Sarwar has shown his ruthless streak. But will his swipe at Starmer mean anything to voters? | Anas Sarwar

Anas Sarwar has shown he has a ruthless streak. Once one of Keir Starmer’s staunchest cheerleaders and allies, the Scottish Labour leader is now the most senior party figure to call for him to quit.

Despite anger among his colleagues and criticism that his decision to demand Starmer stands down was “idiotic, immature and self-defeating”, Sarwar’s political calculation is blunt and uncompromising.

Sarwar and his advisers, having watched Scottish Labour’s polling figures plummet as the disarray inside the UK government deepened into chaos and then crisis, believe the risk of calling on Starmer to quit is justified.

Sarwar, by delivering Labour’s best national-level result in the 2024 general election – winning 35.3% of the vote, compared with Labour’s 33.7% at the UK-wide level – managed to double his party’s support levels in a matter of months. That has now evaporated. Scottish Labour sits at 18% in the polls.

Scottish Labour’s leadership have been in crisis talks since the issue of Peter Mandelson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein grew into a fully fledged scandal last week. But Sarwar’s call for Starmer to quit is freighted with risks.

If Starmer limps on in the lead-up to Scottish elections in May or Labour descends into civil war, Sarwar’s failure to deliver the coup de grace will be used by his opponents in a campaign to claim he is weak or, worse, ignored.

A successful outcome for Sarwar, such as it is, relies on Starmer quitting now. He needs Starmer to resign gracefully and with humility. And it would matter too who stands to replace him.

Sarwar’s allies may be gambling that a leadership contest will produce candidates that can rouse voters who have fled to Reform or the Greens to reconsider Labour, or at the very least, lance the boil they feel Starmer’s premiership has become.

However, that strategy is full of what-ifs. As Sarwar made clear, any decision about the future of the UK party leadership rests with the cabinet and the party in London. It is also a huge risk because it offers all his opponents the chance, yet again, to portray Labour as a party in turmoil; they will paint Starmer as a lame duck prime minister; they will amplify every personal attack on Sarwar.

Sarwar’s primary calculation is that Scotland’s electorate will hear and enjoy his comments about his loyalty being to Scotland. Insisting his “first priority and first loyalty” was to Scotland, he sought to justify his decision to call for Starmer to go as being one of service in the national interest.

“We cannot allow the failures at the heart of Downing Street to mean the failures continue here in Scotland, because the election in May is not without consequence for the lives of Scots.” Voters, he said “want to see politics that is open and accountable. They want to see leaders who put the national interest before themselves.

“That is the standard I will always apply. In three months we have an election that must be about one thing and one thing only: Scotland. That is my duty. That is my priority. That is my loyalty and that is Scotland’s choice.”

And yet it is another huge risk. Sarwar will have numerous opportunities to repeat this line in interviews, on leaflets and in televised election debates. However, voters may see this ruthlessness as the kind of betrayal they dislike in politicians; if they already felt let down by Labour, they may be utterly indifferent. It may simply be too late and too self-destructive.