
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


Economist
11 minutes ago
- Economist
Macron will beat Trump to London
When Sir Keir Starmer sat down with Donald Trump at the White House in February, the British prime minister handed over a letter from King Charles III inviting the American president for a state visit to Britain. On July 8th a foreign president will indeed arrive in Britain for the first state visit the king has hosted this year. Yet the guest will be not Mr Trump but President Emmanuel Macron of France.


Daily Mail
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Britons deliver a devastating verdict on Keir Starmer's first year in power... so what DO they think has been his biggest achievement?
Voters have answered with a resounding 'NOTHING' when asked what has been the biggest achievement of Keir Starmer 's first year in power, a new poll shows. More in Common asked voters to offer their one or two-word responses to Labour 's best and worst actions of the party's first 12 months in power to create a word cloud. And it was pretty brutal, with most people unable to thing of anything good. Only its work on the NHS made much of a dent in people's gloomy assessment. On the flipside, they were very clear in what has gone wrong. The Winter Fuel Allowance row was far and away the biggest cock-up in people's minds. It saw Sir Keir and Chancellor Rachel Reeves try to take away the £300 universal benefit away from all but the poorest recipients, before being forced into a U-turn. More in Common's director Luke Tryl said it was 'one of the most stark word clouds we've seen - the Winter Fuel Allowance drowns everything else out'. The other major problem to stand out for voters was immigration, with more than 20,000 people already having crossed the English Channel in small boats this year, a record. More in Common asked voters to offer their one or two-word responses to Labour's best and worst actions of the party's first 12 months in power to create a word cloud. And it was pretty brutal, with most people unable to thing of anything good. Sir Keir is facing Labour dissent, economic uncertainty and spiralling conflict abroad as he marks a year in Number 10. The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months.' Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he said. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising in light of the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said.


The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
It is time to release prisoners trapped by inhuman endless jail terms
The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, introduced in 2005 under the Labour government, was intended to protect the public from serious offenders deemed too dangerous for a fixed-term release. But nearly two decades on, this law stands as one of the most egregious stains on Britain's criminal justice system. Abolished in 2012 for its inherent flaws, it nonetheless continues to trap thousands of people in a cruel legal limbo, as a debate in the House of Lords today will no doubt highlight. It is long past time that every person still serving an IPP sentence be resentenced. The continued use of this now-defunct punishment is both unjust and, arguably, inhumane. At its core, the IPP sentence allowed judges to hand out indeterminate prison terms for offences that did not justify life imprisonment but were deemed serious enough to warrant extended supervision. Offenders were given a 'tariff' – the minimum time they must serve before being considered for release. Many of these tariffs were shockingly short, some as low as two years. Yet thousands remain in prison long after these tariffs have expired. Why? Because release is dependent not on time served, but on proving to the Parole Board that they are no longer a danger to the public – a nebulous, subjective, and often unreachable standard. This flips the basic presumption of justice on its head. In a fair system, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to imprison a person. Under IPP, once the tariff is served, the burden of proof shifts unfairly to the prisoner. It is no longer the state's job to justify incarceration; it is the prisoner's burden to earn freedom. This is particularly problematic when access to rehabilitative programmes, often required for parole, is limited or unavailable – especially in overcrowded prisons. The system sets people up to fail and then blames them for not succeeding. Moreover, the psychological toll of such indefinite punishment is catastrophic. Suicide and self-harm rates among IPP prisoners are significantly higher than average. Many live in a state of constant uncertainty and despair, unsure if they will ever be released, even decades after their offence. It is not unusual to find individuals still imprisoned for minor crimes – such as theft or assault – that would today warrant only a few years behind bars, yet they languish without a release date. The punishment no longer fits the crime, if it ever did. The injustice of the IPP system has been widely recognised. The House of Commons justice committee labelled it "irredeemably flawed" and called for all remaining IPP prisoners to be resentenced. The European Court of Human Rights has also condemned aspects of the sentence as incompatible with human rights obligations. Yet the government has so far refused to act decisively, citing public safety and political sensitivity. This is a failure of courage and leadership. Protecting public safety does not require trampling basic rights or holding people indefinitely for crimes long past. Dangerous individuals can be managed through proper risk assessment and robust parole conditions – not through perpetual punishment without end. Resentencing every IPP prisoner is not only fair, it is necessary. It would give judges the opportunity to reconsider the nature and severity of each offence and impose a proportionate, fixed sentence with clear guidance for release. For many, this would mean immediate or imminent freedom; for others, it would offer clarity, rehabilitation goals, and hope – something the current system wholly lacks. Justice demands consistency, proportionality, and transparency. The IPP sentence undermines all three. Some argue that resentencing might release dangerous individuals back into society. But the risk can be responsibly managed without recourse to indeterminate detention. Modern sentencing tools, community supervision, mental health support, and parole frameworks are all capable of mitigating risk. Perpetual incarceration without due process is not a solution – it is a violation. Britain prides itself on the rule of law, but this chapter of penal policy betrays that principle. IPP sentences should not only be consigned to history – they must be actively undone. Every person still caught in this Kafkaesque trap deserves a proper sentence, a path to rehabilitation, and a chance at freedom. Anything less is a continuation of a deep and unforgivable wrong.