logo
The British public aren't who you think they are

The British public aren't who you think they are

Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images
Last week, YouGov revealed that nearly half of Britons – 47 per cent – wrongly think there are more migrants staying in the UK illegally than legally. The numbers aren't even close: there are between 120,000 and 1.3 million illegal migrants living in the UK, out of a total of 10.7 million foreign-born people in total. Depending on which figure you use, that means people who come to the UK illegally make up between 1.1 per cent and 12 per cent of the total migrant population, suggesting half the British public are wildly wrong on this one. But the way in which they are wrong tells us something interesting about how misconceptions may be shaping the political debate and what politicians might want to do about it.
It got me wondering: what else can we learn about the British public that might surprise us? August is a good time for taking a step back and examining how voters really feel about things, which may have been missed in the endless drama of the news cycle. So I asked five pollsters what they have discovered recently that might challenge the outlook of Westminster watchers, and what they thought this told us about our current political climate.
Trump island
Last week, we learned that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves currently have lower favourability ratings than Donald Trump. But how do Brits really feel about the US president anyway? The answer, according to Ipsos, may surprise you.
'Let's be clear, Donald Trump isn't winning any popularity contests in the UK anytime soon, with 64 per cent of Britons overall unfavourable towards the US president,' says Keiran Pedley, director of UK politics at Ipsos. 'But what's fascinating in our polling is the generational divide that we uncovered.' Ipsos found that while just 9 per cent of those over 55 view Trump favourably, that figure jumps to 29 per cent for 18-34-year-olds (though 45 per cent in this age group are unfavourable).
'This isn't just a quirky stat,' Pedley adds. As the UK prepares for Trump's unprecedented second state visit, with the vice-president chilling out in a Cotswolds village, 'it suggests Trump's anti-establishment, social-media-driven brand of politics is having some cut through with a generation that gets its news from very different places than their parents. For many young people, who are perhaps more sceptical of 'business-as-usual' politics, his disruptive style seems to resonate. It's a crucial trend, and one that hints at a real shift in the political landscape.'
What did your dad do again?
During the election campaign, avid followers of UK politics got so sick of Starmer reminding us that his father was a toolmaker that when the Labour leader mentioned it in a live event with Sky News, the audience started to laugh. But according to Joe Twyman, co-founder and director of Deltapoll, only 18 per cent of British adults know this fact about the Prime Minister's background.
'You might know the correct answer, almost everyone you know might know the correct answer, but the average person in the street doesn't,' Twyman warns. With the question 'Who is Labour for?' increasingly coming up in focus groups and questions about class dynamics swirling once more around British politics, it's striking how little cut-through Starmer's personal story has had with the public.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
In more bad news for the Prime Minister, Deltapoll also found that 56 per cent of British adults think Starmer makes the world a worse place, compared to 24 per cent who think he makes it a better place. 'On the plus side,' Twyman adds, 'his score is better than that of Donald Trump (63 per cent vs 21 per cent), Benjamin Netanyahu (58 per cent vs 10 per cent) and Vladimir Putin (83 per cent vs 6 per cent). On the downside, his score is worse than that of domestic opponents including Kemi Badenoch (23 per cent vs 39 per cent), Nigel Farage (32 per cent vs 46 per cent), Boris Johnson (31 per cent vs 47 per cent), and Jeremy Corbyn (22 per cent vs 54 per cent).' Ouch.
I have a cunning plan
Speaking of Corbyn, Scarlett Maguire, founder and director of Merlin Strategy, has found an unlikely source of support: Reform voters. On a range of indicators – from 'authentic' and 'honest' to 'for working people' and 'understands people like me' – Corbyn beats Starmer decisively among those who say they would back Farage's party if an election were held tomorrow. The biggest wins for Corbyn over Starmer were 'represents change' (69 per cent vs 31 per cent) and 'makes radical decisions' (70 per cent vs 30 per cent). The only thing Reform voters thought Starmer was better at was representing Britain on the world stage.
