.svg)
The people do not like Keir Starmer. Not even the most optimistic Labour supporter can deny that. Justified? Maybe not, but it cannot be denied that the Prime Minister is painfully unpopular. Starmer’s overall favourability polling is at -47.1%.
Compare this to the Conservative opposition leader, Kemi Badenoch, at -12%. Or with more polarising parties like Reform UK’s leader, Nigel Farage, holding a favourability score of -19% and the leader of the Green Party, Zach Polanski, at -6.5%. Ipsos have recorded Keir Starmer as having the lowest satisfaction ratings of any Prime Minister since 1977. This marks a change from the 2024 general election, when Labour gained 209 seats from the previous 2019 election, resulting in 411 seats for Labour overall.
This change is stark, but clear. His success in the 2024 election was the result of more than just Tory fatigue, but a careful campaign, with the slogan ‘change’. This slogan meant more than just a change from 14 years of conservative leadership, but a change in the Labour Party after their previous left-wing leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Keir Starmer was marketed as the perfect middle, a Labour leader who was no longer full of left idealism and sometimes radicalism, but also as a breath of fresh air from the Conservative party, which was falling into disorder and disrepair.
This is the start of Keir Starmer’s perpetual walk on a tight rope, promising ‘change’ in our economy with strict spending rules and keeping taxes as low as possible. The plan to recruit 6,500 new teachers by ending tax breaks for private schools and cutting the NHS waiting times by cracking down on tax avoidance, just to name a few. Keeping taxes low and the promise of serious social change is a dichotomy, but who doesn’t want the best of both worlds? The question is whether the balance between the two inevitably means Starmer will always be unpopular.
The marketing of Keir Starmer mirrors the ‘New Labour’ sentiment of Tony Blair’s Labour Government. A conscious effort was made to move the Labour government away from a focus on welfare, higher taxes, and close ties with trade unions.
With changes made, removing the clause of the Labour constitution that called for the ‘common ownership of the means of production’, as well as a promise not to make income tax rises and stick to the conservative spending plans, New Labour was described as the ‘Third Way’. In many ways it was. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown boosted the economy whilst fixing social issues, introduced a minimum wage, invested in public services and infrastructure, and made constitutional change, with the independence of the Bank of England.
Despite both presenting as centrists, Starmer is significantly less popular. He is leading in a polarising time that is undoubtedly impactful to favourability, but despite the similar sentiments of their governments, they are different in personality; Blair known for charisma and Starmer critiqued as bland.
One of the most controversial issues within the Labour Party is the welfare reforms, where Labour keeps having to take U-turns. The welfare bill included stricter eligibility requirements for disability benefits, which were planned to save £5.5bn by 2029-30. Due to uproar within the Labour party, Starmer conceded that the new rules would only apply to new claims.
The government had to make another welfare U-turn after scrapping the Winter Fuel Payment unless on Pension Credit or other means-tested benefits. Now the payment has been reinstated for those earning under £35,000 a year. These U-turns occurred after rebellion from the Labour MPs; more than 120 said they would not vote for the Welfare Bill.
Cutting down on welfare is not traditional left policies, nor traditional Labour policies, demonstrating the new centralist party Starmer wanted to create. However, there is simply too much division and not enough backing for this new vision for Labour, meaning Starmer is left with the predicament of completely failing at getting the bill to pass or making concessions that not only damage his authority but also lead to fewer fiscal benefits, feeding the right’s narrative that Labour cannot make tough fiscal decisions.
These U-turns can be seen to have occurred because most of the party is more left than Starmer and the party is not the centralist vision that was marketed to voters, and that Starmer was not able to rally the party to back him. Starmer is a centralist, but many in his party are not. There is a divide that makes Starmer’s role in governing difficult. However, this would not be such a detrimental issue if the party had more belief in Starmer or if he had the personality to rally everyone behind him. Tony Blair was a centralist in a party of many leftists, but he wasn’t known for U-turns. Maybe because they believed in him and the vision.
Let’s take Iran as an example. Starmer took a centralist approach to the war. He did not blindly follow the US and Israel into the bombings on Iran, whilst expressing a clear stance on the Iranian regime as ‘utterly abhorrent’ and allowed the US to use some UK military bases for ‘defensive’ strikes alone. It would seem that Starmer here is finding a careful middle ground between jumping into a war and supporting our allies.
Yet this stance was criticised by all sides of the political spectrum. Kemi Badenoch criticised Starmer for standing on the fence, not acting, not supporting our allies, and even praising the US and Israel in having ‘the moral clarity to do something immediately and unequivocally’. She seems to stand alongside Nigel Farage, who condemned the Iranian regime and stated he was not a fan of de-escalation. Contrastingly, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn criticised the attack on Iran as it would not bring democracy to the country.
In many ways, this conflict can be compared with Tony Blair and Iraq. The UK took a stronger stance with British troops on Iraqi soil. This was not without criticism, with large protests occurring because of this decision and many deeming Iraq as the detrimental flaw of his leadership, but the difference with Blair and Starmer is that Blair knew where he stood and was clear. Blair was going to support the US. With Starmer, no one really knows where he stands or if a stance he had made would change. With Blair there were no surprises, and a certain amount of respect can be earned from that, as his decisions didn’t just change in fear of criticism.
Starmer did not rush to make decisions on the conflict in Iran. It’s not a bad thing to be cool headed as a leader, but this can be perceived as a lack of assertiveness. His caution can be seen as falling into the centralist hamartia of sitting on the fence. In the case of Iran, Starmer would be criticised no matter how thought-out his decisions were. Yet, who can blame anyone for having distrust with Starmer because, often, and what was made so clear with the welfare decisions, no one knows where he stands. So, his lack of assertiveness can create a sense of uneasiness, even if it is justified.
This problem is only made worse as politics is increasingly becoming more polarised, with new parties popping up by the minute. The evolved Reform UK and Green Party, alongside the brand new Your Party created by Jeremy Corbyn, have all gained significant traction. This is illustrating the polarisation of politics and how unpopular the centre has become. With the support for these parties growing, there feels little room or popularity left for centralism, where there aren’t promises of a complete upheaval of society as we know it.
It is not surprising that many look for these radical changes, especially after the ever-growing concern and frustration over the cost of living. Why wait for small changes when you could live for the hope that all your problems would be solved when your party of choice gets into government? But this has left the centre scrabbling not only for respect and favourability, but also for votes. The recent Gorton-Denton by-election is a perfect example of this; the Green Party and Reform UK were both the two most popular parties. This could be the initial fruitions of the death of the centre.
The centre is simply becoming less popular, and this is a significant problem for Starmer and his polling ratings, but his unfavorability cannot just be put down to the centre. There is a problem in the execution. His ratings are harsh, and in many ways, a centralist will always be a disappointment, will always disappoint both sides of the spectrum. This has been severely perpetuated by the polarising political environment we are in today. Despite the comparison with Blair, it is doubtful Blair would be as popular as he once was because of the political climate now, but the difference is that Blair had objectives and a direction and Starmer does not. This is what encompasses the critique of Starmer; no one knows what he stands for. Starmer may not be perfect, but he is not the worst Prime Minister alive, and the centre is not dead yet. Just gasping for air slightly.
.svg)
.jpg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.jpg)