Nigel Farage 'in touching distance' of being PM as new mega-poll puts Reform UK on course for 290 seats in the Commons... as Keir Starmer's ratings slump to an all-time low
The More In Common survey found, if a general election was held today, Reform would become the largest party in the House of Commons with 290 seats.
Although this is below the number of MPs needed for an outright majority, meaning a hung parliament, it was more than twice as many as any other party.
And the pollster said Reform is now 'close to the level where they could command an outright majority'.
More In Common's new MRP (Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification) model, based on polling of more than 10,000 Britons, put Labour on 126 seats.
This is a loss of 285 seats from Sir Keir Starmer 's general election landslide just a year ago, and leaves them with fewer than half as many seats as Reform.
The research put the Tories on 81 seats, down 40 seats from last year, with the Liberal Democrats on 73 seats (up one seat) and the SNP on 42 seats (up 33 seats).
Meanwhile, as Sir Keir marks one year in Downing Street this weekend, the poll found the Prime Minister's personal approval rating had slumped to an all-time low of -43.
More In Common's projection showed a majority of Cabinet ministers would lose their seats in the face of a Reform surge.
This includes Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting.
Labour's main losses were found to be to Reform, with 223 seats directly flipping from Sir Keir's party to Mr Farage's outfit.
This includes many long-standing Labour constituencies in the North of England and in Wales.
Reform was also shown to be growing support in Conservative areas, with the MRP projecting they would win 59 seats that the Tories held in 2024.
The main reason that voters gave for turning away from Labour - regardless of who they would vote for instead - is broken promises and U-turns on previous pledges.
More than a third (36 per cent) selected this as a reason, while also high on the list was failing to deliver on the cost of living (31 per cent), and Labour's changes to the wiinter fuel payments (27 per cent).
Luke Tryl, UK director of More in Common, said: 'It is an unhappy birthday for the Prime Minister.
'His personal approval has hit an all-time low, while Britons blame him rather than his Chancellor for the welfare mess and think he has lost control of his party.
'Meanwhile our new MRP shows Reform UK as the big winners from the Government's failures.
'Although we are a long way from an election and much will change between, Nigel Farage's party are demonstrating that they are now close to the level where they could command an outright majority.
'Britain's political landscape has transformed entirely from just a year ago.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Monmouthshire council home care review to be discussed
Carers and those they support to remain in their own homes hit out at changes to contracts earlier this year which will see some providers in the south of Monmouthshire change. Due to anger at the changes the council's combined opposition , at a meetng picketed by carers and supporters including clients, forced a review of the contract process and how decisions were made. County councillors will consider a report giving an overview of the process, and lessons already learnt, at a special scrutiny meeting on Wednesday, July 9. The Labour-led council said it retendered domiciliary care contracts as part of a revamp of how care at home is provided and to try better manage costs as well as provide common employment terms for care workers. It divided the south of the county into three areas; Chepstow town and rural, Caldicot town and The Levels and rural with firms awarded one area each as it wanted to move away from buying care packages on an ad-hoc basis. Magor-based Lougher Home Care, which had operated across the area, was awarded the The Levels and rural area which meant it would no longer operate in Caldicot and Chepstow and clients would be allocated new providers. Under the contracts staff are able to transfer with existing terms and conditions protected but many working for Lougher said they didn't want to join either Radis Community Care, that holds the Chepstow contracts, or Care Quality Services that will operate in Calidicot and would likely look for alternative employment outside of care. The council's Conservative opposition also said the changes had resulted in a locally based firm losing contracts to national firms and questioned if the council's procurement process disadvantaged small businesses. No formal challenges to the contract decisions were made under the procurement process by any of the 13 bidders. The council's performance and overview scrutiny committee will consider the report by social services' commissioning manager, Ceri York, at the special meeting. Her report states when contracts were awarded 161 people were written to advising them of a change to their existing provider and 35, or 22 per cent, have since asked about direct payments which allow people to employ the carer of their choice. It also identified ways the procurement process, which was run in partnership with Ardal the body that buys services and products for Monmouthshire, Torfaen, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan councils, could be simplified and run to 'more realistic timescales'. Increased engagement with people using the service could be built into the timeline, the report has suggested, so they would have a say in how the contract process is decided, and it also identified there has been a negative impact on them. It has said earlier engagement with existing providers during the second phase of the process 'may improve cooperation and reduce anxiety'. The report states: 'A robust procurement process has been carried out overseen by Ardal Procurement to ensure that all contract and procurement legislation has been adhered to.' Contracts were awarded in March but service providers aren't due to change until August 19. In line with the full council's decision a review of the council's procurement process in general still has to be carried out.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
We banned cigarette ads for the good of public health – fossil fuels must be next
