Here's what we learned from a new poll of 7000 UK voters
It found:
Two-thirds of Britons (63%) do not think Starmer respects 'people like them', up from 32% in June 2024.
More UK voters think now is a 'time for change' of government than they did before the Tories lost power (77% now vs 73% in June 2024).
Four in 10 people who voted Labour in the last General Election say they would not do so again.
One in five of the people (22%) who have voted Labour in every election since 2010 now say they would not do so again.
The biggest reason people give for turning away from Labour is broken promises and U-turns on previous commitments (36%).
Marc Stears, the director of the UCL Policy Lab and former chief speechwriter for UK Labour, said: 'What voters want to know most of all is: Who does this government stand for?
'What kind of people does it most respect? Whose interests does it put first?
'A lot of the electorate thought they knew the answer to that one year ago. Now they're not so sure.'
Labour's leaving voters
The research found that, in the year since taking power, Labour have lost the majority of the new voters they won over in 2024.
In total, 60% of people who voted Labour last year said they would do so again, meaning the party has lost some four in 10 voters.
This includes 'loyal, long-term voters' who had backed Labour at every Westminster election for the last 15 years – 22% of whom said they would not vote for the party again.
Starmer's government was found to be losing support to Reform on the right, and the LibDems and Greens on the left. More in Common said Labour's voters 'are defecting in every direction'.
(Image: More in Common) Of the 11% of Labour 2024 voters who would now back Reform, 44% said it was Starmer's Government had failed to get immigration under control.
Of the 12% of Labour 2024 voters who would now back the LibDems or Greens, More in Common reported they had changed their views because of a perception that the UK Government is too right wing, and an unhappiness about changes to welfare.
Across all groups, the biggest reason people gave for turning away from Labour was the party having 'broken/U-turned on too many of their promises' (36%), followed by failing to reduce the cost of living (31%), and the cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment (27%).
A little respect
The new polling has shown a collapse in the respect the public feel from Labour or Starmer.
Ahead of the 2024 General Election, 41% of people said Starmer respected people like them, while 40% said Labour did. However, this has dropped to just 24% and 22% respectively.
(Image: More in Common)Before the 2024 vote, 32% of people said Starmer did not respect people like them, while 34% said Labour did not. Now, this has risen to 63% for the Prime Minister, while 65% of UK voters say the Labour Party does not respect people like them.
The numbers for Starmer compare poorly to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. In total, 33% of UK voters said Farage respected people like them, while 50% said he did not, for a net rating of -17 against Starmer's -39.
More in Common said the results show that Starmer's government 'needs to respect ordinary people if it is to rebuild support and deliver on its change message'.
Time for 'change'
In the 2024 General Election, Labour ran on a slogan saying it was 'time for change'. Asked in June 2024, 73% of the public said this aligned with their feelings on the General Election.
However, asked in June 2025, 77% said they felt it was 'time for change' in how 'the country is being run at the moment', up four points.
Asked what's changed in the year since Labour entered government, by far the most popular answer given was 'nothing'.
The second most popular answer, in more damaging news for Labour, was 'worse'.
(Image: More in Common) Other top answered words included 'cost of living', 'costs', 'increased', 'prices', 'taxes', 'immigration', and 'economy'.
