Keir's first year: Starmer under pressure after a rocky start for Labour
A year later, polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice is calling it 'the worst start for any newly elected prime minister'.
Sir Keir was accused of setting a gloomy tone at the outset, telling the public that 'things will get worse before they get better' and warning of 'tough choices' and a 'black hole' left in the finances by his predecessors.
Soon after, a plan was unveiled to cut back winter fuel payments for pensioners, only for an enduring backlash to see the Government U-turn and widen eligibility months later.
This and the recent climbdown over plans for welfare cuts to stave off a backbench rebellion have raised the prospect of further tax rises in the autumn budget as the Chancellor seeks to balance the books.
It has also raised the prospect of rebellious MPs being emboldened to continue pushing back on future policy, putting Sir Keir's plans at risk.
When it comes to whether voters like him, Sir John has argued that the Government has a 'lack of direction' and that the Prime Minister was 'never especially popular' and that 'the public still don't know what he stands for.'
'The only vision he's really presented is: 'We'll fix the problems the Conservatives left us.' But it's not clear how he wants to change the country,' he told Times Radio.
Sir Keir has acknowledged the 'challenge' of 'getting our story across'.
'If I was to list to you all the things we've done, it's a big long list of things. [But] how do we tell the story of what we've done? How do we make sure it's actually felt by working people?' he said in an interview with The Times.
He also said he took 'ownership' of all decisions made by his Government, and that he did not get to grips with the growing rebellion over welfare reforms earlier as he was focused on international affairs.
Although that rebellion was eventually reduced from 126 MPs to just 49, it required extensive concessions and marked the biggest revolt of his premiership so far, just days before he celebrated his first year in office.
He has played a balancing act on the world stage, strengthening ties with the EU while courting US President Donald Trump, who he wooed with an invitation for a second state visit to the UK when they met in the White House.
The football-loving Prime Minister lists a 'hat-trick' of deals – an EU 'reset', a deal with India, and an agreement for relief from Mr Trump's tariffs which has been partially implemented – among his key achievements.
Sir Keir said he took 'ownership' of all decisions made by his Government (Kin Cheung/PA)
He also touts his commitment to get defence spending up to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 – and the new Nato defence and security spending pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035.
At home, he is battling the rise of Reform UK.
A YouGov megapoll released last week said a general election now could see Reform UK taking more seats than Labour, while the latest Ipsos poll puts Nigel Farage's party at 34% with Labour behind at 25%.
Sir Keir framed Reform UK as Labour's main opposition at a press conference in May, saying the Conservative Party has 'run out of road'.
It came after Reform UK hoovered up council seats across England in local elections, as well as gaining a seat previously held by Labour in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election.
An immigration speech in which the Prime Minister said the UK could become an 'island of strangers' drew criticism and comparisons with Enoch Powell's infamous 'rivers of blood' address that was blamed for inflaming racial tensions in the 1960s.
Sir Keir has since expressed regret at the phrasing.
But he reportedly plans to target 'authoritarian-leaning' voters with a focus on tackling migration and crime.
In recent polling by LabourList of members, 64% said they wanted the party to shift to the left, with only around 2% favouring a move to the right.
Sir Keir has pledged to lead a 'decade of national renewal' (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
The next test at the polls will be Welsh and Scottish elections in May, at which Reform UK hopes to end Labour's 26-year domination in the Senedd next year.
Sir Keir again took aim at the party in a speech to the Welsh Labour conference last weekend, saying Mr Farage has 'no plan at all' for the nation.
Political historian Sir Anthony Seldon has praised Sir Keir's ability to react to crises in foreign policy and during the riots last summer, but urged him to counter Reform UK by communicating 'growth' and 'optimism'.
'Show people that you're Prime Minister, show people you've got a story, show people things are getting better across the whole country with growth and then, you know, that will deal with Reform,' he told Sky News.
Sir Keir has pledged to lead a 'decade of national renewal' and said that the first year of that has been 'cleaning up that mess' his Government inherited.