There was a time when doctors in both the United States and the UK were only too happy to promote 'the health benefits of smoking '. From the 1920s right through to the 1950s, actors were taken on to play the part of doctors to promote different cigarette brands, with the companies vying in their claims for the level of support they had among the medical profession, as in 'more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette'. Today, this sounds completely outlandish. But I'm reminded that my own father, an eminent surgeon here in the UK, would have been completely comfortable about these adverts. As someone who smoked cigarettes (and then a pipe) enthusiastically for 60 of his 90-year lifespan, he was slow to embrace the increasingly authoritative research links between smoking and cancer. It was clear to me, as a rebellious teenager, that he was a complete addict. As was my mother. As was my sister. And brother. Unfortunately, many people are still addicted to nicotine today. But it's our addiction to fossil fuels that is causing by far the greatest damage to people and the planet. Improbably, back in 2006, it was the then US president, George W Bush, who acknowledged in his State of the Union address that 'we have a serious problem'. 'America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.' He was particularly concerned about imports from Iran. What comes around … That's why today's debate in Parliament is so important. MPs are discussing a petition calling for a ban on fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship, much like the existing bans on tobacco advertising. The petition, signed by more than 110,000 people, argues that such advertisements 'encourage the use of products and sponsorship promotes a positive reputation and creates a social licence of trust and acceptability'. The debate reflects growing public concern about the legitimacy of fossil fuel companies sponsoring cultural, sporting and educational events. Societal addiction is even more of a problem than individual addiction. And those whose job it is today to reinforce that collective addiction to fossil fuels – through advertising, public relations, marketing and sponsorship – are no less reprehensible than those agencies which profited so handsomely from promoting cigarettes over many, many decades. It's a surreal situation we find ourselves in. Governments are committed in principle – with varying degrees of ambition, integrity and policy consistency – to transitioning away from fossil fuels, by far the most important priority in terms of getting to grips with the climate crisis. Yet their actions belie that intent at every turn. To cite but one example, government subsidies to fossil fuel companies in 2023 amounted to an astonishing $1.4 trillion. And this is just the tip of the problem, as the level of advertising by fossil fuel companies at the Formula 1 British Grand Prix at Silverstone at the weekend demonstrated. The easiest way to understand the astonishing reach of the fossil fuel incumbency is to see it as a global imperial power, operating in every corner of the Earth, regardless of the political status of countries – whether democracies, autocracies or failing states – subject only to partial and ineffective regulation by those countries once they've been effectively 'captured'. This is achieved by the limitless amounts of money and other inducements the industry has deployed throughout that time to persuade politicians where their best interests lie. Equally limitless amounts of money are available for marketing and advertising campaigns of every description, for sponsorship arrangements and for high‑profile charitable activities. What is even more extraordinary is that none of these companies has ever, at any stage in their history, been required to pay for the social and environmental costs incurred in bringing their products to market. Governments have simply permitted them to 'externalise' the cost of all those billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. That doesn't mean those costs disappear: it means that they're paid by individuals and communities affected by their often grotesque polluting activities, by the environment – in the form of pollution of soil, water and forests – and, of course, by future generations. Which is why Elisa Morgera, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, is now urging the UN General Assembly to support a total ban on both lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel industry. She is pressing for its continuing, pernicious misrepresentations about the reality of the climate crisis to be criminalised. Emphasising the obligation that all states have to inform their citizens about climate change, she could not have been clearer that the 'fossil-fuel playbook' needs to be completely shredded. At the heart of her report to the UN General Assembly is the conviction that continuing to promote fossil fuels – directly and indirectly – represents an astonishing betrayal of young people today. There's never been an incumbency as pervasive and powerful as this one. It's not just the companies themselves, comprehensively dominating the visible foreground, that make up this incumbency, but just behind the scenes there is an even more extensive network of financial and professional interests that provides the funding; facilities; insurance, legal and consultancy services; and the vast array of transport, infrastructure, logistics and retail businesses that distribute and sell the industry's products. Whichever way you look at it, this is indeed such a shocking example of intergenerational injustice that it's hard to believe the level of invective young climate campaigners are subjected to simply for trying to get today's 'grown‑ups' to start paying a bit more attention. Any suggestion that the industries primarily responsible for these current and future bills should now be held to account – both politically and financially – is still peremptorily dismissed as unworldly or, worse yet, as prejudicial to shareholder interests and to capitalism itself. We must start to address these issues. A ban on fossil fuel advertising – which is already being adopted by cities like Edinburgh and Sheffield, and by other local authorities – would be an ideal first step. This would mean, for example, ending fossil fuel sponsorship of our leading cultural institutions – including BP's long-standing sponsorship of the British Museum and Science Museum; its arrangement with the Tate galleries ended in 2017 after protests by climate change activists. It would also put a stop to advertising by oil and gas companies on the London Underground. Only then can we say we're getting serious about undertaking the much‑needed total transformation in our relationship with the fossil fuel industry.
