Analysis of: No 10 claims Starmer ‘positive, confident and determined’ despite resignation of two key aides in 24 hours – UK politics live
The Guardian | February 9, 2026
TL;DR
Labour's elite power brokers turn on each other as Starmer's government implodes over the Mandelson-Epstein scandal. The crisis exposes how bourgeois democracy's rotating doors connect political power to capital, regardless of party label.
Analytical Focus:Class Analysis Historical Context Contradictions
The accelerating crisis within Keir Starmer's government reveals the fundamental contradictions of a Labour Party that abandoned any pretense of representing working-class interests in favor of managing capitalism on behalf of its dominant class. The resignations of Morgan McSweeney and Tim Allan—architects of Labour's rightward turn and professional communicators of neoliberal austerity—are not departures of ideological opponents but of functionaries who served the same class project. The scandal surrounding Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador, despite known connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, demonstrates how the British political establishment operates as an interconnected network where proximity to wealth and power consistently outweighs democratic accountability. What emerges from the Guardian's live coverage is a portrait of an elite in crisis—not because of policy failures affecting working people, but because internal factional conflicts have become unmanageable. The absence of cabinet ministers defending Starmer, the Scottish Labour leader's anticipated call for resignation, and the paralysis of government all point to a ruling coalition unable to maintain coherence. Notably, the proposed 'reform'—parliamentary vetting hearings modeled on the US Senate—would merely add procedural legitimacy to an unchanged system of elite circulation between government, capital, and diplomatic posts. The crisis also exposes the limits of electoral politics within capitalist democracy. Whether Starmer survives or is replaced by Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband, or another figure, the fundamental orientation of British governance toward serving capital's interests will remain unchanged. The commentators quoted worry about 'market shocks' if the 'Labour right' loses control, revealing whose interests truly constrain political possibility. For working people, the spectacle offers a clear lesson: the struggle for genuine change cannot be delegated to professional politicians whose careers depend on maintaining capitalist relations.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Professional political class (Labour MPs, advisers, spin doctors), Media commentariat, Financial capital (referenced via 'market shock' concerns), Conservative opposition, Working-class voters (largely absent from discussion)
Beneficiaries: Political consultants and communications professionals, Think tank networks and policy institutes, Media organizations generating content from crisis, Opposition parties gaining political advantage
Harmed Parties: Working-class constituents whose needs are ignored during elite infighting, Victims of Epstein whose exploitation becomes political fodder, Scottish voters instrumentalized in factional conflicts, Public trust in democratic institutions
The article reveals power concentrated entirely within a narrow political-media nexus in Westminster. Working people appear only as abstract 'voters' whose support is sought, never as agents with interests. Cabinet ministers, advisers, and journalists operate in a closed circuit where 'the lobby briefing' and PLP meetings determine outcomes. The threat of 'market and economic shock' if certain leaders take power demonstrates capital's structural veto over political possibilities.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Neoliberal economic policy continuity regardless of leadership, Financial market constraints on political alternatives, Professional-managerial class interests in government, Media industry economics driving crisis coverage
The political class operates as a distinct stratum whose labor involves managing capitalist social relations rather than challenging them. The rapid turnover of communications directors (five in 19 months) reflects the impossibility of 'selling' policies that materially harm working people. The proposed standards reforms would create new professional roles (vetting hearings) without altering underlying power relations.
Resources at Stake: Government positions and salaries, Access to state power, Patronage networks and post-political careers, Ideological control over Labour's direction
Historical Context
Precedents: New Labour's original capture of the party apparatus under Blair/Mandelson, Thatcher adviser resignations preceding her downfall, Theresa May's post-2017 paralysis after losing key advisers, Historical Labour right purges of left dissent
This crisis represents the terminal phase of the New Labour project initiated in the 1990s. That project—explicitly modeled on accommodating capital through 'modernization'—has exhausted its ability to generate consent. The comparison to Theresa May's post-2017 paralysis is apt: a leader stripped of the advisers who provided strategic coherence, stumbling forward without purpose. More broadly, this reflects a pattern across Western social democracy where parties that abandoned working-class politics in the neoliberal era face legitimation crises as material conditions deteriorate.
Contradictions
Primary: Labour's claim to represent 'change' and working-class interests contradicts its systematic exclusion of left voices and embrace of establishment figures like Mandelson—the very architects of policies that harmed workers.
Secondary: The demand for 'standards' contradicts the system's structural corruption through capital-politics revolving doors, Scottish Labour's electoral interests contradict Westminster leadership's survival needs, The imperative to appear 'governing competent' contradicts the paralysis of internal crisis, McSweeney's credited 'electoral genius' contradicts his creation of an ungovernable coalition
The immediate contradiction between Starmer's survival and party stability may resolve through his resignation or a managed transition. However, the deeper contradiction—Labour's abandonment of working-class politics while depending on working-class votes—cannot be resolved within the party's current form. Either a genuine left challenge emerges to reclaim the party, or Labour continues its decline as workers seek alternatives (or disengage entirely), potentially benefiting right-populist forces like Reform UK.
Global Interconnections
The Mandelson-Epstein connection situates this crisis within global networks of elite impunity. Epstein's operation—providing access to wealth and power in exchange for complicity—represents an extreme form of the normal functioning of capitalist ruling classes. That a former EU Commissioner and architect of New Labour maintained such connections reveals how international capital, political power, and social access intertwine across borders. The proposed US-style Senate confirmation hearings represent ideological import from American political forms, reflecting Britain's subordinate position within the Anglo-American imperial structure. The obsession with the Washington ambassadorship itself—and the 'international credibility' various candidates supposedly offer—demonstrates how British political class legitimacy depends on recognition from US capital and state power. This is not merely a domestic crisis but reflects the broader instability of Western liberal hegemony.
Conclusion
This political crisis offers working people a clear pedagogical moment: the machinery of bourgeois democracy functions to circulate power among elites regardless of party label. The intense focus on personalities, factions, and procedural reforms obscures the continuity of class rule. Whether Starmer survives or falls, whether 'standards' are tightened or loosened, the fundamental relationship between capital and the state remains unchanged. The task for working-class organization is to build power independent of these institutions—through workplace organizing, community solidarity, and political education—rather than investing hope in which faction of the professional political class manages their exploitation.
Suggested Reading
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the capitalist state as an instrument of class rule illuminates why changing personnel or procedures cannot transform a state structured to serve capital's interests.
- Prison Notebooks (Selections) by Antonio Gramsci (1935) Gramsci's concepts of hegemony and the role of organic intellectuals help explain how political professionals like McSweeney function to maintain bourgeois ideological dominance within ostensibly working-class parties.
- Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg (1900) Luxemburg's critique of reformism demonstrates the structural limits of pursuing socialism through existing state institutions—directly relevant to understanding Labour's trajectory.