A year after landslide, poll makes grim reading for Starmer
First the caveats. This is just one poll, albeit a large one. And a poll is just a snapshot of current opinion. With an election still four years off much can, and probably will, change.
Yet as Sir Keir Starmer marks one year in power next week, he might well reflect on two things that YouGov's findings highlight.
• Reform would be largest party if general election held today
The first is obvious: how quickly his party has squandered the support it won in its landslide election victory.
But the second is more important: how utterly fragmented Britain's political landscape has become.
Here, it is worth a thought experiment. Imagine for a moment it is 2029 and the results of the general election mirror YouGov's poll.
Reform might be the largest party but it is still 55 seats short of an overall majority. The party's best option would be to try to do a deal with the Conservatives, but would the Tories really want to go into power with Nigel Farage as prime minister and a cabinet in which the vast majority had never been MPs before, let alone ministers?
They might wisely decide to sit it out in the hope of an implosion and an equally improbable swing of the electoral pendulum back to them.
But even if they did agree to prop up Farage, the two parties together would still only have 317 MPs, the same number of seats which the Conservatives alone won under Theresa May back in 2017 — only this time there are not currently enough Democratic Unionist MPs to get them over the magic 326 threshold in the Commons.
Farage might be in Downing Street but he would be on shakier ground than any prime minister in modern political history.
• Fraser Nelson essay: Prime Minister Farage was once unthinkable — not any more
The picture on the left is bleaker still. Even a rainbow coalition of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Welsh and Scottish nationalists would not be enough to sustain a government majority.
To achieve that, the rump of the Tories would have to throw their weight behind Starmer in a German-style coalition.
In short, it is hard to see a plausible and sustainable government of any kind being formed given where public opinion is at the moment.
Supporters of Britain's first-past-the-post system have long argued that its principal benefit, compared with proportional systems widely used on the Continent, is that while it might be unfair, it does at least tend to produce stable governments.
This poll, and the fragmentation of politics that it shows, demonstrates that this is not necessarily the case. Britain could become just as ungovernable as other countries we used to like to joke about.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
30 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Ex-Labour MSP Neil Findlay slams Keir Starmer's welfare cuts
Now a consultant, Mr Findlay told The Herald: 'I question the sanity of these MPs. First of all, they will lose the moral high ground. But secondly, it is incomprehensible to me, even just out of self-interest. 'If MPs vote for the bill, there is no way it will enhance their chances of reelection. They are living in 'cuckoo land' and need to wake up and smell the coffee.' The Herald understands that 12 MPs, or one-third of Scottish Labour's Westminster contingent, have backed a 'reasonable amendment' opposing the government's flagship welfare legislation. Starmer's proposed cuts to welfare will see a tightening of who is eligible to claim PIP. Mr Findlay resigned his party membership of 35 years in March over the 'vindictive and brutal' cuts, which he said revealed party leadership's 'sneering contempt' for the poor and disabled. In an open letter to Sir Keir, Mr Findlay wrote: 'The reality is that Labour will be lucky to come third at the forthcoming Scottish election, will lose power in Wales for the first time and faces being routed at the next UK election and this will be down to your disastrous tenure as leader. "MPs who continue to support your agenda are turkeys voting for Christmas.' Mr Findlay echoed those comments, telling The Herald Sir Keir had 'betrayed' Labour's working-class values. He said: 'I dealt with Starmer in 2018 when I was Shadow Brexit Secretary for Scottish Labour and he was Shadow Brexit Secretary for Labour at Westminster. We got on okay and had a decent relationship. He knew his brief, and I respected him. 'When he ran for leadership, he made a range of pledges which were not worth the paper they were written on. He took the membership for mugs, and has betrayed the values of the Labour Party.' DWP Minister Liz Kendall is behind the proposals. (Image: James Manning/PA Wire) Mr Findlay warned that Scottish Labour would suffer at the next Holyrood elections if the welfare cuts move forward. He noted: 'Labour had a very wide margin of victory in 2024, but it was very shallow. There was no love for Starmer, people weren't running towards Labour, they were rejecting the Conservatives.' 'Anas Sarwar would have been measuring curtains for Bute House last autumn, but they've certainly been put back in the box now.' 'Starmer has betrayed so many people,' Mr Findlay added. 'WASPI women, pensioners, disabled people, to name a few. 'On Tuesday, he announced that defence spending would rise to 5%, but is cutting social security payments for people with disabilities at the same time. It is disgraceful. Read more: A third of Scottish Labour MPs now back rebel amendment against welfare reforms Benefit cuts will push 250,000 into poverty, Government impact assessment warns I went behind the scenes of Westminster - here's the problem facing Scottish Labour Mr Findlay added: 'People have basic needs; housing, food, local services. If you face competition for these resources; for housing, for dental appointments, and school places, it is all too easy to point the finger at someone else, rather than the broken system. 'Labour needs to come forward with robust proposals to address the NHS and housing crises.'
