Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

Spread the love
Simon Dawson/Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Marc Stears, UCL

Exhausted from a long campaign but buoyed by an extraordinary victory, Keir Starmer stood on the steps of Downing Street just over one year ago to deliver his victory speech. “Your government,” the new prime minister said, “should treat every single person in this country with respect.”

This message of respect resonated strongly in the year leading up to the campaign, coming as close as anything to providing a central argument to Labour’s case for government. And, according to polling and focus groups that my team at UCL Policy Lab designed along with polling company More in Common, it seemed to work.

As our research at the time showed, voters felt that “respecting ordinary people” was the most important attribute that any politician could have, more important than having ideas for the future, managing effectively or having real experience. And they thought Starmer was the leader who displayed that respect most.

A year later, the picture looks quite different. In new polling, we asked a representative sample of over 7,000 people to evaluate the government one year on. On respect, the judgement has not been good.


Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


During the general election campaign, 41% of the electorate said that they believed that Starmer “respected people like them”. One year on, that stands at only 24%. At the same time, the number who say that he does not respect them has risen from 32% to 63%. Starmer is now outstripped on that question by Nigel Farage – 33% say the Reform UK leader respects people like them.

Losing support

This view has had crucial political consequences. Of those who voted for Labour in the general election, only 60% of our respondents say they would vote for the party in an election held tomorrow.

And that is not because some other political party is suddenly swooping in for their supporters. Labour’s voters are defecting in a host of different directions: 11% say they would vote Reform; 8% would vote Liberal Democrat; 4% would vote Green and 4% would vote Conservative. A further one in ten say they simply don’t know how they would vote.

Labour’s losses have been most dramatic among their first-time voters. Of those who voted for Labour in 2024 but not in any other general election since 2010, barely a third still support the party, while a fifth would vote for Reform UK.

These political failures, our report contends, are directly related to the declining sense of respect. The top reason voters gave for turning away from Labour are the broken promises and U-turns made by Labour in government, followed by the party’s failure to reduce the cost of living and changes to the winter fuel payment.

The idea of “respect” being key to the public’s sense of whether a government is on their side or not has been growing for many years now, both in academia and in politics itself. Since at least the 2007/8 financial crisis there has been a sense that large swathes of the public feel neglected, overlooked and even disdained by those who govern them.

When people talk about wanting to see “change” in Britain, this is often what they mean. It was a theme I touched on recently in two books, Out of the Ordinary and, with my co-author Tom Baldwin, England.

A smiling Keir Starmer delivers his victory speech, with a crowd of supporters behind him
Just over a year ago, a happier Starmer delivers his victory speech. Shutterstock

But respect is not just an abstract idea. People appear to judge whether they are respected by those who govern them or not primarily on the basis of whether the government stands up for them against powerful vested interests.

Our earlier research demonstrated that there is a widespread sense among the British public that certain groups have had it too easy for too long. This is either because they have been able to intimidate the government, or because government ministers and advisers have themselves been recruited from among these groups.

In our new report, therefore, we see that the new government’s most popular act was their willingness to raise the minimum wage by £1,400 in April, against the objections of some in business who suggested that such a move was too burdensome on them.

Changes to the winter fuel allowance and proposed changes to the disability benefits system, on the other hand, registered poorly. They suggest that the interests of ordinary and vulnerable people count for too little in decision-making.

These judgements currently shape the mood of the country and probably top the list of issues that the government now needs to address. There is still time for the government to rebuild its appeal, of course. Indeed, our respondents who said they would vote for Labour said they would do so because the party needs more time to fix the problems they inherited.

But as it seeks to do so, voters will want to know who this government stands for. Whose interests does it put first? What kind of people does it respect?

Much of the electorate thought they knew the answer to these questions one year ago. Now they’re not so sure.

Marc Stears, Director of UCL Policy Lab and Professor of Political Science, UCL

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.
Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza's hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Keir Starmer chases Nigel Farage's racist bigot vote.
Keir Starmer chases Nigel Farage’s racist bigot vote.

