The Labour Government is Losing Support – What’s Gone Wrong for Starmer?

Who are the Labour Party? 

The Labour Party was formed in 1900 as the Labour Representation Committee by unions and left-wing groups. Aiming to create a political voice for the working class in Britain, the formation of the party came after workers’ sustained disillusionment with the Liberal Party (now known as the Liberal Democrats). As a result, Labour has historically stood for left-wing policies, advocating for a welfare state, government intervention and the redistribution of wealth; and thus their voters are concentrated in the working-class dominated constituencies in the North Midlands and North England, forming what pollsters have coined as a “red wall” (though this metaphor has been criticised by many to be a generalisation of Labour’s voters as a whole). As of 2026, the party is led by Sir Keir Starmer, who is now Prime Minister of the UK following the Labour Party’s landslide victory in the 2024 general election. 

​

The Obstacles Faced by the Current Labour Government

After 14 years of relatively chaotic Conservative rule, one might think that the current Labour government would be hugely popular with the general public, who would likely see the current government as a breath of fresh air in British politics. However, this could not be farther from the truth. With the current Labour government polling at roughly 16% as of March 2026, just over half of their 34% vote share from the 2024 general election, support for the party that controls 63% of the seats in parliament has practically evaporated. Though the factors that have affected the government's popularity are undoubtedly complex, it can be boiled down to 2 main concerns, which are outlined below: 

​

Inconsistent Policy Platform

The Labour Party rode in on a wave of change after the 2024 general election, promising to put an end to the years of stagnation that the Conservative Party had left Britain in. They implemented a number of policies that were popular with the public, and committed to various policies that they had previously put forth in their election manifesto. This includes clamping down on tax avoidance, by increasing registration and reporting requirements, through investing in compliance and data systems as mentioned in the Autumn Budget of 2024; introducing VAT on private school fees; quickening regulatory approval to keep pace with new technology and medicines for the NHS; and cutting net migration by 69% in their first year in office, which ranked as one of the electorate’s key concerns heading into the 2024 general election. 

 

However, despite the positively received policies that the Labour government has implemented thus far, many Labour voters overall feel disillusioned by the policies that the Starmer government has or is planning to implement. This is mainly due to how these voters feel that Starmer has not kept the majority of promises made in the party’s 2024 election manifesto, or even the pledges he made when becoming the leader of the Labour Party, instead opting to implement alternative policies that have been viewed by the electorate to be a continuation of the Conservatives’ policies. There are various examples of this, such as his government’s initial restriction of the winter fuel allowance, the maintenance of the two child benefit cap and private schools’ charitable status, alongside the proposed social media ban for under-16s, among many others. 

 

Some may even argue that Labour’s proposed policies in its 2024 election manifesto were too bold and idealistic to ever come to fruition, such as Labour’s proposed nationalisation of Britain’s rail services by 2027, or their proposal to build 1.5 million homes by the next parliament to alleviate Britain’s cost of living crisis. Though there have been attempts made to solve both issues through the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 and the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, both bills have been criticised for falling significantly short of the government’s promises, whether it be by allowing private companies to own more than £1 billion worth of trains used by a publicly-owned national rail company, or by deregulating and removing environmental protections for Britain’s already declining ecosystems. As a result, not only is progress for both targets running behind schedule, little actual progress has been made in terms of both policies. 

 

This may initially seem like a counterintuitive approach to policymaking. After all, why would a government only partially try to implement the policies that it campaigned on? The main reason for this would be a general drift towards the right by the Labour Party. One of the key policies indicative of this would be Labour’s immigration policy: specifically, the doubling of residency wait, after which immigrants can apply for the right to stay indefinitely, over which many have criticised the government to be “pandering to the right” and “abandoning its principles of democracy, social justice, and equality.” 

 

Yet, when mixed in with more green and left-wing policies such as removing inheritance tax loopholes for farmers, and an aggressive promotion of clean energy, Starmer’s policy platform becomes unclear and confusing for many. This has greatly affected the public perception of the Labour Party, as they had presented themselves as the party of  change; yet, in many’s opinion, what Labour has done so far has not been that different to the policies or measures proposed during the Conservatives’ 14 years of governance. This, paired with the immense surge of the Green Party and Reform UK has meant that Labour is now losing votes to both the left and the right of the party, leaving them in a position of weakness in the British political landscape. Hence, Labour’s inconsistent policy platform has greatly harmed their popularity across the political spectrum. 

