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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Keir Starmer told me he'd met every challenge. But things look bad right now
Will Keir Starmer allow himself to celebrate his first anniversary as prime minister this weekend? Or will he be taking a long, hard look in the mirror and asking himself what went wrong?That is what is in my mind as he greets me in the Terracotta Room on the first floor of 10 Downing Street for a long-planned conversation about his first 12 months in office, this looks surprisingly relaxed, given that his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had been in tears sitting behind him in the Commons just hours earlier. That triggered fevered speculation about how long she would last in the job, moving markets to sell the pound and increase the cost of that is the impression he wants to convey to me as he shares a story about his photo opportunity with Formula One cars parked outside his front door - the most famous door in the is determined that the problems of recent weeks - and boy there's been a long list of those - will not overshadow the achievements he believes deserve just as much attention."We have done some fantastic things," he tells me, "really driven down the waiting lists in the NHS, really done loads of improvements in schools and stuff that we can do for children - whether that's rolling out school uniform projects, whether it's school meals, breakfast clubs, you name it - and also [brought in] a huge amount of investment into the country. And of course we've been busy getting three trade deals."It's clear that, given the chance, his list would go on. And yet, I point out, there is another long list - of things he's recently admitted to getting the last year, he's said hiring Sue Gray - Starmer's former chief of staff who left Downing Street in October - was wrong. He's also held his hands up about plans to end winter fuel payments, about rejecting a national grooming gang inquiry, and cutting benefits for disabled people. That's not even the full list, yet it's quite a number of things that he's admitting to being a prime minister thinks I've rather crudely summarised his personal reflections on what he might have done better. He challenges the idea, which is prevalent in Westminster, that changing your mind represents weakness, or a "humiliating U-turn".Listen: The inside story of Starmer's stormy first yearInDepth: Why Sir Keir's political honeymoon was so short-livedThis is the fourth time we've sat down for an extended and personal conversation for my Political Thinking podcast."You know this from getting to know me," he says. "I'm not one of these ideological thinkers, where ideology dictates what I do. I'm a pragmatist. You can badge these things as U-turns - it's common sense to me."If someone says to me, 'here's some more information and I really think it's the right thing to do', I'm the kind of person that says, 'well in which case, let's do it'."There is, though, no doubt that scrapping so much of his welfare reforms was a U-turn - a costly and humiliating one. Starmer and his chancellor have not only lost authority and face, they've lost £5bn in planned savings, something that will have to be paid for somehow, through extra borrowing, lower spending or, most likely, higher taxes."I take responsibility," he says, "we didn't get the process right". But somehow he implies that it might have been someone other than the leader of the Labour Party's responsibility to persuade Labour MPs to back his plans. He doesn't spell out what he means by getting the process right and, perhaps more importantly, he dodges my attempts to get him to spell out clearly what story he's trying to tell the country about Labour be on the side of disabled people and people like his own mother, who had a crippling disease that meant she eventually had to have a leg amputated? Or should they adopt her unwillingness to be written off, which he described to me the last time we spoke? When told by her doctors that she wouldn't walk again she refused to listen. Wounded by the events of the past week, Starmer refuses to even address that choice. But surely, I suggest to him, the nation doesn't just want a problem-solver, or a chief executive of UK plc? Voters surely want a leader who has a story to tell?Starmer clearly knew this question - or a variation of it - was coming. I've pushed him on it every time we've spoken at length. "It's about a passion, if that's the right word," he says. "But certainly a determination to change the lives of millions of working people and, in particular, to tackle this question of fairness.""It's almost like a social contract," he adds, "that people are getting back what they're putting in, that there is a fairer environment for them that supports them and respects them."That's a bit long to sew on to an election banner, to chant in the streets, or write in a post on X, but it is a theme. He is a self-proclaimed pragmatist who doesn't want there to be something that can be labelled as "Starmerism", but at least we can now say that his guiding principle is fairness. In truth, what matters more than anything else to him is not losing, something he tells me he hates, whether in politics or on the five-a-side pitch playing football regularly with his mates - as he still does and has done for decades.I tell him people think he is losing now - some say he is the most unpopular prime minister since records began. He reacts with the defiance of a man whose football-playing friend recently described him as a "hard bastard". A man who served in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet and then had him thrown out of the party; who stood to be leader on promises to keep much of Corbyn's agenda before tearing up those promises to win power; and someone who hired then fired Sue Gray as his first Downing Street chief of