Since winning a landslide majority in last year’s election, the mood inside the Labour Party has turned sour. Many voters are now unconvinced they have seen much change after the ‘14 years of Tory failure’ that Starmer so often talks about. Insiders warn that each day this discontent is allowed to “fester” raises the risk of a party coup. Recent polls tell a bleak story: Starmer’s personal approval rating plunged to –43 in the hours after the Commons debate on disability benefits, and seven out of ten voters now judge his government to be at least as chaotic as its Conservative predecessors. In short, the very mandate he claimed to hold now seems in jeopardy, a dangerous place for any leader.
Within Westminster, the warning signs have been flashing red. Nearly 200 Labour MPs defied the Whip on the welfare cuts package, openly rebelling against Starmer’s plan. Sharp voices from the left have grown louder too: John McDonnell (Corbyn’s former finance minister) has urged the grassroots to “mount a challenge” against Starmer, while shadow minister Louise Haigh warned against a lurch to the right. The Guardian notes that this ferment has accompanied a historic collapse in Starmer’s popularity. Frustrated MPs privately acknowledge that there is “universal discontent” in the party, even if they disagree on its cause. Some want bolder progressive economics, others demand more rigid immigration controls, and rural MPs blame recent tax changes, yet all agree Starmer’s authority has been “damaged” by repeated U-turns and mixed messages. One Labour insider even quipped that while colleagues are “totally safe” as long as the leader wants the job, any further missteps could force their hand. In practice, Starmer looks increasingly caught between an unhappy membership and a bewildered electorate.
With public trust evaporating, the argument for Starmer’s departure grows stronger. His image as a safe pair of hands has given way to comparisons with Theresa May’s twilight. Only 23% approve of the government’s record, and 51% now disapprove, according to one recent survey. Even staunch supporters admit his promise of a “new politics” has not materialized. A More in Common poll found two-thirds of voters now think the government is more interested in serving itself than the public.
Many activists feared Labour had moved too far to the centre; now critics warn it has simply muddled in the middle. The government’s constant backtracking on key pledges, from winter fuel payments to healthcare waits, has convinced many that Starmer cannot both hold the party together and win over floating voters. As one commentator warned, unless he follows the welfare U-turn with a clear plan to fix the public finances and rein in immigration, "Starmer will be unable to truly draw a line under the past year.” In other words, if Starmer cannot deliver results that match his rhetoric, Labour risks losing both its working-class base and its appeal to the centre. Under these conditions, even loyalists concede it may be time for him to go.
Worse yet for Starmer, recent local election results delivered a devastating blow to Labour’s standing on the ground. In May’s council elections, the party lost two-thirds of the seats it defended, typically its strongholds, including a major electorate collapse in Doncaster, where Labour lost 29 out of 41 seats to Reform UK, even in longstanding Labour areas like South Tyneside and Oldham, the party hemorrhaged control, dropping ten seats in one borough and losing its overall majority in another. Pollster Sir John Curtice described the outcome as “devastating,” warning that these losses have opened the door to alternative parties and that “voters lost to Reform and the Greens are not likely to return to the party any time soon.” A defeat in Runcorn and Helsby saw Reform capture what had been a safe Labour seat by six votes. This outcome signalled profound voter disillusionment with the government’s cautious agenda. These results didn’t just dent morale; they exposed a growing disconnect between Labour’s message and its traditional base, reinforcing the case that Starmer’s leadership is failing to deliver on local representation and grassroots trust.
Keir Starmer has nevertheless delivered noteworthy wins on the global stage, particularly in his handling of Donald Trump. His February 2025 visit to the White House was widely hailed as a diplomatic triumph, earning praise even from U.S. media. Trump described him as “a very tough negotiator” while publicly lauding his “beautiful accent.” He accepted an invitation for a rare second state visit, a signal of renewed warmth in the Anglo-American relationship. Starmer leveraged this visit to secure softer trade terms and won backing for increased British defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP, moves viewed as shrewd, transactional statecraft. This calm, composed engagement with Trump and his simultaneous outreach to Zelensky demonstrated international poise and effectiveness. Yet these foreign-policy flashes of brilliance have done little to erase the growing sense that Starmer lacks the domestic spark required to inspire Labour’s base, or win back the voters lost in local elections and welfare rebellions. Diplomatic credibility alone cannot fill the vacuum of domestic leadership that the party now faces.
So if Starmer were to step aside, who could fill the void? No easy answer presents itself. Any bid to remove him would first have to clear a daunting hurdle: 20% of Labour MPs must nominate a challenger, meaning at least 80 out of 412 colleagues. The Independent notes that with Labour’s current majority, “the chance of Starmer being replaced is, at present, small,” unless a single alternative can unite a large swathe of the party. Nevertheless, speculation continues about several prominent figures, each with their vision for Labour’s future.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is often mentioned as the leading alternative. A former shop-floor union leader and early supporter of progressivism, Rayner has long championed traditional Labour causes. She famously called the two-child benefit cap “obscene and inhumane” during the last election campaign, a stance that sharply contrasted with Starmer’s caution at the time. In government she has pushed a somewhat more interventionist line on economics: a leaked memo outlined higher taxes on wealthier households and more support for poor children, signalling a tilt towards the party’s left wing. Rayner emphasizes the bread-and-butter issues, child poverty, cost-of-living, workers’ rights, in an earthy, straightforward style that appeals to Labour’s base. However, her opponents argue she might struggle to reassure centrist voters, given her decidedly “soft left” profile and combative image. Rayner herself downplays any leadership ambition, repeatedly insisting she has “no desire” to challenge Starmer. Still, if Labour were searching for a more populist face, she would stand as the obvious choice, with a firmer commitment to core Labour values than her boss.