In a signal he is seeking to put a positive spin on the future, he told business leaders last week: 'We've wiped the state clean, we've stabilised the economy, and now we can go on to the next phase of government, building on that foundation.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Labour sees biggest first-year poll drop for governing party since 1990s
It is common for political parties to experience a slide in the polls after taking power – it has happened to every UK government bar one in the past 40 years – but a drop of this size is unusual. The last time it was in double digits was 1992-93, when the Tory administration led by Mr Major saw its poll numbers fall 12 points, from an average of 43% in the weeks after the April 1992 election to 31% a year later. John Major meets people on a walkabout in Bolton during the 1992 general election campaign (Adam Butler/PA) The findings have been compiled by the PA news agency, using its own archive of national poll data combined with figures published in the long-running British General Election academic studies. Polls measuring voting intention do not always appear in the immediate aftermath of an election – for instance, the first polls of this parliament were not carried out until the start of August 2024, one month after Labour's victory on July 4. To compare Labour's poll performance fairly with that of previous governments, the average poll numbers in the weeks after a general election have been compared with those for the month leading up to the first anniversary of that election. Almost every government in the past four decades has seen their poll standings slip over this period, but mostly by single digits – and often from a much higher starting point than Labour's 34% in 2024. For example, the Labour government led by Tony Blair saw its vote share in the polls drop by an average of six points during its first year in office in 1997-98, though from the lofty heights of 59% to 53%, still well ahead of all other parties. Tony Blair and his wife, Cherie, walk into Downing Street after Labour won the 1997 general election (Sean Dempsey/PA) Labour's second term under Mr Blair saw a larger poll drop of seven points, but from 49% to 42% – again, comfortably ahead of its rivals. The Conservative government led by Boris Johnson elected in 2019 saw its first-year poll ratings also slip by seven points, but from 46% to 39%. There were smaller drops at the start of Labour's third term in 2005-06 (down five points in 12 months) and at the start of Conservative leader David Cameron's first term as PM in 2010 (down three points), though Mr Cameron's second win in 2015 was followed by a larger six-point fall. The one recent exception to this trend was the Conservative minority government led by Theresa May that was elected in 2017, with Tory support in the polls increasing by two points over 12 months, from 40% to 42%. Theresa May speaks in Downing Street after the 2017 general election, which led to the formation of a minority Conservative government (Jonathan Brady/PA) A first-year drop in the polls for a governing party is typically accompanied by a rise in support for the main opposition in Parliament. But the past 12 months have seen something different and new in UK politics: a simultaneous and large fall in support for both the government and the opposition, with the Conservatives slipping from an average of 25% in the aftermath of the 2024 election to 18% over the past month. And while Labour and the Tories have both slid in the polls, smaller parties have risen – notably Reform, which has climbed from third place on 17% to first place on 29%. The Liberal Democrats have also edged up, from 12% to 14%, while the Greens have increased from 6% to 9%. Opinion polls are snapshots of the prevailing public mood, not projections or forecasts – and they do not predict what could happen at the next general election. But the amount of movement in recent polls, in particular the fall in support for both Labour and the Conservatives, points to an unsettled mood among voters and a volatile political landscape. Sir Keir's personal approval ratings make similarly challenging reading for the Prime Minister. Polling company Ipsos has measured public satisfaction with prime ministers since the late 1970s. Its data tracks the proportion of adults in Britain who say they are either satisfied or dissatisfied with how the PM is doing their job. The difference between these two numbers represents the approval score. Margaret Thatcher speaks to the press the day after winning the 1979 general election (PA) The most recent Ipsos survey, completed in early June – not quite a full year since the general election – suggests 19% of adults are satisfied with Sir Keir's performance and 73% are dissatisfied, giving him a net approval score of minus 54. This is lower than any other score recorded by Ipsos for a prime minister roughly 12 months after taking office. The next lowest score is minus 48, for Labour's Gordon Brown in June 2008, and minus 37 for the Conservatives' Rishi Sunak in October 2023. The highest approval ratings were for Mr Blair in May 1998 (a plus score of 44) and Mr Major in November 1991 (plus 15). The other scores are minus 3 for Mr Cameron (May 2011); minus 7 for Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher (June 1980) and minus 25 for Mrs May (July 2017), while Mr Johnson had a net approval rating of zero a year into office in July 2020, with the same proportion of people saying they were satisfied and dissatisfied. Sir Keir's current score of minus 54 is not quite the worst ever approval rating for a prime minister reported by Ipsos, however. Mrs Thatcher dropped as low as minus 56 in March 1990, while both Mr Major and Mr Sunak sank as far as minus 59, in August 1994 and April 2024 respectively.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The Times letters: Starmer, leadership and the U-turn on welfare