staff. "Every challenge that's been put in front of me I've risen to, met it, and we're going to continue in the same vein," he says.I end our conversation by reminding him what they say about failing football managers who have "lost the dressing room". Has he lost the Labour Party dressing room? His reply is emphatic."Absolutely not," he says. "The Labour dressing room, the PLP, is proud as hell of what we've done, and their frustration - my frustration - is that sometimes the other stuff, welfare would be an example, can obscure us being able to get that out there."Almost as an afterthought he adds: "I'm a hard-enough bastard to find out who it was who said that, so that I can have a discussion with him." Knowing Starmer I suspect he's much more likely to deliver a crunching tackle on the pitch than a quiet word off the prime minister's message is clear to me: Don't count me out, however bad it looks now. To pretty much everyone other than him it currently does look bad. Very bad.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Migrant policies ‘creating more barriers to child safety', says charity
Young children hide under tables when they think they hear the sound of sirens because they are commonly scared of the police, according to organisation Project Play, who raised concerns of teargas and evictions. Advocacy coordinator Kate O'Neill, based in northern France, told the PA news agency there has been a rise in police violence which is disproportionately harming children. She said: 'Ultimately the children we're meeting every day are not safe. 'They're exposed to a level of violence, whether it's they are directly victims of it or the witness. 'We're ultimately at all times putting out fires… the underlying issue is these policies of border securitisation… that are creating more and more barriers to child safety and child protection.' She said there was hope when the Labour Government took office a year ago that there would be some improvement, adding: 'This is not at all what we've seen. 'They continued to make conditions more difficult and more dangerous.' She said: 'The smash-the-gangs narrative is not effective and it's harmful because ultimately the only way to put the gangs out of business is to cut the need for them.' It comes as the grassroots organisation published a report that said at least 15 children died trying to cross the English Channel last year, more than the total of the past four years combined. The charity that offers play services, parental support and safeguarding casework to children aged 0-18 living in sites around Calais and Dunkirk, documented rising violence, trauma and child deaths linked with UK border policies and funding to the French to ramp up enforcement in 2024. In February this year, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper agreed to re-purpose £7 million of cash to French counterparts to bolster enforcement action on the nation's coastline to tackle Channel crossings. 'What we really need to see is some cross-border accountability for the incidents and the fatalities in the Channel,' Ms O'Neill said. The campaigner said one of the main calls as a result of the group's research is for an official source of the number of deaths and information on these deaths to be recorded. Figures for the report came from International Organisation for Migration, Calais Migrant Solidarity and other networks in northern France. 'We don't have the identities of all of them. 'In fact, these deaths are going unrecorded and unreported,' she said. One in five crossing the English Channel between 2018 and 2024 were children, according to Project Play. Meanwhile, Ms O'Neill said tactics for French police to intervene in crossing attempts in shallow waters is already happening despite the changes needed to the rules to allow this having not yet come into force. She said: 'This is not a new tactic… it's something that has been happening for a long time in Calais and surrounding areas. 'My feeling is that this is increasing based on the number of testimonies we're receiving from children and their families recently.' 'It's really dangerous because the children often are in the middle of the boats.' But on Friday, Ms Cooper said intervention in French waters was 'critical'. 'That's one of the big things that has changed, the way in which the boats operate in shallow waters,' she said. 'We have to have the action on those because that's that is where the prevention needs to take place.' Ms Cooper also pressed the case for introducing the new criminal offence of endangering life at sea under the Government's Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, after seeing 'awful cases' of children being crushed to death in the middle of overcrowded boats. Project Play worked with more than 1,000 children in 2024, and believes in the last few weeks there have been a 'very large amount' of children they worked with who were born and went to school in a European country, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden. Ms O'Neill said families' visas granted five or 10 years ago in other European countries for refuge have since expired and they have not been allowed to stay, which she said is behind the increase in crossings to the UK. She said since Brexit meant the UK left the Dublin regulation, the country is a 'viable option'. The European Union law set out that the first EU country an asylum seeker entered was responsible for processing their claim, and the UK can no longer send asylum seekers back to other member states since leaving the bloc. Ms O'Neill said: 'Most people we're speaking to, that is why they're going. 'They're not going to claim benefits from the UK or to do anything for free, but it's the next nearest safe place they can be. 'This needs to be addressed… as a European-wide issue instead of just a UK-France thing.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We all want to end dangerous small boat crossings, which threaten lives and undermine our border security. 'Through international intelligence sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in Northern France and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal gangs.' The Pas-de-Calais Prefecture was contacted for comment.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sarwar must take on Labour in Westminster if he is to win Holyrood
