The party's crisis was also a crisis for the country.
In the aftermath of sweeping electoral losses across England and Wales, the Labour Party finds itself at a crossroads familiar to governing movements that have lost the thread between their promises and the public's patience. A majority of Labour members now doubt their prime minister can reverse the party's decline, and nearly half call openly for his resignation — a reckoning that speaks not only to one leader's standing, but to the deeper question of whether a party can renew itself while its chosen steward still holds the wheel. Andy Burnham waits in the wings, preferred by members yet barred from the stage by the very institution his supporters hope to move.
- Historic local election losses — Reform UK, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens all advancing at Labour's expense — have shattered whatever remained of the party's post-2024 confidence.
- Internal polling shows a collapse in faith: 51% of members no longer believe Starmer can turn things around, a figure that has nearly doubled since October.
- Andy Burnham commands 72% net favourability among members and leads as preferred successor, yet a ruling by Labour's own national executive committee keeps him locked out of parliament and therefore out of any leadership race.
- At least ten MPs, including former cabinet ministers, are publicly pressing Starmer to announce a departure timetable — but the NEC will not move on Burnham unless Starmer himself asks, and Starmer has shown no intention of doing so.
- The fractures run deeper than one leader: 49% of members hold the broader government jointly responsible, and more than a third are actively considering cancelling their membership altogether.
The results arrived on a Thursday night in May, and they were devastating. Reform UK swept hundreds of council seats across England. The SNP claimed a fifth consecutive Scottish victory. In Wales, Plaid Cymru ended a century of Labour dominance, unseating the first minister. By Friday morning, Labour members had reached a breaking point.
A poll of more than 1,000 members, conducted just before the elections, captured the scale of the crisis. Fifty-one percent said they did not believe Keir Starmer could turn the party around. Forty-five percent said he should resign — a sharp rise from the 28% who had said the same in October. In seven months, the party had haemorrhaged confidence in its leader.
Into that vacuum stepped Andy Burnham. The Greater Manchester mayor was the first choice of 42% of members as successor, with a net favourability of 72% — numbers that suggested he would win any leadership contest he was allowed to enter. The obstacle was institutional: Labour's national executive committee had blocked Burnham from standing for parliament, citing the risk of a mayoral byelection. Without a Commons seat, he could not legally run for the leadership.
At least ten MPs went public with calls for an orderly transition, among them former transport secretary Louise Haigh and women and equalities committee chair Sarah Owen. They wanted Starmer to set a departure timetable that would give Burnham time to secure a seat. But the NEC made clear it would not lift its block unless Starmer personally requested it — and Starmer gave no sign he was prepared to do so.
The discontent was not confined to the leader alone. Forty-nine percent of members held the wider government jointly responsible for the collapse, and more than a third had actively considered cancelling their membership. Lena Swedlow of the thinktank Compass, which conducted the polling, put it plainly: in a moment of serious economic uncertainty at home and abroad, the country needed a leader it could trust. The standoff between a prime minister unwilling to go and a party increasingly unwilling to wait left that question unresolved.
The results came in on a Thursday night in May, and they were brutal. Reform UK swept hundreds of seats across England. The Scottish National Party claimed a historic fifth consecutive victory. In Wales, Plaid Cymru ended a century of Labour dominance, unseating the first minister. Even in London, the Greens picked off several councils. By Friday morning, it was clear the party had suffered a historic defeat—and Labour members had reached a breaking point with their leader.
A poll of more than 1,000 party members, conducted just before those elections, captured the depth of the crisis. More than half—51 percent—said they did not believe Keir Starmer could turn the party's fortunes around. Forty-five percent said the prime minister should step down. These numbers represented a sharp acceleration of discontent. Back in October, only 28 percent had said Starmer should resign if Labour performed poorly in May. The party had hemorrhaged confidence in its leader in the span of seven months.
Into that vacuum stepped Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester. When members were asked to rank their preferred successor, Burnham emerged as the clear first choice of 42 percent. His net favorability among the membership stood at 72 percent—a striking endorsement that suggested he would likely win any leadership contest he was permitted to enter. But there was a catch. The party's national executive committee had blocked Burnham from running for parliament, citing the risk of losing a mayoral byelection in Greater Manchester. Without a seat in the House of Commons, he could not legally stand for the party leadership.
Several Labour MPs, particularly those close to Burnham, began quietly telling journalists they wanted to see an orderly transition. They spoke of Starmer stepping down on a timetable, one that would give Burnham time to secure a parliamentary seat and position himself as the natural successor. At least ten MPs went public with the call, including former transport secretary Louise Haigh, the chair of the women and equalities select committee Sarah Owen, and several MPs elected in 2024. The pressure was mounting, but it was also constrained by a hard institutional fact: members of the NEC made clear they would not change their position on Burnham unless Starmer himself asked them to. And Starmer showed no sign of doing so.
The polling revealed other fractures in the membership. More than a third of members said they were considering resigning their membership altogether. Thirty-six percent had actively thought about canceling. Beyond Starmer himself, 49 percent of members said the prime minister bore joint responsibility for the party's collapse, along with the rest of the national government. The dissatisfaction was not narrowly focused on one person; it was systemic.
Lena Swedlow, deputy director of the thinktank Compass, which conducted the polling, framed the moment in terms of national stability. "Voters made their displeasure with Starmer's leadership heard on Thursday and now Labour members have too," she said. "In the face of an incredibly serious economic situation at home and abroad, it's essential that the country and the party have a leader that they can trust." The implication was clear: the party's crisis was also a crisis for the country.
Burnham's backers in parliament were betting that sustained pressure would eventually move Starmer. They hoped the prime minister would announce a departure date and that, in doing so, he would also lift the block on Burnham's parliamentary ambitions. But that calculation rested on an assumption that had not yet been tested: that Starmer would choose to leave on someone else's timeline rather than his own. The standoff was set. The party was fracturing. And the question of who would lead Labour next remained locked behind institutional barriers and the will of a prime minister who had given no indication he was ready to go.
Notable Quotes
Voters made their displeasure with Starmer's leadership heard on Thursday and now Labour members have too. Nearly half want him to stand down and over half don't think he's the man for the job.— Lena Swedlow, deputy director of Compass thinktank
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that Burnham can't run for parliament? Couldn't he just become leader anyway?
No—the party constitution requires the leader to be an MP. It's a hard rule. So even though members overwhelmingly prefer him, he's locked out until the NEC lets him stand for a seat.
And the NEC won't budge?
They've said they won't change position unless Starmer asks them to. Which is the whole problem. Starmer controls the mechanism that could clear the path for his own replacement.
So this is a standoff.
Exactly. The membership wants change. Ten MPs are calling for it. But Starmer holds the institutional levers. He can simply refuse to move.
What happens if he doesn't?
The party keeps bleeding members. The next general election gets closer. And the pressure either builds until something breaks, or it doesn't. Right now, no one knows which.
Is Burnham actually waiting for this, or is he staying out of it?
He's staying publicly quiet. But his allies in parliament are doing the work for him—making the case that an orderly transition would be better for everyone than a messy collapse later.