The fact that supporters of a radical right party preferred the (potential) leader of a radical left one to the Prime Minister of a centre-left government is striking, and suggests a real weakness in Labour's strategy of chasing Reform votes – although, Maguire points out, 'this does not show they like Corbyn, more the extent to which they dislike Starmer'.
Merlin Strategy also found that, by a whisker, more people trust Farage on the economy than Starmer (33 per cent vs 31 per cent). The good news for Labour is that Badenoch is languishing behind at 21 per cent – but then, that was before she went to war with Liz Truss. In separate polling, when asked for a word or phrase that best describes Labour, the most popular answer was 'no plan' (22 per cent). But then, voters also picked 'no plan' for Reform (23 per cent), the Conservatives (25 per cent), the Lib Dems (27 per cent) and the Greens (33 per cent). Does anyone in Westminster have a plan? Answers on a postcard, please.
Normal people
So what are Reform voters actually like? As it's the holidays, Luke Tryl, UK director at More In Common, has been on the lookout for some more summery insights. In a survey on what summer activities people were looking forward to, he found that Reform voters 'are ahead among basically all the normal stuff' – like going abroad (to both EU and non-EU countries), sitting in a pub garden and having a barbecue. In contrast, 'the Tories only lead is with Tour de France fans, and Labour is posting its biggest scores on more niche things like Glastonbury or cold-water swimming', plus celebrating Pride. Reform have also won Wimbledon off the Tories.
More In Common has looked at people's entertainment choices too, asking Brits to choose their favourite sitcoms. 'We found Reform led among fans of Fawlty Towers and Only Fools and Horses – which you might expect – but also among fans of The Office and Gavin and Stacey,' Tryl says. Labour are left leading on things like The IT Crowd and The Young Ones. (Unsurprisingly, the Tories lead among fans of Yes, Minister – a show which, by pure coincidence, contains the immortal political adage that 'the less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it'.)
According to Tryl, these two surveys 'tell a really good story using non-political proxies of how 'normal' the Reform vote is. It helps to explain their rise from fringe to leading in the polls'. They also show the sheer range in terms of class and cultural markers of those considering backing Farage.
All that said, it's best to beware putting the UK public into neat little boxes – as two intriguing bits of polling from YouGov show. The first found that while just 35 per cent of Britons identify as a feminist, 83 per cent believe men and women should be equal in every way. They did the test by asking the question in three ways: 'Are you a feminist?'; then 'One definition of a feminist is someone who believes men and women should have equal rights and status in society, and be treated equally in every way. Are you a feminist?'; and finally 'Do you think men and women should have equal rights and status in society, and be treated equally in every way?' Support increased with each option.
Tanya Abraham, director of political and social research at YouGov, notes the data 'suggests that there is a certain toxicity to the term 'feminist' that is putting some people off using it, even when it is paired with a description they would back'. But the poll is also a great demonstration of why it's so important not to make assumptions. You could look at answers to the first question and get what looks like a very clear indication of how British people feel about a pretty fundamental social question. And that indication would be wrong.
YouGov also found last year that, whatever stereotypes we might have in our heads about England football fans, over two-thirds (67 per cent) don't mind whether the England manager is English or not. With the recent triumph of the Lionesses under their superstar Dutch manager Sarina Wiegman, that figure is probably even higher today than it was when YouGov asked the question in October 2024, after the German Thomas Tuchel was announced as Gareth Southgate's successor.
Back then, Farage tweeted 'Why can't we have an English manager?' But YouGov found that just only 30 per cent of England fans had a preference for the manager to be English. Even more interestingly, YouGov's Dylan Difford wrote that while 'desire for an English candidate is highest among Reform UK voters, at 42 per cent… even then, 47 per cent disagree with Farage's view'. Maybe the real takeaway is that, in sport as in politics, the British people just want a winner.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here
[See also: Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu are trapped]
Related
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The good, the bad and the ugly of the Alaska summit
The good, the bad and the ugly of the Alaska summit