Daily Record
32 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Making concessions on benefit cuts 'not enough', says Scots Labour MP
Brian Leishman said "the real Labour thing to do" is "to create a welfare system that looks after people". Concessions on the UK Government's benefit cuts are "not enough" and the bill should be dropped, a Scottish Labour MP has said. Brian Leishman said "the real Labour thing to do" is "to create a welfare system that looks after people". It comes as reports suggested Prime Minister Keir Starmer is considering watering down his welfare reforms because of a major rebellion. This could include changing the points needed to get Personal Independence Payment (PIP) or backtracking on the measures affecting Universal Credit (UC). amendment which would bring down the cuts it goes to a vote on Tuesday. Alloa and Grangemouth MP Leishman said: "Concessions being made on the UC and PIP Bill is not enough because disabled people will still become poorer. "The government should withdraw the Bill and work with organisations and charities to create a welfare system that looks after people. " That's the real Labour thing to do." The bill would make it harder for disabled people with less severe conditions to claim personal independence payment (Pip), with forecasts predicting the overall changes will plunge 50,000 children into poverty. The amendment supported by the rebels would give them an opportunity to reject the welfare reform bill. The wording backs the 'need for the reform of the social security system' but criticises the lack of a 'formal consultation' with disabled people and warns of the impact on poverty levels. They also hit out at their own Government for not publishing an 'assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs'. The Scottish Labour sceptics are Richard Baker, Scott Arthur, Euan Stainbank, Brian Leishman, Lilian Jones, Tracy Gilbert, Elaine Stewart, Kirsteen Sullivan and Ferguson. Maureen Burke, Martin Rhodes and Irene Campbell have since added their names. The Record understands there are other MPs who have not signed the amendment who may not back the cuts in a vote next week. There are 11 Scottish MPs in the UK Government - plus two other MPs who are 'mission champions' - who would almost definitely have to resign from their roles to rebel.
Daily Mirror
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Is all this talk about war an attempt from Starmer to impress Donald Trump?
So Sir Keir Starmer is ramping up the rhetoric and re-upping on the UK's defence weaponry. The Prime Minister has announced a £1billion deal to buy 12 nuclear-ready F35A jets from the US. That will warm the hearts of the millions of UK citizens unaware of where their next meal will come from. Or the voters bracing themselves for welfare cuts. As the legendary rapper Tupac Shakur once said: 'They got money for wars but they can't feed the poor." The government is warning us to prepare for war on home soil for the first time since the German occupation of the Channel Islands during the Second World War. But why? The National Security Strategy document, out earlier this week, is suggesting there are threats from nukes, troops, terrorism, chemical warfare and so much much more. A country like the UK would have threats against it all the time. But if there is a specific, credible worry to us then surely they should be telling us, shouldn't they? Because it smells worryingly like an attempt to confect an appetite for war. Anyone able to think for themselves could be forgiven for noting a similarity with the flawed dossier used in 2003 to justify joining the US-led Iraq war. And it really does appear that we in this country have learned nothing from that devastating conflict. On the basis of 'sexed up' evidence - parroted on TV, radio and in print by every lapdog politician and his or her dog back then - Tony Blair's Labour government joined George for a conflict that the then-United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, would later describe as 'illegal'. Around 150,000 people - 120,000 of them civilians - died as a result. It was a war that would create new martyrs, new terrorists, new dangers, death and destruction in the west. Dissenters at the time were dismissed as unpatriotic as this country leaned into the bloodlust of which the current climate is frighteningly reminiscent. So, again, the question now is the same as it was then. Where is the evidence? Or was it an attempt to roll up his sleeve and flex his bicep to prove to US President Donald Trump that Starmer too is able to flex? Because, on the basis of historic Anglo-American foreign policy, a number of countries around the world have been burning flags and saying unkind things about the west for decades now. Far from ideal, but there you go. So what else? Iran, which hasn't attacked anyone directly for decades, has supposedly been three months away from a nuclear bomb for 30 years. They weren't even involved this whole caboodle until Israel starting bombing them last week. Now we hear that the US intelligence reports suggest the bombing raids over the weekend were nowhere near as successful in 'obliterating' the core component's of Iran's nuclear capability as Donald Trump has been suggesting. The US President has stuck to his guns and has adopted his favourite strategy of shooting the messengers, the media contingent willing to point out that actually, the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. But sadly, while he and his ago remain intent on hunting down a Nobel Prize, the appetite here appears to be to foment that appetite for conflict. Even to characterise the Iranians as a clear and present danger - even though precisely nobody was talking in those terms even a month ago - is fascinating. Starmer seems determined to turn some of the attention onto himself, and it feels like an attempt to elbow his way into a conversation that doesn't concern this country. Throw in the fact that we in Britain love to invoke wartime rhetoric, and that Starmer can frame himself as the PM able to keep this country safe, and here we are. But we are whipping up fear when the facts completely contradict the narrative that our leaders in this country, across Europe and Stateside are pushing. And, worryingly, it has left Iran doing exactly what many feared: pulling out of talks to keep weapons inspectors apprised of what they are up to. You'd have to assume they will also carry on exploring the nuclear option after being told they cannot have one by the west - most of whose countries have one themselves. If Iran wanted to create any kind of WMD, for example, they'll have had the capability to do so - and use one - for years, wouldn't they? And even if you didn't want to surmise, what about the actual US Intelligence stating (until Trump's intervention) that there was no evidence the Iranians were knee deep in malign intent? What about the International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi who remains adamant that the Iranians had not been building a nuclear weapon? At what point did we stop listening to the experts in favour of the leaders keen to evoke war - euphemistically described as 'peace through strength' - on vibes? The big picture is that Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, is so desperate to keep Trump from pulling America out of the Alliance that his performance at Wednesday's media briefing was embarrassing. So much so that he needed a torch to climb out of the President's tradesman's entrance. It was little surprise, then, to see him soothing the ego of Trump by insisting the President and his utterly unqualified acolytes were right, you can bomb a mountain and wipe out materials buried so deep underground you'd need to enter another time zone to find them. It is the theatre of the absurd but whatever the truth of the matter, Starmer should be better than this. Much better. Ends