Write to letters@ Sir, Your leading article ('Abject Surrender', Jul 2) outlines very well the vagaries and indecisiveness of our prime minister. You say he has shown how incapable he is of reining in the state and public finances. Further to this it has been widely claimed that he is losing authority. I, and I think many others, would question whether he had any credibility and authority in the first place. Sir Keir Starmer's U-turns and false promises simply make the electorate wonder who is in charge. A leader should lead and if he caves in to 50-odd rebel MPs, as he has done on welfare reform, then what hope is there for the country? Add to this the fact that record illegal immigration is costing the country a fortune and that the government appears to have no plans to tackle it. We lack leaders with substance, clout and an 'action this day' GrundyHartley Wintney, Hants Sir, William Hague is quite right to argue that the prime minister has failed dismally during his first year in office to outline the overarching purpose of his government, let alone offer a vision that is inspiring or even reassuring ('What's Starmer's big idea? He needs to tell us', comment, Jul 1). This should come as no great surprise, however. Even before the general election it was clear that Labour did not have a coherent plan about anything, whether for the economy, education, defence or stopping migrant boats. Having failed to prepare for the realities of power, the party has lurched from one ill-thought-out decision to another, frequently changing tack, in a desperate attempt to mollify everyone. All this does is satisfy no one and that is precisely where we are, 12 months in. Seemingly standing for nothing, always looking for scapegoats and all the while communicating poorly are a recipe for disillusionment and MortimerPerth Sir, Polly Mackenzie says that what is needed is 'a fundamental reset of the prime minister's office' ('Starmer's lost power of political speech', Jul 2). I suggest also that the prime minister needs to be able to rely on a trusted colleague to give him advice, perhaps someone without ambition who has served at the top rank of politics. There must be plenty of candidates to choose from. Margaret Thatcher relied on Willie Whitelaw — 'Everyone needs a Willie' — and his advice proved BenyonBladon, Oxon Sir, Time and again, Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves justify their actions mainly by saying they are doing 'the right thing'. This continual failure to give wider reasons leaves them exposed when they have to make a U-turn. Has the right thing suddenly become the wrong thing? Has the wrong thing suddenly become the right thing?Peter ClarkLondon SE23 Sir, Dr Karin Englehart (letter, Jul 1) should rest assured that nothing has changed since she was denied the post of a medical assessor because she suggested that a benefit claimant's account should not necessarily be taken at face value. Whenever I expressed a doubt that a patient would be granted a benefit, I was assured that they would be guided in how to do so Surinder Bakhshi (ret'd) Birmingham Sir, Regarding Martha's Rule and the training of doctors (letters, Jul 1 & 2), fellow physicians would often consult my father on cases. His skill as a diagnostician was a source of amusement to our family. He would state mysteriously that the person on the table next to us at a restaurant had a particularly interesting condition. Late in his life, I asked him how he became so good at diagnosis. He told me he had studied hard as a medical student and with no immediate family to return home to, would stay behind during holidays and tour hospital wards to extend his education. He would talk to patients, ask to read their notes and discuss with fellow staff. I doubt such access to patients would be allowed HerseeGreat Missenden, Bucks Sir, Dr Rosemary Alexander seems to have forgotten that Martha's Rule was enacted because doctors, not physician associates, made an incorrect diagnosis, gave a wrong interpretation of facts, missed serious problems and then refused help from medical colleagues. Physician associates are not the only professionals who have been guilty of ordering unnecessary expensive tests — private GPs are much more culpable of that ArulConsultant paediatric surgeon,Birmingham Women's and Children's Hospital Sir, James Kirkup bemoans the cost to the state of 'doctors' comfortable retirements' (comment, Jun 30). As a house officer in 1997 I was paid less per hour to be on call for five surgical wards overnight than I was the previous year as a general assistant in a supermarket. However, I consoled myself with the promise of a comfortable final salary pension. This pension has since been eroded and we have moved on to career-average schemes. Furthermore, many of my generation have faced tax charges amounting to five or six-figure sums for pensions that they may never receive. It is little wonder that the exodus