Senior Scottish Labour MPs say it is too soon for a quick leadership coup and urge a formal, member-led process to decide the party's future
The Labour Party finds itself at a crossroads after a string of disappointing electoral results. Across the UK, voters punished the party in local and devolved elections, prompting calls for change from within. In Scotland a number of Labour MPs have publicly cautioned against a swift attempt to replace Keir Starmer, arguing that any shift in leadership must follow a clear, democratic process rather than a rush to anoint a successor.
Voices such as Euan Stainbank, Irene Campbell and Brian Leishman have urged colleagues to allow time for reflection and a properly managed contest. At the same time, prominent figures including Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are named among those who could stand if the leader steps aside.
Amid these warnings, former minister Catherine West has signalled an intention to seek nominations, describing her bid as a mechanism to force a decision within the leadership team rather than an outright attempt to become prime minister immediately.
Why some Scottish MPs want a deliberate approach
Scottish Labour MPs who oppose instant leadership change emphasise party unity and legitimacy. Euan Stainbank suggested creating a proper process so the party can identify the best candidate, even naming Andy Burnham as a preferred option, while recognising the practical obstacle that the Greater Manchester mayor would need a parliamentary seat to stand. Irene Campbell urged a “full and democratic contest” to allow a range of candidates to present themselves, and Brian Leishman warned against any backstage “coronation”, insisting the decision should rest with the membership.
Those urging caution argue a rushed change risks alienating local activists and voters who have already expressed frustration. They stress that party legitimacy comes from transparent procedures: nominations, debate and a ballot in which members and affiliated supporters can take part. This approach is framed as a way to avoid a leadership vacuum and to ensure whoever replaces Keir Starmer carries a clear mandate from the wider party rather than being chosen solely by a small group of MPs.
Catherine West’s challenge and internal options
Catherine West has made clear she will pursue nominations from colleagues if she believes the party machinery will not act. Her stated aim is to push the Cabinet to move collectively to back a named figure, possibly resulting in an internal solution such as a reshuffle rather than a full public contest. West told broadcasters she does not necessarily want an open leadership election and would prefer the senior team to agree a transition that keeps the party focused.
Cabinet reshuffle or formal contest?
The idea West floated — that the Cabinet could agree an internal reorganisation — highlights one possible path in government, where the party rules allow the Cabinet, in consultation with the National Executive Committee, to appoint an interim leader if the leader becomes permanently unavailable. Still, critics say bypassing a full contest risks undermining the party’s democratic norms. Supporters of an internal route counter that it could deliver stability quickly while avoiding prolonged public division that might damage the party further at the ballot box.
Rules, political context and what comes next
Understanding the formal mechanism is important. Under Labour rules, a leadership contest is triggered only if the leader resigns or if challengers are nominated by at least 20% of Labour MPs. That 20% nomination threshold currently equates to 81 MPs, and nominations must be submitted in writing to the party’s general secretary to initiate a ballot. If a contest is triggered, the final choice is made through a membership-wide vote conducted under a one-person-one-vote system using the alternative vote method.
Electoral setbacks driving urgency
The urgency behind calls for change stems from recent electoral setbacks: Labour lost ground across several regions, including significant losses in local English councils, the loss of power in Wales and historically poor returns in the Scottish Parliament. Opponents of the leader point to these outcomes as evidence that a reset is needed to regain working-class support and to reframe policy priorities. Supporters of Starmer respond by stressing the need for a coherent policy response and a planned recovery rather than immediate leadership upheaval.
With a speech planned by Keir Starmer and upcoming parliamentary events offering a chance to reset the narrative, the party faces a balancing act between swift action and careful process. Whatever path is chosen, senior Scottish MPs and other voices in Labour are clear: they want any transfer of power to be legitimate, contested where necessary, and underpinned by the involvement of the party’s membership to restore trust and build a sustainable path forward.