Asked what they consider Labour's greatest success since entering government, and given a list of options, the most popular response was 'none of these' (23%). Second was raising the minimum wage (20%), followed by giving NHS staff pay rises and ending strikes (16%).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Readers torn on wealth tax – from ‘the only counterbalance' to ‘utterly counter-productive'
Chris Blackhurst's claim that Britain 'simply can't afford' a wealth tax has sparked fierce debate among Independent readers, who were deeply split over whether taxing extreme wealth is fair, workable, or economically sensible. Many backed Lord Kinnock's call for what one commenter dubbed an 'obscene wealth tax', arguing that while wages have stagnated, asset values have skyrocketed. They claimed that taxing the ultra-wealthy is the only way to rebalance a system rigged in favour of those who make more money from owning than working. Several called for a land value tax too, insisting it's fairer, harder to dodge, and long overdue. Others weren't convinced, with some questioning the practicality of taxing wealth, especially when it's tied up in private businesses or property. One pointed out: 'How do you tax the value of something that can't be easily sold?' Another warned that entrepreneurs would simply leave the country, taking jobs and investment with them. There were strong words for Labour, with accusations that the party is chasing populism over sound economics. But just as many readers argued that the real risk is doing nothing – letting inequality grow while public services crumble. Here's what you had to say: Obscene wealth tax It's not a wealth tax we need. It's an obscene wealth tax. When simply having money can make more money than earning it can, and a class of super-rich see no shame in possessing such grotesque amounts of wealth, an obscene wealth tax is the only possible counterbalance to the inevitable concentration of money in the hands of an ever-shrinking number that capitalism enforces. It may not work. But we have to try. HeHeHitThatTooWellClive Land value tax The government should urgently look at resurrecting an idea that nearly became law a hundred years ago – a land value tax. There is so much money tied up in property and, by definition, land that it would be perverse not to tax it. Rich individuals purchase land as a means of evading taxes, and some landowners have managed to avoid paying taxes for centuries by owning their land through trusts. Tax it. The land cannot be taken abroad, and it's a tax that cannot be avoided, irrespective of 'who or what entity owns it'. You don't tax any property itself, you tax the value of the land it sits on. Closing this loophole would raise billions. flying scot Do you think the UK should introduce a wealth tax on the super-rich to help fund public services? Share your views in the comments. Socialism exists only for the rich I get that large salaries attract the best people for certain positions, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the top 1 per cent of rich people hold more wealth than the bottom 50 per cent. The gap between the very wealthy and the working class is massive and is only getting wider. It wasn't that long ago when one decent working-class wage could buy a house, a car, and still manage to bring up a couple of kids. Socialism only exists for the rich, while the working classes, people with disabilities, and now kids with disabilities are being targeted to raise more money. Plasticpaddy How do you value a private business? The vast majority of people in the UK with personal wealth over £10 million are entrepreneurs or business founders, and almost all of their wealth is in the form of shares in their business. These businesses will mostly be privately held, so there is no market-based price discovery mechanism available to value them. So, to make this work, the government would, on an annual basis, have to accurately estimate the value of every privately owned business in the UK. They would be backed up in court for decades with appeals, because the value of a business ultimately is 'what someone else is prepared to pay for it'. There is no universally agreed-upon formula. But long before this became a problem, every single high-net-worth business owner would have re-domiciled their business overseas and left the country for good, taking all the jobs with them, most likely. sj99 Millionaires remove money from the economy Money spent on winter fuel allowance, teacher wages, and special needs support stays in the economy because it cannot be saved. Wealth accruing to millionaire CEOs leaves the economy, usually via tax-efficient schemes in foreign jurisdictions. Millionaires and billionaires remove money from our economy because they don't live paycheque to paycheque. RodyaRaskolnikov High salaries create tax, not trickle down Lord Kinnock is certainly right about one thing: a wealth tax will be highly popular among voters. Taking money off those rich so-and-so's and giving some to me – what's not to like? What its proponents don't understand is that high salaries attract high taxes, and the Treasury is no doubt grateful. But they don't have any significant multiplier effect. Whereas companies set up by rich people (or who have become rich due to the value of those companies) employ workers who pay income tax and NI, generate pensions for retirees, produce goods and services which attract VAT, make profits which incur corporation tax and pay dividends on which dividend taxes are paid. So there is a large tax multiplier function. Impeding that process is not a good idea. OldContemptible Gentrification doesn't make you rich The problem is: how do you define wealth? I am working class and I live in a house in a once down-market neighbourhood that has been gentrified. It's worth considerably more than I paid for it 50 years ago. It's an asset that could attract a wealth tax. But I'm a pensioner on limited means, and there is no way I could afford 10 per cent or even 1 per cent of the value of my asset in a wealth tax every year. I could move, but stamp duty and other costs make