​

Peter Mandelson Scandal

One of the most prominent scandals that has dogged Starmer’s premiership thus far would be his appointment of Peter Mandelson as the British ambassador to the US, and the scandals that have followed since then. Peter Mandelson has always been a highly controversial figure, with his political career having already been marred by various corruption scandals prior to 2025. Therefore, his appointment by Starmer to the British ambassador to the United States in early 2025 had been widely dubbed by the media to be a “high risk, high reward” gamble – though Mandelson was an expert on issues regarding trade issues as Britain’s previous European Trade Commissioner, and already had close ties with associates of Trump, his reputation meant that the ambassadorship to the US, the UK’s closest trade ally, would be met with an even higher level of scrutiny than previously thought. 

 

Unsurprisingly, given Mandelson’s past records of scandal and resignations, his ambassadorship would end similarly. In late 2025, the US House Oversight Committee released documents that exposed paedophile financier  Jeffrey Epstein's friendly relationship with Mandelson. This led to heightened scrutiny of the UK Government, and not long after, Starmer removed Mandelson from office. However, this would only be the start of the opening of a Pandora’s box for Starmer and his government. Early reports had already emerged that Mandelson had not been given security clearance by the UK's intelligence agency, MI6, and despite Labour ministers claiming otherwise, on April 16, 2026, The Guardian newspaper reported that Mandelson had actually failed the background check given by security vetting, and that Foreign Office officials had decided to overstep the decision. On the same day, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins, was fired. 

 

This has led to a large amount of criticism directed towards the Labour government, and especially Keir Starmer. Starmer claims that he had not been told that Mandelson had been granted developed vetting against the recommendations of the United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV), and that he would not have appointed Mandelson had he known the security risks beforehand. Meanwhile, Sir Olly Robbins says that Downing Street had a "dismissive approach" towards Mandelson's vetting, and that he faced "constant pressure" from the government to complete the vetting process. Additionally, in response to Starmer’s claim that he had not been informed of Mandelson’s failure in the security vetting process, Robbins defended his decision not to share this information, saying the decision-making "within the box of the vetting process must remain absolutely confidential," and that the vetting process must be "rightly independent of ministers,” including the Prime Minister himself. 

 

This scandal has raised serious questions about Starmer’s judgement and competence as the nation’s Prime Minister, as well as tainting his reputation.  Frustration within the Labour Party has been rampant, from the backbenches all the way to members of the cabinet. To make matters worse, attempts have been made to subject Starmer to a parliamentary investigation regarding his repeated insistence over his claims over the vetting of Mandelson. This is because many members of the opposition argue that Starmer has broken the Ministerial Code by misleading Parliament about the process behind Mandelson’s vetting by the UKSV. However, Labour Party MPs have stated that this was simply a mistake made by Starmer himself, and that Parliament should spend their time on matters that are more important to the British public. Overall, the political damage that this scandal has caused to Starmer and his government has been immense, and it is more likely than not that this scandal leaves a permanent stain on Starmer’s time in government. 

​

Is There a Way Out of This Slump? 

As the days pass, the situation is looking increasingly precarious for Starmer and his government. Starmer’s hands-off, no-questions-asked, passive leadership style has led to a crisis of faith in the government, as he has been accused of throwing others under the bus, and not holding himself and his team accountable when necessary. As a result, not only is Starmer losing support rapidly from the public, he and his government are now the target of the ire of his very own Labour MPs, after a series of policy mishaps and public missteps. 

 

Some may argue that this government was fated to fail from the start, and for good reason too: Keir Starmer’s unpopularity could arguably not only be because of what he’s done or how he’s like as a leader, but rather, the manner in which he and his party were elected to government. Despite Keir Starmer being elected with more than a majority of seats in parliament, Labour’s actual vote share across the nation only amounted to a third of all total votes cast (33.7%), setting a record for the lowest ever vote share that a party has ever been elected to a majority with. Such disproportionate  results are common in the UK’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, and as a result, many choose to vote tactically. Over a fourth (28%) of voters in the UK opted to vote this way, where voters opt to vote for a candidate not because they are the voters’ first choice, but to simply keep another candidate out of the race. This, paired with the widespread discontent with the country’s 14-year Conservative government meant that the Labour Party were one of the largest beneficiaries of the tactical vote (2024 General Election Impact Report, 2024), where many voters chose to vote Labour, not because they necessarily preferred the Labour parties’ policies over all others, but simply just to keep the Conservatives out from government, for the sake of change. As a result, some believe that Keir Starmer was never that popular to begin with as a figure; rather, he was only “popular” due to the Conservatives’ immense unpopularity, and this can be evidenced by how Starmer’s favourability ratings have never passed 50%, from 2024 till now. Thus, as Starmer entered government as an unpopular figure to begin with, it is no surprise that the above issues have made his government so incredibly disliked among the electorate. 

 

Overall, patience is running thin with Starmer and his Labour government, from both Parliament and the public. Only if Starmer takes action to solve this crisis will his government have a better chance at doing well at the next general election, or seeing out their term in government. Whichever comes first. 

