The Labour Party is facing a moment of intense turmoil, and it feels like the leadership crisis just keeps getting worse.

Starmer’s premiership, which many hoped would be a steady hand, is increasingly being described as a car crash—except now it looks more like a full-scale motorway pile-up.

With unrest brewing among backbenchers and internal plotting to replace him, the question on everyone’s lips is: who could possibly take over if Starmer falls?

The Drab Four and the ‘Stalking Horse’ Threat

Political insiders are already eyeing the so-called Drab Four—Ed Miliband, Wes Streeting, Shabana Mahmood, and Ginge Rayner—as potential replacements.

Labour MPs are reportedly considering using a “stalking horse” candidate to push Starmer out, a tactic reminiscent of past leadership challenges in British politics.

For many voters, though, the very idea that any of these four could become Prime Minister is alarming.

The situation is compounded by Labour’s own rules: if 20 percent of MPs demand a leadership election, they can trigger it immediately.

This leaves Starmer vulnerable to internal coups, regardless of public opinion or election mandates.

A Party Divided Against Itself

While the party struggles with leadership infighting, backbenchers continue to push for policies that are more radical than the government itself is willing—or able—to implement.

They’re urging further tax hikes, expanded public spending, and ambitious social programs, often with little regard for economic reality or electoral support.

Yet the public has largely been sidelined. Starmer won in 2024 with only around 20 percent of eligible voters supporting Labour.

Since then, polls suggest that support has dropped further, now hovering around 17 percent.

Despite this, MPs appear willing to ignore voter sentiment entirely, making internal politicking the driving force rather than democratic consent.

The Precarious Position of Starmer

Starmer’s leadership is increasingly under threat not because of voter pressure but due to party infighting.

The influence of backbenchers who oppose any attempt at fiscal balance means the government is constrained, unable to implement even modest reforms.

Meanwhile, the Chancellor and key ministers are often described as ineffectual, struggling with economic issues that demand careful management.

The Drab Four in Focus

Each of the potential successors brings their own baggage:

Ed Miliband, still remembered for the 2015 “Ed Stone” fiasco, continues to champion a Net Zero agenda that critics say has driven up energy costs and destroyed jobs in vital sectors.
Ginge Rayner faces credibility issues after recent financial missteps and is already eyeing a rapid return to the front benches.
Wes Streeting has struggled with diminishing local support, holding a razor-thin majority that puts his own political future in question.
Shabana Mahmood has a controversial record on criminal justice and public safety, with critics citing early release policies that many believe undermined public confidence.

With each contender carrying their own controversies, the idea of any of them assuming power without a general election is deeply troubling to many observers.

Lessons from the Past

History has shown that party coups without public endorsement rarely inspire confidence.

The Conservatives have frequently replaced leaders mid-term, from John Major to Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.

Yet the lesson remains clear: true legitimacy comes from the electorate, not internal party maneuvering.

Democracy at Risk

Until voters are given a direct say, the notion of Starmer being replaced by one of the Drab Four is more than just an internal power struggle—it’s a challenge to democratic norms.

Removing a Prime Minister without an election risks alienating the public and further eroding faith in the political system.

Ultimately, the Labour Party’s internal drama highlights a stark reality: while MPs may play musical chairs in the corridors of Westminster, real authority lies with the people.

Until they get a chance to vote, any leadership change remains a political farce rather than a democratic process.