that unappealing – assuming I could find a suitable property for an ageing couple. How's that fair? EnglishCastle Who are the real wealth creators? Well, the country has the choice of keeping a regressive tax system and declining public services, or doing something about it. I see no reason at all why capital gains tax should not be the same rate as income. Why does this country allow the curious ransom-like threat of the wealthy leaving to dominate fiscal policy? Who are the real wealth creators? Those who do the work, of course. Land value tax is another possibility. They can't take their land and house abroad. International cooperation would be a big help, of course, so that low-tax regimes cease to exist. Regardless, wealth distribution has become acutely unequal in recent decades. If nothing is done, the economy will decay, as we're already seeing. The rich will always gripe and offer special pleading. Those who are not rich yet back regressive taxation, are cutting their own throats. Poulter Top bosses won't flee for losing £1m A good part of the collapse in Labour's support is that they are intent on avoiding any meaningful tax increases for the rich, while penalising the disabled and others at the bottom of the wealth scale. It's no doubt a complex issue, but a couple of things strike me: 1. Are we to believe that if the income of a top boss drops, as a result of extra tax, from say £3m a year to £2m, it will become impossible to find someone competent to do the job at the lower rate (assuming the first scarpers off abroad)? 2. Does the argument that we have to pay top rates to get the best talent bear any scrutiny? E.g. the main skill demonstrated by water company bosses seems to lie in accruing as much wealth for themselves, with the lowest benefit to anyone else. Is that what we're paying top rates for? It's funny how the same argument somehow never gets used for people who actually do something useful, like care workers. Eadwine Wealth doesn't trickle down Unfortunately, this is based purely and simply on the belief that wealth trickles down, which is largely untrue. And the 'wealth' does not benefit the country – it is spent and invested elsewhere. A tax based simply on land ownership and usage, easy to verify by drone or satellite and with clear ownership recorded by the Land Registry, resolves that, and might also put an end to leaseholds... To suggest that millionaires and billionaires should contribute more, and that all working people be paid a minimum of the living wage, and those unable to work full time be topped up from taxation on those able to pay, should not be contentious. Topsham1 Popular, but counter-productive As Colbert said more than 300 years ago: "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest amount of hissing." With a wealth tax, a government gets neither feathers nor hissing, as the rich simply leave the country for more welcoming shores. The idea is popular, but also utterly counter-productive. paul The rich pay the tax already So many lefties think that they are paying too much tax and that, instead, the government should soak the rich. The reality is that the vast majority of people in the UK are net recipients. The top 10 per cent of earners pay nearly 60 per cent of tax, and the tax rate in the UK is one of the lowest in Western Europe. If you want decent services, pay for them. YetAnotherName When does wealth creation become a problem? When someone starts and grows a business, they risk their savings and even their house. They work long hours and only make a profit and grow the business if they provide the goods and services that people want to buy. They also create jobs that would otherwise not exist and pay taxes that would otherwise not be paid. At what point does any of this wealth generation become a problem? Mark
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Labour owes it to special needs children to reform SEND
They say that history repeats itself, but the Labour party won't be expecting it to happen quite so quickly. Last week, a 'Starmtrooper' rebellion forced the government to make a series of last-minute concessions and compromises on its welfare bill for fear of a humiliating defeat in the House of Commons. Now, Labour is facing a similar battle, but this time over special educational needs (SEND) provision. MPs are criticising ministers' refusals to rule out cuts as part of its SEND overhaul, the details of which will be unveiled in the autumn. As one Labour MP warned, 'if they thought taking money away from disabled adults was bad, watch what happens when they try the same with disabled kids.' These children risk becoming trapped in a cycle of dependency As with the welfare system, special education needs provision has become an unmanageable behemoth. Around 1.67 million pupils in England have SEND – 18.4 percent of the school population, and a 31 per cent increase since 2016. Around 576,000 children also have an EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan): a legally binding document, replacing the old system of 'statements', which entitles students to specialist support, paid for by local authorities. EHCPs are designed for students with the most severe needs, but the last decade has seen an astronomic rise in applicants – there are now 140 per cent more EHCPs than there were in 2015, with the total SEND budget costing more than £12 billion a year. It's easy to see why parents are nervous that the government is considering scrapping EHCPs as part of its reforms: EHCPs provide some statutory certainty in a system that is overstretched and underfunded. Yet the problem is the same one that lies at the heart of so many of our public services: society feels morally obliged to spend on the care, protection and education of those most in need, but we don't actually have the money to do so. Even when we do increase spending, the outcomes are not always positive: a report from the National Audit Office found that, despite the increase in funding, the system is 'still not delivering better outcomes for children and young people'. Governments then promise reforms – which rarely mean anything other than spending less money – but MPs clearly do not have the stomach for reality. We saw this with PIP: we spend over £320 billion on welfare, and yet the government could not even successfully shave off £5 billion from the bill. A similar retreat on SEND reform seems inevitable. As unsustainable as the current system is, preserving the status quo seems more politically palatable than daring to change eligibility criteria. Yet the government has to find its backbone here. The current system is bankrupting councils: in 2023-4, Kent spent £17 million on assessing and delivering EHCPs, and an eye-watering £70 million transporting children to and from school or medical appointments. The County Councils Network (CCN) projects that the cost of 'free' transport will reach £3.6 billion a year by 2030. If the financial arguments won't persuade MPs to follow through here, then perhaps the emotional ones will. To put it simply, we need change because the families who most critically need support are not receiving it. Diagnostic inflation means skyrocketing waiting lists and increased competition for limited resources: for example, almost a quarter of families with disabled children now have to wait over a year to see social services. The numerous stories of people abusing the system – for example, an 8-year-old with 'behavioural difficulties' in Gainsborough who was given daily private cars to and from school despite no formal assessment or diagnosis – must be sickening to hear if you are the parent of a severely disabled child who cannot access vital support. Our obsession with neurodivergency has backfired on those most in need; I often wonder what parents of severely autistic children, who may never communicate, socialise, or perform basic tasks independently, think of the endless carousel of celebrities who pay for an autism diagnosis to 'understand themselves better'. The system doesn't work now, but it will be even worse in future. The Department for Work and Pensions predicts that the number of children entitled to disability benefits will rise by a third by 2030 – one of the fastest-growing benefits categories. Only 4 per cent of EHCPs are currently going to children with severe learning disabilities associated with physical incapacity; the vast majority of plans go to children on the autistic spectrum, with the third most common reason being social, emotional and mental health (given to over 130,000 children last year). These children risk becoming trapped in a cycle of dependency: told that they cannot function independently at school, told that they need support but not actually given it, told that they are too mentally unwell to hold down a job. For once, change needs to be non-negotiable.
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
HMRC wealth tax looming as Labour consider Robin Hood taxes
This comes after former Labour leader Lord Neil Kinnock suggested a wealth tax could 'commend' the Government to the general public, as he claimed Labour policies have been 'obscured' by rows over welfare and winter fuel - suggesting that taxing the super-wealthy to plug budget gaps, rather than pensioners and benefit claimants. Darren Jones repeatedly told the Commons that any tax decisions would be set out by the Chancellor at the budget in the autumn. During an urgent question on the Government's fiscal rules, Conservative MP Neil O'Brien claimed speculation of a wealth tax would be enough to 'drive investment away'. Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride pressed the Government on 'how they intend to cover the £6 billion of unfunded commitments which their U-turns have run up in the last month alone'. He added: 'The Chancellor said at the budget she would not be coming back with more tax rises. Is this still the position? 'And will the Chief Secretary rule out a wealth tax, along with reconfirming that there will be no rise in income tax, national insurance or VAT? 'The Chancellor said she would not extend the freeze on tax thresholds because it would hurt working people. Is this still the position? 'And can the Chief Secretary confirm that the Chancellor will not be adding to her fiscal black hole by scrapping the two-child benefit cap?' Recommended reading: Mr Jones replied: 'He asks me to comment on forecasts of annually managed expenditure. He's asked me to comment on future tax decisions. He's a man that knows how this works. All of that happens with a forecast and a budget, which will happen in the autumn.' Mr O'Brien, MP for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, said: 'If you tell business people and wealth creators that if they leave their money in this country, it's going to get taxed, then you drive even more investors away. 'Isn't it the case that even if this measure is not ultimately put in place, over the next couple of months the speculation about a wealth tax itself will drive investment away from this country?' Mr Jones replied: 'The Chancellor will set out any decisions on tax one way or the other at the budget, which she will do in the autumn.' Conservative former Treasury minister John Glen urged the Government to consult with business leaders and conduct 'a proper impact assessment of whichever taxes he is going to increase'. Mr Jones said: 'The Treasury engages with business leaders and investors all of the time, and the one thing they tell me is that they're grateful this Government has brought back long-term, multi-year budgets, that they've got the fiscal rules, that they're in place, that we're reforming things like the planning system to make it easier to do business in this country. 'And as a consequence, business confidence is increasing under this Government, having dropped enormously under his government.' Lord Kinnock, who led the party from 1983 to 1992, told Sky News there are things the party could do that 'would commend themselves to the great majority of the general public' and that these included 'asset taxes'. 'By going for an imposition of 2% on asset values above £10 million, say, which is a very big fortune, the Government would be in a position to collect £10 billion or £11 billion,' he said.