​​​​​​

​

​

​

Glossary:

Unions: An organization of employees formed to protect their rights, improve working conditions, and negotiate collectively with employers

​

Welfare state: A form of government in which the state (or a well-established network of social institutions) actively acts to protect and promote the economic and social well-being of its citizens 

​

Government intervention: Refers to the regulatory action taken by a government that aims to change decisions made by individuals, organizations, or groups regarding economic and social matters. Its primary goal is to maximize a country’s social welfare by correcting market failure.

​

Under-secretary: A person who works directly under a secretary, often serving as a deputy or senior administrator in a government department or organization, in this case, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)

​

First-past-the-post (FPTP): A voting system where voters choose a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election, regardless of the margin of victory, or the majority achieved

​​

​

Citations:

2024 General Election Impact Report. (2024). Best for Britain. https://www.bestforbritain.org/2024_election_impact 

​

Critch, N., & Luke, D. (2026). Mandelson vetting scandal: why Whitehall is the worst of all worlds when it comes to accountability. https://doi.org/10.64628/ab.gcdxfysw7 

​

Electoral Reform Society. (2024). A System Out of Step: The 2024 General Election. Electoral-Reform.org.uk. https://electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/a-system-out-of-step-the-2024-general-election 

​

Farr, M. (2025). Peter Mandelson was always a high-risk appointment – his departure will not end the matter for Keir Starmer. https://doi.org/10.64628/ab.aamdyuwgu 

​

General election 2024: what are the most important issues for voters? (2024). Yougov.com. https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/49594-general-election-2024-what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters 

​

Hughes, D. (2026, April 21). Ed Miliband: I feared Mandelson's appointment would “blow up.” The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-mandelson-trump-starmer-b2961610.html 

​

Labour Party (UK). (2023, November 14). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)# 

​

McGuckin, I. (2025, June 22). Why ecologists say Planning Bill is a “Trojan horse” invading our green spaces. ITV News. https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2025-06-20/why-ecologists-say-planning-bill-is-a-trojan-horse-with-licence-to-destroy 

​

McShane, A. (2025, November 20). Migrants could be barred from claiming benefits in new crackdown and face 20-year wait to stay in Britain forever | LBC. LBC. https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/asylum-system-shake-up-benefits-wait-years-british-citizens-5HjdN8q_2/ 

​

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2025, March 11). Guide to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-planning-and-infrastructure-bill/guide-to-the-planning-and-infrastructure-bill 

​

Piercy, G. (2025, December 23). Full list of Starmer’s 11 screeching U-turns after farmer reprieve. Express.co.uk; Daily Express. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2149980/full-list-starmer-u-turns-farmers 

​

Pike, J. (2025, September 11). Why did Starmer take the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson? BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjd1egrlj0mo 

​

Political favourability ratings, April 2026. (2026). Yougov.com. https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54604-political-favourability-ratings-april-2026

 

Press. (2026, April 20). Full timeline of how Mandelson appointment scandal unfolded as Starmer claims he did not “mislead” MPs. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/will-starmer-survive-mandelson-scandal-vetting-b2961375.html 

​

Ross, T., Webber, E., & Bloom, D. (2026, April 20). Fatal flaw: Keir Starmer’s leadership vacuum threatens to swallow him up. POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-dangerous-leadership-style-uk-peter-mandelson/ 

​

Salisbury, J. (2025, May 22). Is the government on track to reduce net migration? Fullfact.org. https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/net-migration-fall-labour-government/ 

​

Seddon, P. (2025, May 10). Labour’s immigration plans at a glance. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cje72plqk17o 

​

Sikka, P. (2024, December 20). Labour’s drift to the right could risk Keir Starmer being a one-term prime minister. Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK’s Progressive Debate. https://leftfootforward.org/2024/12/labours-lurch-to-the-right-could-risk-keir-starmer-being-a-one-term-prime-minister/ 

​

Team, W. (2023, January 10). Government Intervention. WallStreetMojo. https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/government-intervention/ 

​

UK Government Policy Implementation Tracker PRACTICE GROUPS SPOTLIGHT ON. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2026, from https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2025/08/baker-mckenzie-uk-policy-implementation-tracker.pdf 

​

Voting intention. (2026). Yougov.com. https://yougov.com/en-gb/trackers/voting-intention?period=3m 

​

Whannel, K. (2026a, April 21). Key evidence from sacked official at heart of Mandelson row. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxk5e570qxo 

​

Whannel, K. (2026b, April 27). Ministers rally support for Keir Starmer ahead of Mandelson vote. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3r3r2vzjp1o 

​

Wikipedia Contributors. (2026, April 1). Red wall (British politics). Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wall_(British_politics)#Generalisation