Continue ReadingNearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

Spread the love
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza's hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
UK Labour Party government ministers Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are partners complicit in Israel's Gaza genocide. The UK has provided Israel with arms, military and air force support. They explain that they don't do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.
UK Labour Party government ministers Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are partners complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide. The UK has provided Israel with arms, military and air force support. They explain that they don’t do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.
Continue Reading

Netanyahu describes Gaza displacement plan as “good idea”; Trump hails “excellent cooperation” with neighbouring countries

Spread the love

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

United States President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint press conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., United States on February 04, 2025. [Celal Güneş – Anadolu Agency]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the idea of displacing Palestinians from Gaza as a “good idea”, while Trump revealed he has co-operation from countries neighboring Israel. 

This came during a joint meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House early on Tuesday. 

The meeting unveiled that the plan for forced displacement, which Trump proposed in February and was later adopted by the Netanyahu government, remains actively under consideration.

In response to a question directed to Trump about his February proposal to relocate Gaza’s population, Netanyahu said: “The idea of evacuation from Gaza is a good idea.” He added, “Whoever wants to leave, let them leave. Whoever wants to stay, let them stay,” and continued, “We are working with the United States to find countries that can offer Palestinians a better future, and we are getting closer to achieving that.”

His remarks came as Israel is reportedly working on plans to confine Gaza’s population to the southern city of Rafah, within a proposed “tent city” that could be set up during a possible ceasefire.

Earlier the same day, Netanyahu held a separate meeting in Washington with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at Blair House. Both sides discussed ways to “strengthen the alliance between Israel and the United States and to address regional and international challenges,” according to official statements.

READ:Ahead of Trump-Netanyahu talks, protesters demand permanent Gaza ceasefire

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Continue ReadingNetanyahu describes Gaza displacement plan as “good idea”; Trump hails “excellent cooperation” with neighbouring countries

Israeli soldiers file petition questioning legality of ‘Operation Gideon Chariots’ in Gaza

Spread the love

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Israeli army with large number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, military bulldozers and helicopters continue to attack from air and ground in Khan Yunis, Gaza on March 7, 2024. [Photo by Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu via Getty Images]

Three Israeli reserve soldiers have filed a legal petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the army’s “Operation Gideon Chariots” in Gaza may breach international law, as it appears to aim at the forced transfer and expulsion of the population of the Gaza Strip.

According to Haaretz on Monday, Supreme Court Judge Khaled Kabub has urged the Israeli army to provide a response to the petitioners in hopes of sparing the court from needing to deliberate the matter further.

In a letter sent to the soldiers by an officer from the office of the Israeli Chief of Staff, the military claimed it was “operating broadly throughout the Gaza Strip against terror targets through fire and ground incursions.” He stated that the evacuation of residents was carried out “to reduce the risk to civilians,” adding that “the Israeli army advises and permits civilians in combat zones to evacuate themselves for their protection, as long as military operations continue in the area.”

However, the petitioning soldiers stressed that the forced and permanent displacement of Palestinians in Gaza – which the Israeli government has publicly identified as one of the war’s objectives – is an illegal military act and stands in direct violation of international law and “the values and spirit of the Israeli army.”

READ: Ya’alon: Gaza war is false, Netanyahu sacrificing hostages for political gain 

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Continue ReadingIsraeli soldiers file petition questioning legality of ‘Operation Gideon Chariots’ in Gaza

Gunfire Communication with “Zombie Hordes”: The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and the IDF

Spread the love

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Palestinians flock to the aid center set up by the US and Israeli-led Gaza Humanitarian Relief Foundation on the Coastal Road in the Sudaniya area to receive food package in northern Gaza City, Gaza on June 17, 2025. [Saeed M. M. T. Jaras – Anadolu Agency]

by Dr Binoy Kampmark

It’s made to order.  First, eliminate the aid system after creating circumstances of enormous suffering.  Then, kill, starve, vanquish and displace those in need of that aid.  Finally: give the pretence of humanity by ensuring some aid to those whose suffering you created in the first place. 

