Office politics can be complicated. And Westminster can be obsessed with who's behind the scenes and where someone sits on the office floor plan. However, it is true that the relationship between Sue Gray and Keir Starmer's former chief of staff during the early years of Keir Starmer's government was, if anything, worse than reported.
She is not the first outsider to feel at odds with Mr Starmer's close-knit and cutthroat political team, which ran his leadership campaign and worked on Labour's election strategy. Former chief of staff Sam White resigned after just over a year.
While there were never any real angry words exchanged on a personal level between Gray and her successor, Morgan McSweeney, this operation had two very clear power bases that were unsustainable. There was.
There's one more thing this time. It's a total victory for a political team that has the loyalty of most special assistants and many ministers, and for whom Labor takes most of the credit for winning the election. They no longer have anyone to blame for future mistakes.
And it was Gray who was blamed by many, fairly or unfairly, for the missteps that marked Labour's first 100 days in government. Gray was touted as a guardian of ethics, creating the team's structure with the number 10 and scrutinizing donors and appointments. So who is the convenient person to be responsible for weeks of bad headlines surrounding Sir Ali's donation to Starmer and his subsequent provisional pass to No. 10?
Mr. Gray is also said to have insisted on keeping firm control over the special advisers, keeping their numbers down and contracts tight. So how convenient is it to blame infighting, pay cuts, and inadvertently appointing people who should be special advisers to civil service roles, as Reeves did with his adviser Ian Caulfield? Who is a good person? And who turned out to have been paid more than the Prime Minister?
Mr Gray was also said to have been responsible for the government's transition, 100-day planning, early legislation and priorities for key political moments during the election period. So who is easy to blame for the first few weeks being dominated by controversy over cronyism and freebies, with what felt like a total lack of positive talk about the government's actions?
It would be extremely unfair to blame all of this on Gray – and her critics know it. Mistakes were made throughout the government. Some senior figures in Whitehall have been scathing about the idea that she is to blame for everything.
Gray was not to blame for his deep concerns about lower winter fuel costs. She was the leader who called for an end to some of the ruthlessness surrounding Labour's selection process, including condemning the treatment of Diane Abbott. The donation was made through Starmer's personal office, not Gray. And she was widely credited with significantly improving Mr Starmer's relationships with regional leaders and female ministers, where there had been significant communication problems.
When things go wrong, the scapegoat is always the person whose job it was to make things go well. As one veteran stated during a late-night chat at a labor conference, it may not all be her fault, but it was her problem.
The lack of a coherent narrative became a talking point among disgruntled MPs and staff throughout the Labor Party conference. When a special adviser turned up to a late-night drinking party in Liverpool with a comically large rucksack, his colleagues joked: Have you finally figured out the transition to government planning? ”
In 10th place, there is a feeling that Starmer's team is more united, less obsessed with office politics and ready to refocus on the big picture. Their weakness may be experience, with Mr McSweeney's representatives Jill Cuthbertson and Vidya Arakeson having previously worked in Downing Street.
Mr McSweeney has come to office with the goodwill of many key aides and ministers across the government, but many backbenchers view him with suspicion. Finally, one team is in charge instead of two competing factions.
But if this reset does not restart the purpose of this government, there is no place to hide either. And that purpose and vision rests with just one person to truly set and communicate: Starmer himself.
