Why public opinion may not be the fairest way to judge Starmer and Reeves

DCM Editorial Summary: This story has been independently rewritten and summarised for DCM readers to highlight key developments relevant to the region. Original reporting by The Conversation, click this post to read the original article.

If you’re trying to understand the political challenges facing the UK government under Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, it helps to start with the latest budget. Despite promising no further tax hikes after last year’s controversial budget, Reeves introduced new tax increases and froze tax thresholds. Unsurprisingly, this shift in approach has triggered public backlash, making her one of the least popular chancellors on record. Polls also show Starmer struggling with public support, with some suggesting he’s the most unpopular prime minister since records began.

You’re probably wondering how to fairly assess a government’s performance amid all the political noise. While public opinion polls are widely used, they only offer a snapshot. Another approach is to judge based on whether the government’s actions are “good,” such as removing the two-child benefit cap or raising the minimum wage. However, that view relies on subjective moral standards. More concrete measures include economic performance and whether the party delivers on its campaign promises—areas where this Labour government appears to be underperforming, given the UK’s sluggish economic growth and stealth tax increases.

To dig deeper, experts often refer to political scientist Jim Bulpitt’s “statecraft” model, which argues a successful government needs a strong electoral strategy, control over the national political narrative, and an image of competence. Labour’s electoral strategy may have worked by simply not being the Tories, but there’s little sign of a consistent vision for the country. If you feel unsure about what Starmer truly stands for, you’re not alone—only a quarter of the public feels they understand his vision for the UK.

Competence also seems to be lacking. Starmer’s leadership has been rocked by internal disputes, welfare policy reversals, and scandals over ethics and propriety, further chipping away at trust. Problems like the mistaken release of a migrant sex offender, financial gifts from donors, and the resignation of deputy PM Angela Rayner have all undermined their credibility. Add to that a worsening debt situation and fears of more tax increases, and the government seems stuck in a cycle that damages both public confidence and economic performance.

Ultimately, your biggest takeaway might be that this government seems out of touch with the political moment. Instead of offering a bold new direction like leaders in transformative eras such as 1945 or 1979, Starmer and Reeves appear stuck in a technocratic, Blairite mindset that’s no longer resonating. Less than a year into their term, they’re not shaping the future—they’re just trying to survive.