to foreign climes and the private sector continues David W McCareyConsultant rheumatologist and physician, Glasgow Sir, Further to your helpful leading article on the royal finances ('Gravy Train', Jul 2), the King and Prince of Wales are, respectively, Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Cornwall by the will of parliament — the Act of Settlement. The revenues of the duchies are not 'private wealth' but a perquisite of the titles parliament bestowed. In the country's perilous financial situation the time has surely come to end this ridiculous fiction, deploy public money for the public good and pay the head of state and his helpers proper salaries and expenses for the duties they carry RossAuchencairn, Dumfries and Galloway Sir, The decision to retire the royal train would end a tradition dating back to 1842 ('End of the line for royal train', news, Jul 1). More than a symbol of royal travel, it reflects our national heritage and the bond between crown and country. Nowhere is that identity more deeply felt than in places such as Wolverton, in my constituency, where the train found its home. Fitted out there in 1977, it is a part of the town's identity, its legacy woven into Wolverton's rich cultural heritage. At a time of rail revival and infrastructure spending, this is a chance to modernise a cherished tradition, not scrap it. There is time to change track: I believe the train has more miles left in it Curtis MPHouse of Commons Sir, Sir Ephraim Mirvis has criticised Bobby Vylan's chant of 'death, death to the IDF' as being antisemitic ('Change needed at BBC after Bob Vylan fiasco, says Chief Rabbi', Jul 1). The inference to be drawn from the Chief Rabbi's remarks is that criticism of Israel's military activities is automatically antisemitic. This is a dangerous route down which to go. The separation of the racial aspect from the governmental one is important, otherwise any action by the Israeli government can be given carte blanche because criticism may be considered AlexanderChichester Sir, Is it not time to stop conflating disapproval of Israel's government with antisemitism? There are Jewish people all over the world, including in Israel, who do not like the way that Binyamin Netanyahu's government is conducting its war in Gaza. If that is regarded as supporting terrorism, then God help CookeClavering, Essex Sir, The science behind cheese and dreaming (news, Jul 1; letter, Jul 2) is straightforward: cheese is rich in tryptophan, one of the building blocks for neurotransmitters that influence sleep and moods. Wallace and Gromit never eat Wensleydale before Jeremy AuchinclossElgin, Moray Sir, James Marriott ('AI will leave a gaping void for workaholic world', Jul 1) repeats the canard that bankers in the past worked only from 10am to 3pm. This was far from the case. We started at 9am. After closing we had to balance the books — this was before calculators and computers — and this often meant working until well after 5pm. Overtime was paid only if we worked until 6pm (it was remarkable how often we were ushered out at 5.55pm). Saturday mornings were worked too, and annual leave was two weeks. My annual salary when I joined in 1954 was £170. I couldn't afford a meal at a café, and there was no staff room at the bank, so I had to cycle six miles home for lunch and be back again within the SprattFormer Lloyds Bank manager, Upton St Leonards, Glos Sir, Rohan Silva (comment, Jul 2) praises the benefits of AI which, with some transitional friction, will do us all good. But he doesn't mention the consequences of AI in the hands of bad people. In future years will we be able to believe anything we see on the internet, TV or newspapers? Only physical meetings will be acceptable for serious decision-makers. Perhaps we can hope that AI can be adapted to recognise lies created by ToozeDarlington, Co Durham Sir, I take issue with Emma Duncan's assertion (Notebook, Jun 30) that 'backing creative kids may do them no favours' and that young people pursuing careers in the creative industries 'will find themselves in their thirties without a profession or a useful skill'. The arts have always been a lottery. But other professions have their dropouts too: many teachers, lawyers and doctors change jobs in their thirties. What should we do — only train armies of bankers and business people? What a sad society it would be that did not encourage the creative spirit and the outspoken, brave young people who make the arts happen. Our country needs their stories, plays, dance and music — they are attempts to understand IrelandAmbassador, Action for Children's Arts Sir, Wimbledon's linesmen and women are rather like the Beefeaters at the Tower of London — not strictly indispensable but the visual essence of their place of work. Wimbledon has lost its unique character without DallingHartley Wintney, Hants Sir, Mark Riley (letter, Jul 2) should be ashamed of himself. Those are eye-stalks on the Daleks' domes, not weapons. Disgraceful knowledge of Dalek HarrisSittingbourne, Kent Sir, Matthew Parris should venture to Northern Ireland to see, and walk, a real wall (Notebook, Jul 2). The Mourne Wall in Co Down is 19 miles long, 5ft high and 2ft wide, built in the early 20th century using only granite boulders and reaching 2, ShieldsBanbridge, Co Down Write to letters@
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
MPs declare more than £1m of gifts and hospitality in year since election
