Anas Sarwar thought he was in a chain of falling dominoes, set to topple Keir Starmer’s leadership. In reality, his political kamikaze has stabilised Starmer’s position.
Sarwar’s speech paradoxically described Starmer as his best bud as well as unfit to lead the Labour Party. It pained Sarwar to condemn the Labour leader, but Starmer’s tolerance of Mandelson was too deplorable for Sarwar to put up with.
Perhaps before Sarwar decided to politically assassinate the Prime Minister, he should have checked which way he was pointing the gun. Sarwar previously referred to Mandelsohn as an “old friend” on X. Yet during press questions post-speech, Sarwar wanted to give the impression that the depth of their relationship was nothing more than a casual fling. If Sawar wanted to give the impression that he cared, he could have offered a more empathetic and open response to his interactions with Mandelson, as that is just a small bit of what the victims of Epstein, and possibly Mandelson, deserve.
While watching Sarwar’s denunciation of Starmer, I puzzled as to why on earth he was doing this. The Holyrood election is three months away, and Scottish Labour is less popular than Reform. One can understand that desperate times call for desperate measures. However, Sarwar looks like a drowning man, desperately trying to sink his party with him.
I sat and thought for quite a while. What did Sarwar hope to gain, or rather, who? By throwing rotten tomatoes at Starmer, Anas Sarwar could be making a bid for Labour leader. His political reputation makes a strong case for this. In January, YouGov polled on his fame and popularity: 29 per cent knew who he was, a 3 per cent decrease since he became Scottish Labour Leader, and only 10 per cent liked him. Maybe Sarwar thought he would be safe in his daddy’s former parliamentary seat.
Labour’s other options are equally as promising: Wes Streeting, Rachel Reeves, and Angela Rayner. With the combined popularity of Just Stop Oil, I am confident that the Labour Party would be no better without Starmer than they are with him.
After picturing Sarwar as Prime Minister and giggling to myself, I moved on to my next theory: political redemption. Distancing Scottish Labour from the Westminster government is a logical and promising idea. By creating a Scottish Labour that acts adjacent to rather than subservient to Westminster, Sarwar had the chance to distance his party from the beige and boring image Starmer has reluctantly cultivated, in spite of his attempts to be in with the kids using the “67” meme.
In theory, distancing themselves from a tragically unpopular Westminster government is a great idea. In practice, however, it did as well as Melania Trump’s new documentary, inventively titled “Melania”. Starmers’ biggest political threats rallied behind him because they realised, as I did and Sarwar didn’t, that switching out Starmer does not miraculously make Labour popular; it makes them look like the Conservatives.
Even Andy Burnham, still waiting on the steps of Westminster for someone to buzz him in, has announced his support for the continuation of Starmer’s leadership. “Yes, he has my support”. If the rebellious and gutsy prince of the Labour Party isn’t in support of overthrowing Starmer, it just isn’t going to happen.
The only person I could see supporting Sarwar is Farage. Yes. The Man who claimed that Sarwar and the South-Asian community would “take over the world”. The unlikely allies seem more concerned with excluding trans-women from women’s spaces than with who would take over Labour.
Sarwar wanted to lead a mutiny. However, he became a political outcast with no friends. Sarwar’s position as Labour Leader must now be questioned. If he can act without the confidence or support of Scottish Labour, how can he be trusted to lead them? His decision to take on Starmer was selfish and futile and will likely cost Scottish Labour some of its already few votes.
“AnasSarwarMSP” by Scottish Parliament is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Anas Sarwar calls for Keir Starmer to step down in an act of political kamikaze
Anas Sarwar thought he was in a chain of falling dominoes, set to topple Keir Starmer’s leadership. In reality, his political kamikaze has stabilised Starmer’s position.
Sarwar’s speech paradoxically described Starmer as his best bud as well as unfit to lead the Labour Party. It pained Sarwar to condemn the Labour leader, but Starmer’s tolerance of Mandelson was too deplorable for Sarwar to put up with.
Perhaps before Sarwar decided to politically assassinate the Prime Minister, he should have checked which way he was pointing the gun. Sarwar previously referred to Mandelsohn as an “old friend” on X. Yet during press questions post-speech, Sarwar wanted to give the impression that the depth of their relationship was nothing more than a casual fling. If Sawar wanted to give the impression that he cared, he could have offered a more empathetic and open response to his interactions with Mandelson, as that is just a small bit of what the victims of Epstein, and possibly Mandelson, deserve.
While watching Sarwar’s denunciation of Starmer, I puzzled as to why on earth he was doing this. The Holyrood election is three months away, and Scottish Labour is less popular than Reform. One can understand that desperate times call for desperate measures. However, Sarwar looks like a drowning man, desperately trying to sink his party with him.
I sat and thought for quite a while. What did Sarwar hope to gain, or rather, who? By throwing rotten tomatoes at Starmer, Anas Sarwar could be making a bid for Labour leader. His political reputation makes a strong case for this. In January, YouGov polled on his fame and popularity: 29 per cent knew who he was, a 3 per cent decrease since he became Scottish Labour Leader, and only 10 per cent liked him. Maybe Sarwar thought he would be safe in his daddy’s former parliamentary seat.
Labour’s other options are equally as promising: Wes Streeting, Rachel Reeves, and Angela Rayner. With the combined popularity of Just Stop Oil, I am confident that the Labour Party would be no better without Starmer than they are with him.
After picturing Sarwar as Prime Minister and giggling to myself, I moved on to my next theory: political redemption. Distancing Scottish Labour from the Westminster government is a logical and promising idea. By creating a Scottish Labour that acts adjacent to rather than subservient to Westminster, Sarwar had the chance to distance his party from the beige and boring image Starmer has reluctantly cultivated, in spite of his attempts to be in with the kids using the “67” meme.
In theory, distancing themselves from a tragically unpopular Westminster government is a great idea. In practice, however, it did as well as Melania Trump’s new documentary, inventively titled “Melania”. Starmers’ biggest political threats rallied behind him because they realised, as I did and Sarwar didn’t, that switching out Starmer does not miraculously make Labour popular; it makes them look like the Conservatives.
Even Andy Burnham, still waiting on the steps of Westminster for someone to buzz him in, has announced his support for the continuation of Starmer’s leadership. “Yes, he has my support”. If the rebellious and gutsy prince of the Labour Party isn’t in support of overthrowing Starmer, it just isn’t going to happen.
The only person I could see supporting Sarwar is Farage. Yes. The Man who claimed that Sarwar and the South-Asian community would “take over the world”. The unlikely allies seem more concerned with excluding trans-women from women’s spaces than with who would take over Labour.
Sarwar wanted to lead a mutiny. However, he became a political outcast with no friends. Sarwar’s position as Labour Leader must now be questioned. If he can act without the confidence or support of Scottish Labour, how can he be trusted to lead them? His decision to take on Starmer was selfish and futile and will likely cost Scottish Labour some of its already few votes.
“AnasSarwarMSP” by Scottish Parliament is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related