By contrast, Wes Streeting offers a different model of leadership. The health secretary, a former schoolteacher, is hailed by many as a media-savvy technocrat with pragmatic instincts. He is at once “gay, Cambridge-educated and born of a single-parent family on an east London council estate,” a profile that Labour moderates hope could help reconnect the party to a broad swathe of voters. In office he’s won praise for tackling NHS issues: one analysis describes him as a “safe pair of hands” who implemented some of the promised changes in health services.
Among Labour members he is popular too, at one point polling the third-highest favourability after Rayner and Andy Burnham. Unlike Starmer, Streeting is not a former trade union official or lawyer; he represents a more socially liberal, managerial approach. His policies have emphasized mental health, social care innovation, and even techno-optimism in health science. Detractors on the left sometimes view him as too centrist or media-focused, but he has insisted that loyalty to Starmer will guide him.
In short, Streeting would likely continue much of the current agenda but with a more dynamic, youth-friendly image, a potential plus for national appeal, even if it might not please Labour’s grassroots hardliners. The other obvious contender is Rachel Reeves, Starmer’s Chancellor and former shadow chancellor. Reeves is very much his collaborator: an economist by training, she has laboured to craft a Labour platform of fiscal responsibility and pro-business policies. In 2024, she pledged to lead “the most ‘pro-growth’ Treasury in UK history,” promising to return Labour to the political centre by balancing worker and business interests.
Under Reeves, Labour has essentially ruled out austerity by name, but also avoided unfunded giveaways. She speaks in the same measured tone as Starmer, famously telling business leaders that Labour would be both “pro-worker and pro-business” because each depends on the other. The main difference is that Reeves comes from an even more data-driven, technocratic background (she once worked at the Bank of England) and is seen as more unabashedly on the establishment side. In the last election campaign, she proposed plans such as being Britain’s “first green chancellor” and raising workplace pensions, substantive yet cautious reforms. If asked to succeed Starmer, Reeves would likely double down on stability and expertise in government, rather than offering any dramatic change. This makes her more of a continuation candidate than a fresh break: she believes, as Starmer does, in avoiding populist rhetoric and preserving Britain’s fiscal credibility. As one commentator put it, Starmer-Reeves is a partnership trusted by voters roughly as much as the Johnson–Sunak team was on the economy, which shows both their strength in unity and their weakness in lacking a compelling new message.
Former leadership contender Lisa Nandy is also sometimes raised. Nandy, now Levelling Up Secretary, is regarded as a “soft left” influence, to be sure, “by no means a Corbynite,” but more inclined toward grassroots community politics than Starmer’s civil-service background. In 2020 she famously branded Starmer “Mr. Rules” for his disciplined style, suggesting she favors more spontaneity and a bit of maverick flair.
Nandy’s strengths lie in her focus on devolution, housing, and the concerns of ordinary communities (she chaired the Net Zero review, for example). A female leader, she could signal a fresh image for Labour. Yet her policy instincts would only be modestly to the left of the current government; she would have pushed harder on climate and inequality, but not the sort of radical spending jump that hardliners demand. In practical terms, Nandy’s vision differs little from Starmer’s in core detail: both aim to revive blue-collar support and champion innovation, but she presents it in a friendlier style. If anything, Nandy’s appeal is internal, mainly (members and activists who liked her in 2020), rather than national, so her name generates less excitement outside the party.
Another Labour veteran, Andy Burnham, is often mentioned in passing. Burnham was the runner-up in both the 2010 and 2015 leadership contests and remains widely admired in the North as the “King of Manchester” for his mayoral work. However, Burnham himself has squashed speculation: he told Sky News last year, “I ain’t going back any time soon” to fight another leadership battle. In other words, one of Labour’s most popular figures has effectively taken himself out of the running, which narrows the field further. That leaves the party with its existing crop of MPs and ministers. Many of these are competent, like Reeves on the economy, Nandy on community, or Streeting on health, but none has yet bridged the yawning gap between the country’s current mood and Labour’s aims.
In short, no one in particular has emerged as the apparent heir to Starmer. Angela Rayner might satisfy the left wing but alarm the centre; Streeting could win youth votes but unsettle traditionalists; Reeves would keep the economy on a steady course but lack a charismatic spark. As one internal note observed, it is “deeply unfashionable” to even say anyone other than Rayner could succeed, yet today all potential challengers have limitations. Crucially, if Labour were to trigger a contest, the party’s math makes it daunting, it would need 80 MPs to back a challenger, and gathering that kind of consensus is virtually unheard of with such a large, diverse caucus. The Independent warns that, without quick action to prove Labour is offering real change, even his long majority might not protect Starmer forever. But for now, the clock is still ticking.
The broader truth is that Labour needs a leader who can both honor its heritage and connect with the nation. That means someone willing to propose ambitious reforms (as Corbyn-era critics demand) without alienating ordinary voters (whom Starmer courted with moderation). So far, none of the rumored candidates offers a perfect blend: Rayner or Burnham might lean too far left for suburban swing seats, Streeting or Reeves might read like more of the same technocrat image that has failed to excite the country. The party’s message must change, and if it cannot come from Starmer himself, then leadership change becomes a question of “when” rather than “if.” As one analysis concluded, unless Labour finds a way to show it is genuinely different from the past, “the likelihood of a coup” will only grow. In the end, the case against Starmer is that he has lost the argument for change he once promised. Whether a new face can sell it to Britain is yet to be seen; for now, Labour remains at a crossroads with no obvious guide.
Add comment
Comments