Rows over free tickets and other gifts given to senior Labour figures, including Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, posed an early problem for the Government, which had made restoring trust in politics a major part of its election campaign. But analysis of the MPs' Register of Interests by the PA news agency shows hundreds of MPs have declared receiving gifts in the past year. Some 236 MPs declared gifts from UK sources, totalling £477,539, while 144 said they had been on overseas trips paid for by donors, charities, think tanks or foreign governments, worth another £810,761. In total, 318 MPs declared that they had received gifts in the year since the election, just under half the number sitting in the Commons. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage declared receiving almost £100,000 in gifts and hospitality since the election, mostly relating to trips to the US (Ben Whitley/PA) Reform UK leader Nigel Farage declared the highest value, receiving gifts worth a total of £98,709 over the past year. The bulk of these took the form of flights and accommodation on a number of trips to the United States, paid for by Reform donor Christopher Harborne and party volunteer George Cottrell. But they also include £8,413 for a helicopter journey from JC Bamford, whose owner has previously backed the Tories, and tickets worth £2,000 from boxer Derek Chisora to watch his fight against Joe Joyce last August. The biggest recipient of hospitality from UK sources was the Prime Minister, thanks to his regular attendance at Arsenal games. Sir Keir declared £11,170 worth of football tickets over the past year. A long-standing Arsenal season ticket holder, he has previously said that he is no longer able to sit in the stands because of security concerns, but has been offered a seat in the club directors' box so he can continue to attend matches with his son. The Prime Minister declared a total of £17,344 in hospitality and other gifts since the election, with other donations including tickets from Universal Music and the FA to see Taylor Swift and the loan of clothes to his wife. Long-standing Arsenal season ticket holder Sir Keir Starmer has said he accepts hospitality in the club's directors' box as security concerns mean he can no watch matches the stands (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch declared just one gift – £14,350 from Tory donor Neil Record to cover work space, accommodation and hospitality for a series of meetings in Gloucestershire in March this year. While several MPs received significant sums in gifts, most declared lower amounts or none at all, with the median MP receiving £1,208 in gifts over the year. Some 49 MPs received free tickets to football matches in the past year, totalling almost £59,000. But gifts from football clubs and organisations such as the FA and the Premier League totalled more than £70,000, and included concert tickets as well as hospitality at matches. The single largest gift of sporting tickets, however, was declared by shadow business minister Greg Smith, who received hospitality worth £5,160 at last year's British Grand Prix from hosts Silverstone. Four other MPs, including Leader of the Commons Lucy Powell and shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel, also received hospitality at Silverstone last year. Eight MPs received hospitality from the Lawn Tennis Association at Wimbledon in 2024, while golf's R&A provided tickets for four MPs at the Open. Another 49 MPs received tickets to awards ceremonies including the Baftas, the Brit Awards and the British Kebab Awards, while 23 were given tickets and hospitality for horse racing events, and 21 received tickets to concerts. The most popular of those concerts were part of Taylor Swift's Eras Tour, with nine MPs receiving free tickets totalling £14,628, mostly from the Premier League and the FA. As well as the Prime Minister, they included Cabinet ministers Darren Jones, Peter Kyle, Bridget Phillipson and Wes Streeting, and Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey. During the last election, Labour campaigned on a pledge to restore probity to public life after the scandals that had plagued the previous Conservative government. Last year Sir Keir sought to toughen up transparency rules for ministers, introducing a new monthly register of gifts and hospitality for ministers rather than the previous quarterly releases. He also changed the Ministerial Code in November to include the seven principles of public life directly in the rules and allow the independent adviser on ministerial standards to launch his own investigations. But Alastair McCapra, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, warned the continued culture of gifts and hospitality in British politics risked creating a 'full-blown crisis of legitimacy'. He said: 'At the heart of this credibility gap is the shadowy relationship between business and politics. 'The entrenched culture of gifts and hospitality in British politics creates the perception of corruption, and the suspicion of back doors to access are damaging a Labour Party that campaigned on promises of transparency, integrity and a break from the past. 'Political scandals thrive in the gaps between information and silence. 'If the Government and the business community are serious about building back trust, they must prioritise and accept a relationship that is transparent and accountable to the public.'