Mr Sarwar's pitch to voters at last July's General Election was that Scots should vote Labour to get rid of two governments failing Scotland – the Conservative Government at Westminster, and the SNP Government at Holyrood. That pitch was wildly successful, with Scottish Labour winning 35.3% of the vote and 37 of Scotland's 57 seats. The pitch made by Sir Keir Starmer in the same campaign was premised on the idea that what Britain needed after years of Conservative turmoil was stable, grown-up government. As Rachel Reeves put it, 'stability is the change'. That was the heart of the UK Labour pitch, and in turn it was foundational to Mr Sarwar's: replace Scotland's failing governments, SNP and Conservative, with stable, capable Labour government. Read more by Mark McGeoghegan This week's fiasco over Labour's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill exemplifies where that pitch has fallen apart. Whether one agrees with the bill itself, how it was handled by Number 10, and by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, was the height of political malpractice. A bill infused with cuts to PIP that anyone familiar with the Labour Party knew would be unacceptable to dozens of Labour MPs (in the end, over 130 signed a reasoned amendment against the Bill). A Whip's Office that seemed unable to keep track of where the Parliamentary Labour Party was on the vote. A political office in Number 10 incapable of carrying Labour MPs with it. A compromise on cuts to PIP that simply created a new, potentially more toxic problem of a two-tier disability benefits system. More compromises agreed while Liz Kendall stood at the dispatch box, arguing for MPs to back a bill being gutted in backroom deals as she spoke, to the confusion of MPs in the chamber. This absolute clusterbùrach exemplifies the issues Labour have faced since coming to office last year, from the infighting that led to Sue Gray being ousted to policy U-turns on the Winter Fuel Allowance and a national grooming gangs inquiry. If stability was the change being promised by Labour, it has not delivered. It isn't unreasonable for Scottish voters to look at the Labour Government in London, which Mr Sarwar told them would restore stability and good governance to Westminster and conclude that they have no reason to believe, based on the evidence, that that is what Labour would deliver in Edinburgh. And that's the conclusion they seem to have reached. An Ipsos poll released earlier this week found that Scots' net satisfaction with Sir Keir has fallen from -12 a year ago to -42 today, and their net satisfaction with Mr Sarwar has fallen from -1 to -18. Net satisfaction with John Swinney has also fallen, from -2 to -17, but the 32% of Scots satisfied with his performance as First Minister seems enough to put him in pole position to remain in Bute House after next May. More problematically for Labour, the SNP is more trusted than it is on the top issues that voters say will determine how they vote next May, from healthcare to the economy, and enjoys a 25-point lead over Labour on being most trusted to stand up for Scotland's interests. Part of the difficulty for Mr Sarwar is that it is exceptionally challenging for Scottish leaders of GB-wide parties to distance themselves from their Westminster counterparts, for a variety of reasons. But he also hasn't attempted to. When he backed Sir Keir's immigration policy and accepted that immigration had to come down 'across the board', he upturned decades of Scottish Labour policy. He tied himself closer to the Starmer project. When he refuses to criticise or explicitly backs UK Labour policies, then claims that he would do differently as First Minister, as he did on disability benefits, it's not hard to understand why he might be met with incredulity. Asking a question at a Holyrood Sources event a couple of weeks ago, Cat Headley put it to Professor Sir John Curtice that there's a fundamental unfairness in holding up Labour's year in power at Westminster, cleaning up a mess of the Conservatives' making, against the SNP's nearly two decades in power in Edinburgh as if they are equivalents. Liz Kendall has performed woefully of late (Image: PA) I have some sympathy with that view. Ultimately, voters are electing a Scottish government next May, not voting in a referendum on Labour's performance in London. In principle, it's right that it's the SNP's record in government that is the focus of that campaign and media scrutiny of our politics. And perhaps that shift will happen. After all, in December 2010, while Scottish voters were still focused on Westminster political news, Labour led the SNP by 49% to 33% at Holyrood. It wasn't until the campaign began in earnest that attention shifted, as did the polls. But in the end, if Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour don't want to be judged by Labour's record at Westminster, they have the option of distancing themselves from that government. Just a third of their own voters last July trust them most to stand up for Scotland's interests, while a fifth trust the SNP to do so the most. Mr Sarwar could still find himself sitting behind that desk in Bute House a year from now. That likely means clawing back the SNP-Labour swing voters that delivered dozens of Scottish Labour MPs last year, and that starts with Mr Sarwar making the politically tricky decision to critique his colleagues at Westminster. Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @