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour refuses to shield state pension from ‘retirement tax'
Labour has rejected a petition calling for the personal allowance to be raised to protect state pensioners from income tax. The Treasury said the tax-free personal allowance would not be raised for retirees – a move campaigners have called a 'betrayal' of the elderly. Millions of Britain's poorest retirees face being dragged into the tax net when the state pension breaches the £12,570 tax-free threshold in a move which has been dubbed the 'retirement tax'. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has committed to keeping income tax thresholds frozen until at least 2028, a policy introduced under the Tories. Last week she refused to rule out extending the freeze beyond this date. However, the new 'full' state pension of £11,973 a year, paid to 12.9 million people aged 66 and over, is set to breach as early as next year. The triple lock ensures that the state pension rises each April by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5pc. If average earnings continue to grow at their current rate of 5.2pc, then the state pension will exceed the tax-free allowance for the first time next year. This will mean pensioners – many of whom rely solely on the state pension for their income – will be taxed at 20pc on the portion above £12,570. In March, the Silver Voices campaign group submitted a petition with 125,000 signatures to Number 10 and the Chancellor calling on the Government to lift the personal allowance threshold for pensioners and to commit to raising it in line with future triple lock rises. However, the Treasury last week rejected the idea of 'exempting the state pension and other benefits' from income tax as doing so would 'add complexity to the tax system'. Dennis Reed, director of Silver Voices, said the 'inadequate' response had 'stuck two fingers up' at pensioners who felt 'insulted and betrayed' by the Government. He added: 'The British state pension isn't a king's ransom and it's very difficult to survive on at the moment, even without getting taxed on it. 'Keeping thresholds frozen is a backhanded way of taxing the state pension and triple lock, which is often people's only source of income. 'Extending the freeze to 2030 will make the situation even worse.' The threshold freeze helped to push an extra 2.5 million pensioners into the tax net under the Tories' 14 years in power. Ahead of the general election last year, the Conservatives proposed raising the personal allowance in line with the triple lock for pensioners to shield them from a 'retirement tax'. Analysis by wealth manager Quilter suggests that an extra one million low-income pensioners would be taxed on their state pension if Labour were to extend the freeze until 2030. 'Giving with one hand and taking with the other' Baroness Altmann, a former Tory pensions minister, said: 'Inevitably, if the state pension keeps going up and the threshold doesn't, more and more pensioners are going to pass the threshold with their state pension income alone. 'Those with no other income are increasingly going to find that the Government is giving with one hand and taking with the other. There's likely to be a lot of upset. 'Also, if you only have the state pension, an increase is only going to take you slightly over the threshold by a few pounds, the cost of administering it could well be more than the amount of tax they will collect.' It comes as the former Labour leader Lord Kinnock said the Party is 'willing to explore' a new wealth tax of 2pc on assets over £10m. In its response to the campaign, a Treasury spokesman said: 'Exempting the state pension and other benefits from income tax would add complexity to the tax system and those paying higher rates of tax would receive the greatest benefit. 'Individuals earning above the higher rate threshold would benefit more than those with incomes below, and those earning below the personal allowance would not benefit at all. 'It would also be expensive at a time when the Government has inherited a very challenging set of fiscal circumstances.'