Spectator

time28 minutes ago

  • Spectator

The good, the bad and the ugly of the Alaska summit

The three-hour Friday summit in Alaska between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin ended as well as it conceivably could have ended: as a big nothingburger. But that does not mean that Ukraine and its supporters can breathe a sigh of relief. Trump may be unhappy that the prospect of his Nobel Peace Prize remains elusive as Putin has not agreed to an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine. But it is far from clear that he will end up directing his anger against Russia. To be sure, it is a good thing that nothing of substance was agreed in Anchorage. Any big great-power bargain made over the heads of Europeans and Ukrainians, which Trump and Putin would then seek to impose on the hapless old continent, would mean the end of any semblance of a rules-based international order, in which borders of European nations are not redrawn by force. We can be reasonably confident that Putin would have been happy to agree to an immediate ceasefire in exchange for Ukraine meeting his maximalist demands – Ukraine's capitulation, the ceding of territories that Russians do not yet control, or a prompt election to unseat Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The failure to reach a deal with Trump suggests that the US administration has not bought into Russia's interpretation of the war and how to end it – at least not yet. The presence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, once a Russia hawk, in the room might have played a role in preventing the worst-case outcome – unlike in Helsinki where the US president was left with Putin unsupervised for several hours. Yet, 'normie' Republicans must have felt more than a bit of shame about the spectacle that Trump orchestrated – the red carpet, the ride in the 'Beast', and the apparent warmth extended to a mass murderer and child kidnapper all reflect poorly on the United States – and help return Putin from pariah status to a respected global leader. Relatedly, while the summit did not bring about a catastrophe for Ukraine, neither is it likely to lead to better Ukraine policy in Washington. It is hard to imagine now a tightening of existing, congressionally mandated sanctions by the executive branch – never mind the bill put forward by Senators Graham and Blumenthal, imposing a de facto trade embargo on countries buying Russian oil and gas, getting through a Republican-controlled Senate. And, even if Trump does not stand in the way of military sales to Ukraine, it will have to be the Europeans who continue to do the financial heavy lifting – all while being held hostage by America's sluggish defence industrial base. Finally, an ominous, ugly thought. In his remarks, Vladimir Putin warned Kyiv and European capitals against 'throw[ing] a wrench' into the works of the emerging deal (whatever it may be) between Russia and the United States. Clearly, the Russian dictator is playing the long game here: hoping to peel off the United States away from the broader pro-Ukrainian coalition. By itself, the summit has not accomplished that goal yet, but it has likely opened new opportunities to lure Trump and his inner circle closer to Russia. Even before the summit, there was speculation about 'money-making opportunities' that could bring the two world powers closer together. The presence of US Treasury and Commerce Secretaries, Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, and Russia's Kirill Dimitriev, the head of the country's sovereign wealth fund – alongside 'tremendous Russian business representatives', as Trump put it – signalled a desire on both sides for normalisation of 'businesslike' relations. In practice, that might mean more investment, trade and other 'deals' – especially ones that generate cash for the Trump family enterprise. What lies at heart of the summit is that the US president neither understands nor cares about understanding Putin's motives and the threat he poses to the world. In contrast, Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, has a solid grasp of what makes Trump and his entourage tick. He might make the occasional mistake and overplay his hand but he has focus, consistency, and a voracious appetite. And all of those, wrapped in a thoroughly delusional view of the world and Russia's place in it, were both on full display and unchallenged on Friday.