As things stand, the system of aid distribution in the Gaza Strip is intended to cause suffering and destruction to recipients.  Since 26 May, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an opaquely structured entity with Israeli and US backing, has run the distribution of parcels from a mere four points, a grim joke given the four hundred or so outlets previously operated by the United Nations Palestinian relief agency.  The entire process of seeking aid has been heavily rationed and militarised, with Israeli troops and private contractors exercising murderous force with impunity. Opening times are not set, rendering the journey to the distribution points even more precarious.  When they do open, they do so for short spells.  

Haaretz has run reports quoting soldiers of the Israeli Defence Forces claiming to have orders to deliberately fire upon unarmed crowds on their perilous journey to the food sites.  In a 27 June piece, the paper quotes a soldier describing the distribution sites as “a killing field.”  Where he was stationed, “between one and five people were killed every day.”  Those seeking aid were “treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas – just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars.  Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they can approach.  Our form of communication is gunfire.” 

The interviewed soldier could recall no instance of return fire. “There’s no enemy, no weapons.”  IDF officers also told the paper that the GHF’s operations had provided a convenient distraction for continuing operations in Gaza, which had been turned into a “backyard”, notably during Israel’s war with Iran.  In the words of a reservist, the Strip had “become a place with its own set of rules.  The loss of human life means nothing.  It’s not even an ‘unfortunate incident’, like they used to say.”

An IDF officer involved in overseeing security at one of the distribution centres was full of understatement.  “Working with a civilian population when your only means of interaction is opening fire – that’s highly problematic, to say the least.”  It was “neither ethically nor morally acceptable for people to have to reach, or fail to reach, a [humanitarian zone] under tank fire, snippers and mortar shells.”

READ: More than 700,000 people displaced in Gaza since March: UN

Much the same story can be found with the security contractors, those enthusiastic killers following in the footsteps of predecessors who treat international humanitarian law as inconvenient if not altogether irrelevant.  Countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq can attest to the blood-soiled record of private military contractors, with the killing of 14 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad city’s Nisour Square by Blackwater USA employees in September 2007 being but one spectacular example.  While those employees faced trial and conviction in a US federal court in 2014 on an assortment of charges – among them murder, manslaughter and attempted manslaughter – such a fate is unlikely for any of those working for the GHF.

On 4 July, the BBC published the observations of a former contractor on the trigger-happy conduct of his colleagues around the food centres.  In one instance, a guard opened fire on women, children and elderly people “moving too slowly away from the site.”  Another contractor, also on location, stood on the berm overlooking the exit to one of the GHF sites, firing 15 to 20 bursts of repetitive fire at the crowd.  “A Palestinian man dropped on the ground motionless.  And then, the other contractor who was standing there was like, ‘damn, I think you got one’.  And then they laughed about it.”

The company had also failed to issue contractors any operating procedures or rules of engagement, except one: “if you feel threatened, shoot – shoot to kill and ask questions later.”  No reference is made to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers.  To journey to Gaza was to go to a land unencumbered by laws and rules.  “Do what you want,” is the cultural norm of GHF operatives.  And this stands to reason, given the reference of “team leaders” to Gazans seeking aid as “zombie hordes”.

The GHF, in time honoured fashion, have denied these allegations.  Ditto the IDF, that great self-proclaimed stalwart of international law.  It is therefore left to such contributors as Anas Baba, NPR’s producer in the Gaza Strip, to enlighten those who care to read and listen.  As one of the few Palestinian journalists working for a US news outlet in the strip, his observations carry singular weight.   In a recent report, Baba neatly summarised the manufactured brutality behind the seeking of aid in an enclave strangled and suffering gradual extinction.  “I faced Israeli military fire, private US contractors pointing laser beams at my forehead, crowds with knives fighting for rations and masked thieves – to get food from a group supported by the US and Israel called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation”.  

If nothing else, it is high time that the GHF scrap any pretence of being humanitarian in its title and admit to its true role: an adjutant to Israel’s program of extirpating Gaza’s Palestinian population.  

OPINION: An economy of genocide: Israel and the Albanese Report

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Continue ReadingGunfire Communication with “Zombie Hordes”: The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and the IDF