The distraction needs to end, and the leadership in Downing Street has to change.
In the long and fractious story of British Labour politics, loyalty has always had a price — and this week in Glasgow, Anas Sarwar decided he could no longer afford to pay it. Standing before the press at the Glasgow Trades Hall, the Scottish Labour leader called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign, citing a cascade of missteps in Downing Street that he feared would cost Scottish voters their chance to end nearly two decades of SNP rule. The break is as much a reckoning with political gravity as it is a personal rupture — a reminder that in democratic life, the fortunes of leaders are rarely theirs alone to carry.
- Sarwar's public call for Starmer's resignation — just days after expressing confidence in him — signals a collapse of trust at the heart of the Labour project.
- Downing Street is already under siege: the resignation of Morgan McSweeney and the Mandelson-Epstein controversy have left the Prime Minister visibly weakened and distracted.
- Scottish Labour has fallen to third place in the polls, trailing both the SNP and Reform UK, with Starmer's unpopularity increasingly seen as the anchor dragging Sarwar under.
- With May's Holyrood election fast approaching, Sarwar is betting that distance from London is his only path back to relevance — and perhaps to the First Minister's office.
- The fracture now forces Labour's 37 Scottish MPs to choose sides, while the SNP moves swiftly to frame the chaos as proof that Labour cannot govern itself, let alone Scotland.
On Monday morning, Anas Sarwar walked into the Glasgow Trades Hall and delivered a verdict that would have seemed impossible just weeks before: Keir Starmer, his ally and the Prime Minister he had campaigned to elect, needed to resign.
The backdrop was grim. Starmer was already absorbing the shock of his chief strategist Morgan McSweeney's sudden departure and facing renewed questions over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the United States — a decision thrown into harsh relief by the latest Epstein file releases, which detailed the peer's continued contact with the convicted financier. Downing Street insisted the Prime Minister was not going anywhere. But the ground beneath him was shifting.
For Sarwar, the calculation was painful but clear. Scottish Labour had spent months sliding in the polls and now sat in third place, behind the SNP and, humiliatingly, Reform UK. The momentum he had carefully built against the Nationalists — momentum that had once made him look like a future First Minister — had been eroded by Labour's troubled return to power in London. With John Swinney having steadied the SNP ship after Humza Yousaf's departure, and May's Holyrood election drawing near, Sarwar feared he was running out of time.
At the press conference, he acknowledged what the government had achieved, but said those achievements were being buried under too many mistakes. The distraction in Downing Street, he argued, could not be allowed to mean continued failure in Scotland. The election in May mattered too much.
The move shattered what had been, until last Thursday, a relationship of expressed confidence. It also forced an immediate reckoning within the party: Scottish Labour's 37 Westminster MPs now faced a choice between their Holyrood leader and their Prime Minister. The SNP's Stephen Flynn was quick to question whether Sarwar's intervention was principle or self-preservation. Whether the gamble pays off will depend on whether Scottish voters see it as leadership — or as panic.
Anas Sarwar stood at the Glasgow Trades Hall on Monday and did something that would have been unthinkable weeks earlier: he called for the Prime Minister to resign. The Scottish Labour leader, who had campaigned alongside Keir Starmer in the run-up to Labour's 2024 general election victory, now saw that partnership as a liability. The distraction in Downing Street had to end, Sarwar said. The leadership had to change. And it had to happen before May's Holyrood election, when Scottish voters would decide whether to give the SNP another term or finally break its grip on power.
The timing was brutal. Starmer was already reeling from the sudden resignation of Morgan McSweeney on Sunday and the renewed scrutiny of his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US—a choice that had drawn fire after the latest release of the Epstein files exposed the peer's continued links with the financier even after his conviction for child sex offences. The Prime Minister's spokesman insisted on Monday that Starmer had no intention of stepping down, that he remained determined and focused on delivering change. But the cracks were widening.
For Sarwar, the calculation was straightforward, if uncomfortable. Scottish Labour had been sliding in the polls for months, now sitting in third place behind both the Scottish National Party and Reform UK. Starmer's unpopularity was being blamed for the collapse. Sarwar had spent the better part of a year building momentum against the SNP—he was widely seen as a future first minister—but Labour's rocky return to power in London had undercut him. When Humza Yousaf stepped down as SNP leader in spring 2024 and was replaced by John Swinney, the Nationalists had regrouped and halted their slide. Now, with the May election looming, Sarwar faced the prospect of presiding over a third decade of SNP government unless something changed.
At the press conference, Sarwar was careful to acknowledge the good things Downing Street had done. But they were being drowned out, he said. There had been too many mistakes. The government had promised to be different, but too much had happened. He could not allow the failures at the heart of Downing Street to mean the failures continued in Scotland. The election in May was not without consequence for the lives of Scots.
The intervention marked a seismic break in the relationship between the two men. Just last Thursday, Sarwar had expressed confidence in Starmer. Now he was publicly demanding his resignation. The move forced a choice on Scottish Labour's 37 MPs: back their leader or remain loyal to the Prime Minister. Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, was quick to exploit the fracture, questioning Sarwar's judgment and suggesting the move was pure self-preservation. Whether Sarwar's gamble would pay off—whether distancing himself from Starmer would be enough to arrest Labour's decline in Scotland—would become clear in the months ahead.
Notable Quotes
The situation in Downing Street is not good enough. There have been too many mistakes. They promised they were going to be different, but too much has happened.— Anas Sarwar
Anas Sarwar has been the biggest cheerleader for Keir Starmer—what does that say about his judgement? Anas Sarwar expressed confidence in Keir Starmer just last Thursday, and now he has acted in self-preservation to save his own skin.— Stephen Flynn, SNP leader at Westminster
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Sarwar wait until now to break with Starmer? They were allies just days ago.
Because the polls told him he had to. Scottish Labour was collapsing, and Starmer's unpopularity was the anchor dragging him down. The May election is too important to lose.
But doesn't this look opportunistic? Sarwar was praising Starmer on Thursday.
It does look that way, and the SNP will say exactly that. But from Sarwar's perspective, staying silent would have been worse—it would have meant accepting third place and another SNP government.
What does Starmer do now? Can he survive this?
His spokesman says he's not resigning and has Cabinet support. But when your own party's leader in Scotland is calling for you to go, the pressure becomes very real. He's already lost McSweeney.
Will Scottish Labour MPs actually have to choose sides?
Some will. The ones in marginal seats will probably distance themselves from Starmer. The ones in safe Labour seats might stick with him. It's a mess.
Does Sarwar's move actually help him in May?
That's the gamble. If voters see it as principled honesty about failure, maybe. If they see it as naked self-preservation, it backfires. The SNP is already making that argument.