'We didn't get there': Trump and Putin fail to reach Ukraine deal in Alaska talks
'We didn't get there': Trump and Putin fail to reach Ukraine deal in Alaska talks

ITV News

time28 minutes ago

  • ITV News

'We didn't get there': Trump and Putin fail to reach Ukraine deal in Alaska talks

After talks with President Trump, Putin has hinted a deal is immiment, as ITV News US Correspondent Dan Rivers reports A deal on ending the war in Ukraine has not been reached, despite the efforts of US President Donald Trump during face-to-face talks with Russia's President Putin in Alaska. On Friday, the two leaders greeted one another on the tarmac of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. They shook hands and smiled for pictures together before making their way to Trump's presidential limousine. They spoke for around two and a half hours before delivering a joint news conference. Standing next to Putin, Trump said: 'We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. 'And there are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.' However, Trump also admitted: 'There's no deal until there's a deal.' Putin claimed they had hammered out an 'understanding' on Ukraine and warned Europe not to 'torpedo the nascent progress.' The meeting marked the Russian president's first time on US soil in more than a decade. Trump said he would call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders to brief them on the talks. The US President pledged he would bring about an end to the conflict, which began after Russia 's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, on his first day in the White House. Despite not reaching any major breakthrough, Trump ended his remarks by thanking Putin and saying, 'we'll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon'. When Putin smiled and offered, 'next time in Moscow,' Trump said 'that's an interesting one' and said he might face criticism but 'I could see it possibly happening'. The Russian president also praised the talks in the press conference, describing them as a "reference point" from which the conflict could be resolved. He went on to say he hoped they would mark the start of restoring "businesslike, pragmatic relations" between the two countries. Meanwhile, the UK's Ministry of Defence has said British personnel are ready to arrive in Ukraine just "days" after Moscow and Kyiv agree to put fighting on hold. The UK Government earlier this summer backed international efforts to set up a "Multinational Force Ukraine", a military plan to bolster Ukraine's defences once the conflict eases, in a bid to ward off future Russian aggression. "Planning has continued on an enduring basis to ensure that a force can deploy in the days following the cessation of hostilities," an MoD spokesperson said. It follows stern remarks from Trump last month, where he revealed a deadline for Russia to negotiate a ceasefire or face heavy tariffs, following his "disappointment" in Putin. At the beginning of August, Trump announced the repositioning of US nuclear submarines over what he described as "inflammatory" remarks by the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev. The war has caused heavy losses on both sides and drained resources. Ukraine has held on far longer than some initially expected since the February 2022 invasion, but it is straining to hold off Russia's much larger army.

Embarrassment for Trump and acceptance for Putin, after Alaska summit yields no deal on Ukraine
Embarrassment for Trump and acceptance for Putin, after Alaska summit yields no deal on Ukraine

ITV News

time28 minutes ago

  • ITV News

Embarrassment for Trump and acceptance for Putin, after Alaska summit yields no deal on Ukraine

World Russia Ukraine This was supposed to be the foreign policy high point of Donald Trump 's second term. A further step towards the Nobel Peace Prize. A crowning victory against all the doubters and naysayers. Except it wasn't. No sooner than he'd landed, the schedule was ripped up. No one-on-one meeting with Vladimir Putin, instead it was to be a three on three, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff. Then the widened talks were cancelled, the working breakfast binned and the press conference turned into a brief statement with no questions. Despite Putin suggesting an agreement had been reached, President Trump soon contradicted that interpretation, saying 'There's no deal until there's a deal'. There were no details about what they discussed, no read-out on the points of alignment and no attempt to come up with some wording on a statement. This was a diplomatic embarrassment for Trump, leaving him exposed as having been played by Putin. The Russian leader walked away no doubt smiling, happy with the photos of him shaking hands with the leader of the free world, touted in Russia as evidence Putin was back on the world stage. And crucially he gained the one other commodity he needs in this war: time. The talks left just a tiny glimmer of hope that a further summit may happen. The ball has been duly kicked into the diplomatic long grass, leaving Putin free to push further in the Donbass, safe in the knowledge that there appears little immediate chance of Trump imposing punitive new sanctions on Russia.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store