Reform would win most seats if general election took place now, new poll reveals
Reform UK would become Britain's largest party if a general election was held tomorrow, a major new poll shows, putting Nigel Farage on course to become prime minister.
The insurgent right-wing party would jump from having just five MPs to 271, with Mr Farage poised to form a minority government.
Labour would collapse from holding 403 seats now to just 178, with Sir Keir Starmer 's popularity having plummeted since the general election due to a series of disastrous policies and chaotic U-turns.
In a warning that will set alarm bells ringing in government, the YouGov poll found that cabinet ministers Angela Rayner, Yvette Cooper, Bridget Phillipson, Jonathan Reynolds, Lisa Nandy, John Healy, and Pat McFadden would all lose their seats.
And, as Mr Farage continues surging in the polls, Reform would be the biggest party in the East Midlands, East of England, North East, South East, Wales, the West Midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber.
It is the pollster's first MRP or so-called megapoll since the general election. As well as showing the rise of Reform and collapse of Labour, it points to the Conservatives falling even further after their worst election performance on record.
Kemi Badenoch 's party would win just 46 seats in a general election, down from 120, leaving the party in fourth place behind the Liberal Democrats.
The poll showed that Reform would win 26 per cent of the vote, with Labour second on 23 per cent, the Conservatives picking up 18 per cent and the Lib Dems on 15 per cent.
The Greens would win 11 per cent of the vote, picking up a handful of new seats to hold seven altogether.
North of the border, the SNP would return to dominance, gaining 29 seats to win 38 overall.
YouGov said Reform is the biggest beneficiary of Labour's collapse in support, with 194 of the seats held by Sir Keir's party turning to Mr Farage.
The pollster said the fall, if reflected in a general election, would be 'staggering', adding that Labour's 2024 majority was so big that 'many expected it could carry them through at least two election cycles'.
The damning poll comes amid a major rebellion among Labour backbenchers against Sir Keir's deeply unpopular bid to cut £5bn from the benefits bill.
The prime minister is poised for his second major policy reversal in weeks as he prepares to offer rebel Labour MPs concessions on the welfare cuts.
It comes after Sir Keir U-turned this month on the government's decision to cut winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners, a move blamed for the party's heavy losses in May's local elections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
30 minutes ago
- BBC News
BBC Verify Live: What's behind the welfare changes and how do disability assessments work?
Update: Date: 10:26 BST Title: Watch: What are the welfare reforms that are making Labour MPs so unhappy? Content: The UK government's planned cuts to welfare have provoked significant opposition within the Labour Party - with some 120 of its MPs signing an amendment calling for the proposals to be scrapped. Ahead of a key Parliamentary vote due next week, BBC Verify's policy and analysis correspondent Ben Chu has been looking into the detail of the proposed reforms and the debate about their impact. This video can not be played A look at the government's planned welfare cuts Update: Date: 10:06 BST Title: Good morning from BBC Verify Live Content: Rob CorpBBC Verify Live editor Hello from me and the team. Today we're continuing to unpack and explain the UK government's plans to overhaul the way benefits work - as minister's attempt to see off a potential backbench rebellion over its proposals ahead of a Commons vote due next week. We're looking into personal independence payments - or Pips - which are paid to people with disabilities who need help with mobility and daily living. Some Labour MPs are unhappy with proposed changes to how people are assessed for the benefit, so we'll explain how the scoring system works. If there's something you think BBC Verify should investigate do get in touch with us via this link.
Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Spectator
Our benefits system isn't helping people with mental health problems
There are moments in politics when you have to say something people won't want to hear. This is one of them. Our welfare system is in crisis. By 2030, one in every four pounds raised through income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits – more than the entire UK defence budget. In increasingly dangerous and uncertain times, no one could claim that this is sustainable. Drastic action is needed, and after a year in office Labour have finally cobbled together a set of welfare cuts. Sadly, their ham-fisted plan solves nothing. There is growing evidence that what we're doing isn't helping people with their mental health For a start, they barely stem the flow of people onto benefits. Three quarters of a million more people will join the sickness benefits rolls this parliament. And £5 billion in savings sounds good – until you realise the bill is rising to nearly £100 billion. It's a drop in the ocean. What's more, while you don't often find me agreeing with the Labour left, this plan is also deeply unfair. The new assessment framework is so badly thought through that it could have been designed by a random number generator. 77 per cent of people with arthritis could lose their PIP (Personal Independence Payment) entitlement. So could 62 per cent of those with heart disease. Meanwhile, fewer than half of those with anxiety look likely to miss out. Worse still, the mobility element of PIP – the one that allows people with ADHD to qualify for a new car through the Motability scheme – hasn't even been touched. To get the bill down properly, what's needed is a fundamental rethink about which conditions should qualify for long-term financial support, and why? When I first became shadow welfare secretary, one of the statistics that most shocked me was that the majority of new disability claims in this country are now for mental health issues. Most frighteningly, this rise is partly being driven by young people – people who should be in the prime of their lives. Before I entered politics, I campaigned for better mental health care. I fought for parity of esteem between physical and mental health. I have no doubt that reducing the stigma around mental illness in society has saved lives. But at no point during this fight do I think we intended for young people suffering bouts of depression and anxiety to be signed off to a lifetime on benefits. In fact, there is growing evidence that what we're doing isn't helping people with their mental health – it's fuelling isolation, loneliness and dependence. We know that good work brings purpose, structure and connection to someone's life, and a 22-year-old placed on long-term sickness benefits due to anxiety may spend the rest of their working life out of the labour force. That's not just bad for the economy – it's a tragedy for that young person. Of course, people struggle during periods of poor mental health. But do those conditions generate the same kind of practical, day-to-day costs as, say, life in a wheelchair? That's what benefits were designed to support. It's time to say it: we've been getting it wrong on benefits for mental health. Research published by the Centre for Social Justice today shows that by narrowing eligibility – focusing support on those with more severe conditions – we could save nearly £9 billion a year. That's before you even count the enormous economic benefits of someone in their 20s going through life earning and contributing, rather than sitting at home. This isn't about denying anyone's distress. Conditions like anxiety and depression are real. But they're also treatable. Imagine what could be done if even a tiny fraction of that £9 billion were reinvested into mental health services: expanding talking therapies, scaling up social prescribing, and funding the next generation of mental health research. This will cause a fight. People have spent years campaigning for mental health to be treated like physical health, and I was one of them. But if we are going to create a sustainable welfare system, this is a fight we're going to need to have.
Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: UK to appoint senior official to tackle problems at statistics office
LONDON, June 26 (Reuters) - Britain is set to split the top job at the country's statistics office to create a second role focused on overseeing the running of the organisation, which has been criticised for economic data failures, a person familiar with the situation said. The Office for National Statistics (ONS), Britain's largest independent producer of official statistics, has been criticised by the Bank of England after its labour, inflation, trade and producer price data all suffered from errors or methodology problems. Its employment data problems, stemming from a slump in responses to its surveys, have caused headaches at the BoE, which needs to know how much inflation pressure is lingering in the jobs market when it sets interest rates. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a government-commissioned review would recommend the top ONS role of national statistician be temporarily split, bringing in a senior civil servant responsible for improving the running of the service. The government was expected to accept the recommendation, giving it greater control. The review is expected to be published imminently, the source said. Concerns around ONS data first emerged in 2023 when it said it had detected problems with the response rates to its Labour Force Survey (LFS). An improved version of that survey might only be released in 2026 or possibly even 2027. BoE Governor Andrew Bailey said the shortcomings of the data, used to calculate Britain's unemployment rate, was a "substantial problem" for policymakers. In May, head statistician Ian Diamond resigned and the UK Statistics Authority, which is responsible for oversight of the ONS, said Emma Rourke, deputy national statistician for health, population and methods, would step in until a longer-term arrangement was put in place. Economists such as Jonathan Portes at King's College London have attributed the ONS problems to years of tight budgets, low pay for its statisticians compared with private sector peers and a reluctance by households to respond to surveys - an issue that got worse during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ONS has reduced some operations to focus on core economic and population figures in the face of tight funding. It has also hired a Bank of England official to lead a drive to improve its data.
