The underlying problem has been that Starmer splitting the chief of staff role into an administrative and a political half has just led to a confusing mess, aggravated by a bizarre drive to reduce the SpAd headcount (the exact mistake made in 2010).

2007 slightly different in that, AIUI, they rightly thought they would need slightly fewer Spads because they didn't need to fight one another anymore, as the Brownites had won, but overestimated just how many Spads they could reduce headcount by.

I think some of this must stem from the fact that Chief of Staff is a job without a fixed role description and is relatively recent in British politics?

And 2007, no? You'd think they'd learn..

This is not right I think. You could split the role, have joint Chiefs of Staff, but what is key is that they both know, understand and accept their roles, and trust each other. Its the conflict between Grey and McSweeney seems to be the problem here, not their titles.

This. You cant just separate political and operational strategy at that level of govt because, fundimentally, the two go hand in and if they're not aligned they just clash. And it's fair to say that 'aligning with others' is neither Mcsweeney nor Grey's strength.