From what I can gather, he needs to cut Morgan McSweeney loose.
He's Starmer's Chief of Staff.
Starmer likes him, and credits him with Labour's success last election
But, even prominent "Blairites" (no friends of the left) want him gone.

Trump's inaction. He has tried to be a Trump whisperer. He has shown willingness to admit his mistakes and compromise. Front pages of him admitting he was wrong about welfare cuts---we can only dream that Trump would be like that. His main political failure has been that he hasn't sold his successes or taken down the Reform party that is ahead in the polls---the populiist pro-Trump party led by the man that gaslit Britain into choosing the disaster that is Brexit.

that shows that adopting right wing positions such as austerity ends up costing center-left politicians votes. The study was specific to Europe so a lot of myths about US politics don't apply. Reform is probably going to be more successful in the next election and Starmer only has himself to blame.

The Tories' standing was so parlous that simply standing as "not the Tories" was enough to win seats, but the whole Labour campaign was based on the "ming vase strategy":

It was about not handing the Tories and the media any minor victories that could have rocked the boat as Labour sailed toward electoral success.

As those of us on the UK left know only too well, it's not the first time Labour has run on a platform of not changing much in terms of the basis on which the Tories governed, just managing matters better. So far, Labour has failed to even accomplish that very sparse aim, and is pursuing a course of at best austerity-lite, at worst, full-blooded austerity, which plagued the Tories in office.

The major issue that underlies all others is Reeves' dogged determination to abide by stringent fiscal rules Labour adopted as its own and to avoid taxing the rich to the extent that many in the country would approve of. To make up budgetary shortfalls, Labour chose instead to kick off its time in office by placing further burdens on those who're already struggling.

For instance, the failure to raise lower-band tax threshholds means that those receiving any more than the state pension - the lowest in Europe - with earnings from any income source other than a private pension if they have one, now face having to submit tax returns when they didn't need to in the past. A person on the maximum state pension currently receives £11,973 per year, the individual allowance before income tax begins to be levied is £12,570 at the moment, and above that, they start paying tax starting at a rate of 19%. The state pension is increased year by year under a system called "the triple lock". If Reeves (or her successor) refuses to increase the individual tax allowance, it will be only a matter of time before those on the maximum state pension are liable to tax on any amount exceeding the allowance.

Labour's early term has been littered with missteps like this - many not only morally indefensible, but politically cloth-eared. The radical change that many in the electorate felt was necessary - even if they were hazy on the details, except they wanted to feel a bit better off - has been absent. And as a result, Reform UK has benefited enormously in polling, because it majors in hazy policies and solutions, and victimizing outgroups - which some in the labour leadership have come perilously and shamefully close to doing themselves - and is quite sanguine about promising more that it could ever deliver.