appeared alongside Xi, new reports back home showed inflation rising for businesses and interest rates climbing on U.S. government debt.

His comments that Boeing would sell 200 jets to China caused the company’s stock price to fall because investors had expected a larger number. There was little concrete information offered about any trade agreements reached during the summit, including Chinese purchases of U.S. exports such as liquefied natural gas and beef.

“Foreign policy wins can matter politically, but only if voters feel stability and affordability in their daily lives,” said Brittany Martinez, a former Republican congressional aide who is the executive director of Principles First, a center-right advocacy group focused on democracy issues.

Advertisement

“Midterms are almost always a referendum on cost of living and public frustration, and Republicans are not immune from the same inflation and affordability pressures that hurt Democrats in recent cycles,” she added.

Democrats see Trump as vulnerable

Democratic lawmakers are seizing on Trump’s comments before his trip as proof of his indifference to lowering costs. There is potential staying power of his remarks as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend facing rising prices for the hamburgers and hot dogs to be grilled.

“What Americans do not see is any sympathy, any support, or any plan from Trump and congressional Republicans to lower costs – in fact, they see the opposite,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.

Vance faulted the Biden administration for the inflation problem even though the inflation rate is now higher than it was when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 with a specific mandate to fix it.

“The inflation number last month was not great,” Vance said Wednesday, but he then stressed, “We’re not seeing anything like what we saw under the Biden administration.”

Advertisement

Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 under Biden, a Democrat. By the time Trump took the oath of office, it was a far more modest 3%.

Trump’s inflation challenge could get harder

The data tells a different story as higher inflation is spreading into the cost of servicing the national debt.

Over the past week, the interest rate charged on 10-year U.S. government debt jumped from 4.36% to 4.6%, an increase that implies higher costs for auto loans and mortgages.

“My fear is that the layers of supply shocks that are affecting the U.S. economy will only further feed into inflationary pressures,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.

Daco noted that last year’s tariff increases were now translating into higher clothing prices. With the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s ability to impose tariffs by declaring an economic emergency, his administration is preparing a new set of import taxes for this summer.

Advertisement

Daco stressed that there have been a series of supply shocks. First, tariffs cut into the supply of imports. In addition, Trump’s immigration crackdown cut into the supply of foreign-born workers. Now, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the vital waterway used to ship 20% of global oil supplies.

“We’re seeing an erosion of growth,” Daco said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Published

on

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.

She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.

Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.

But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”

Advertisement

“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”

As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.

She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.

The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

Published

on

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

The U.S. Supreme Court

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to allow Virginia to use a new congressional map that favored Democrats in all but one of the state’s U.S. House seats. The map was a key part of Democrats’ effort to counter the Republican redistricting wave set off by President Trump.

The new map was drawn by Democrats and approved by Virginia voters in an April referendum. But on May 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia in a 4-to-3 vote declared the referendum, and by extension the new map, null and void because lawmakers failed to follow the proper procedures to get the issue on the ballot, violating the state constitution.

Virginia Democrats and the state’s attorney general then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to put into effect the map approved by the voters, which yields four more likely Democratic congressional seats. In their emergency application, they argued the Virginia Supreme Court was “deeply mistaken” in its decision on “critical issues of federal law with profound practical importance to the Nation.” Further, they asserted the decision “overrode the will of the people” by ordering Virginia to “conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected.”

Advertisement

Republican legislators countered that it would be improper for the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into a purely state law controversy — especially since the Democrats had not raised any federal claims in the lower court.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans without explanation leaving in place the state court ruling that voided the Democratic-friendly maps.

The court’s decision not to intervene was its latest in emergency requests for intervention on redistricting issues. In December, the high court OK’d Texas using a gerrymandered map that could help the GOP win five more seats in the U.S. House. In February, the court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map, adopted to offset Texas’s map. Then in March, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the redrawing of a New York map expected to flip a Republican congressional district Democratic.

And perhaps most importantly, in April, the high court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map was a racial gerrymander and must be redrawn. That decision immediately set off a flurry of redistricting efforts, particularly in the South, where Republican legislators immediately began redrawing congressional maps to eliminate long established majority Black and Hispanic districts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending