More than three out of five people think Starmer does not respect them
But a survey from More In Common and the UCL Policy Lab, published on Tuesday, suggested 63% of the public now thought the Prime Minister did not respect people like them, almost twice the 32% that thought so before the 2024 election.
And while 41% of the public thought Sir Keir did respect them before the election, that figure has fallen to 24%.
The poll also suggested that a perceived lack of respect from political elites was driving support for Reform UK, with supporters of that party more likely to think politicians as a whole disrespect them.
Some 85% of Reform supporters said they thought politicians did not respect their contribution to society, while 86% thought politicians did not respect their values.
But while Reform leader Nigel Farage scored more highly than the two main party leaders on respecting the public, 50% of those surveyed still said he did not respect people like them.
That compared to 56% for Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and 63% for Sir Keir.
And just 33% thought Mr Farage did respect them, compared to 24% for both Mrs Badenoch and Sir Keir.
Tuesday's poll has been published alongside a report from More in Common and the UCL Policy Lab examining how public opinion has changed since the general election.
It found 77% of people still thought it was time for change, while the most popular answer to the question of what had changed since Labour came to power was 'nothing'.
Marc Stears, director of the UCL Policy Lab, 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.'
The joint poll surveyed more than 7,000 people in May and June this year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
42 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Nigel Farage is UK's 'most respectful' political leader, new poll shows
Nigel Farage is UK's 'most respectful' political leader, new poll shows Pollsters took the mood of the nation a year after Labour took charge Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage (Image: Getty Images ) A third of people in Britain believe Nigel Farage is the "most respectful" politician, pollsters say. Polling of more than 7,000 people and research since the general election a year ago has shown bad news all round for Labour, with a loss of support from new and existing Labour voters. Broken promises and policy u-turns were big reasons for a loss of support, the research found. Nigel Farage came out above Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in questions about which leader respects people more. Research by More in Common and UCL Policy Lab asked people about the big political parties, leaders and respect and found: Most think little has changed since the 2024 General Election Two thirds of Britons think Labour lacks respect for them U-turns on winter fuel payment, welfare changes and immigration have undermined Labour's voter base Asked to give Labour a report card, Britons give them an E Since the General Election, the proportion of Britons who think that Keir Starmer does not respect people like them has more than doubled: 63% now say that the Prime Minister lacks respect for them. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Image: PA ) Article continues below And similarly, they feel the party he leads lacks respect too. In May 2024, 40% of Britons said the Labour Party respected them, and only 34% disagreed. Looking at Reform UK, the party led by Nigel Farage, there were high figures among those who identify as Reform voters for statements like "politicians do not respect my contribution to society" and "my values are not represented by politicians". Britons are more likely to say that Nigel Farage - rather than Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch - respects people like them. While a third said Nigel Farage is the figure who is most respectful, just 24% answered the same for the Labour or Conservative leader. Asked why they were turning away from Labour, the main reason voters gave - regardless of who they would vote for instead - is broken promises and u-turns on previous commitments. More than a third (36%) select this as a reason. Also high on the list is failing to deliver on the cost of living (31%), and their changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance (27%). Labour's defectors to Reform cite failures on immigration as a driving factor, while Labour's progressive defectors point to cuts to disability benefits. The polling found Labour is losing voters. Only three in five of those who previously voted for Labour would still in a general election held tomorrow but the rest are defecting across the board - 11% to Reform, 8% to Lib Dem, 4% to the Greens and 4% to the Conservatives. A further one in ten say they don't know how they would vote. There is further bad news looking at the people who backed Labour for the first time at the two most recent general elections. Of the voters Labour gained between 2019 and 2024, only 43% would back them now showing a dramatic loss among first time voters but there are also serious questions about the support among previously lifelong supporters. Article continues below Marc Stears, Director, UCL Policy Lab, 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."
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
US air strikes on Iran were absolutely necessary, says Patel
The Conservative frontbencher pressed Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer for details about the 'UK's response to the actions of the Iranian regime' in the Commons on Monday. It followed Operation Midnight Hammer last month, an air raid when US defence forces attacked Iranian nuclear sites near Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. UK Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies. 'Two weeks have passed since the US air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities,' shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti said. 'Does the minister have an assessment of their impact, and what is his response to the Iranian regime now prohibiting co-operation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and their inspectors leaving Iran? 'Given Tehran's refusal to co-operate, is the minister and the department in discussions with the partners about snapback sanctions being applied (by reinstating UN sanctions on Iran removed through the 2015 Iran nuclear deal) and other measures? 'Is he concerned that demonstrates that Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons and their entire programme? 'And with the information received from discussions with America, Israel and other intelligence partners, will the Government finally come off the fence about those strikes and agree with this side of the House that they were absolutely necessary?' Mr Falconer replied: 'I won't provide, I'm afraid, a detailed commentary from the despatch box on the extent of damage from the strikes, for reasons that I'm sure (Dame Priti) and the rest of the House will understand. 'I can confirm we are in discussions about the snapback mechanisms. As the Prime Minister (Sir Keir Starmer) has said, as the Foreign Secretary (David Lammy) has said, as I have said, we cannot see Iran get a nuclear weapon – snapback is an important lever. 'We're talking with our E3 partners and indeed the Americans about what role snapback can play. 'We hope to see a diplomatic solution. That is ultimately the most enduring way to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, but we will continue to consider all diplomatic tools including snapback.' Andrew Murrison referred to comments which Defence Secretary John Healey made on social media website X, when the Cabinet minister said the 'US has taken action to alleviate the grave threat that Iran poses to global security'. The Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire told the Commons: 'The Defence Secretary correctly has said that Operation Midnight Hammer has alleviated a grave threat, but the Attorney General appears to be less clear and wonders if it was illegal, whilst the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary appear to sit on the fence. 'Sorry to put the minister on the spot – does he agree with the Attorney General or with the Defence Secretary?' Mr Falconer replied: 'The Defence Secretary and the Attorney General are doing rather different roles, and I don't think they're in disagreement – and in any case, collective responsibility would bind them both and indeed me.' The Foreign Office minister, whose portfolio includes the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, also referred to a 'gap' in the law which independent reviewer of state threats legislation Jonathan Hall identified in a 2025 report. Mr Hall recommended that the Government should be able to issue 'statutory alert and liability threat notices' against foreign intelligence services. 'By way of example, this strong power would be available for use against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps', he wrote, referring to the Iran-backed organisation. It would be a 'new proscription-type power', similar to existing terrorism legislation used to ban organisations such as Hamas and National Action, the reviewer said. When Labour MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme Adam Jogee asked Mr Falconer to 'elaborate a little more on what that means', the minister replied: 'A state in this case has proved a persistent threat in the UK using methods unlike those usually employed by a state.' He said the Government was 'seeking to fill' the gap in the law.
Rhyl Journal
3 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Long-running road and rail projects to go ahead after year-long pause
The decision will see major road and rail projects outside London and the South East go ahead, backed by £92 billion from last month's spending review. Most have been in the works for several years, and many have already received planning permission. But their future was thrown into doubt last year when Labour announced a review of transport infrastructure projects, saying the previous Conservative government had promised to deliver some without putting enough money forward. In a statement to Parliament, then-transport secretary Louise Haigh accused the Tories of leaving a £2.9 billion gap between what it had announced and what it had funded. Almost a year after launching its internal review, the Government has now decided to press on with five major road schemes, five rail projects and 28 smaller road schemes, saying they will cut journey times, ease congestion, create jobs and support new housing. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'Transport is the backbone of our economy, which is why we are giving them the record funding boost they need, putting taxpayers' money where it matters most and making everyday journeys easier. 'With over £92 billion investment, including the biggest ever boost for city regions in the North and Midlands, we're delivering the schemes that fast-track economic growth and jobs, connect communities, and will help us build 1.5 million new homes, as we deliver our plan for change.' Preparatory work for some of the projects has continued despite the pause, but Tuesday's announcement means they can now proceed in full. For some projects, supporters will hope the backing marks the final stage of a long-running process. One, a widening of the A66 Trans-Pennine route, was first proposed in 2016, while the reopening of the railway between Portishead and Bristol has been the subject of a 25-year campaign. The A66 upgrade was given planning permission in March 2024, but was delayed by an ultimately unsuccessful legal challenge and put on hold by the new Government's review. Construction is now expected to start this winter. Former prime minister Rishi Sunak, whose constituency is served by the A66, welcomed the announcement, saying it would improve 'journey reliability' given the existing road's 'poor safety record'. The Portishead line, reopening a railway that was closed in the 1960s, was also thrown into question by the review, but then West of England mayor Dan Norris announced funding had been secured in February this year. On Tuesday, the Government announced it would invest another £27 million in the project, which it said would 'connect an additional 50,000 people' and support 'a significant new housing development'. Other major road schemes confirmed on Tuesday include the M54-M6 link, the M60 Simister Island junction near Manchester, the A38 Derby junctions and improvements to the A46 Newark bypass. Both the Simister Island and Newark bypass projects are yet to receive planning permission. The Government has also confirmed its commitment to build new stations at Wellington and Cullompton in the South West and Haxby in Yorkshire, which had all been part of the Conservatives' Restoring Your Railway project that was scrapped when Labour came to power. Funding for the stations, along with the Midlands Rail Hub plan to add 300 trains a day to the West Midlands network, was previously announced at last month's spending review. Other, smaller, schemes include improvements to the Middlewich Eastern Bypass, in Cheshire, and the A382 between Drumbridges and Newton Abbot, in Devon. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the investments were 'long overdue' and would 'transform local communities and improve living standards across the country'. But the Conservatives accused the Government of using the announcement as a 'distraction tactic'. Shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon said: 'Labour are re-announcing projects that are already under way in order to distract from their failing economic strategy of high tax and high borrowing. They just don't have a plan. 'Rachel Reeves's catastrophic economic mismanagement and Keir Starmer's total inability to control his own party has led to a string of unfunded U-turns, meaning that more tax rises are coming.'
