Photo: nikvesti.com
A year into his tenure as UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer has notched up major wins on the international stage — signing trade agreements with the United States, India, and the European Union. These deals promise long-term economic benefits, increased wages, and improved global relations. Yet at home, Starmer’s approval ratings are in freefall.
According to the latest YouGov poll (May 2025), 69% of UK voters now have an unfavorable view of Starmer, the highest disapproval rating of his time in office. More tellingly, discontent is growing inside his own party: support among Labour voters has dropped sharply, with only 45% now holding a favorable view, down from 62% just a month prior. Meanwhile, 50% of Labour supporters now view him unfavorably, a stark 17-point increase since April.
Starmer’s government recently secured multi-billion-pound trade deals with major global players, including a £15 billion UK–US clean energy pact, a £9.4 billion services and technology agreement with India, and a renewed UK–EU framework aimed at smoothing post-Brexit trade friction. These are being hailed by economists as critical steps for long-term economic rebalancing.
However, these strategic gains are overshadowed by more immediate economic pains.
These figures translate to real concerns for voters who feel the economic pain hasn't eased — despite the positive headlines about trade. From rising utility bills to stretched paychecks, the average British household is still in survival mode.
Corporate leaders have offered cautious praise. Barclays CEO C.S. Venkatakrishnan told CNBC that the UK government is “absolutely on track,” pointing to increased investor confidence and improved trade relations. Yet even he acknowledged that inflationary pressures remain, and consumer sentiment is fragile.
Economist Kallum Pickering of Peel Hunt gave the government a mixed report card: “On foreign policy, a B-plus. On domestic policy? C-minus. There’s been a string of anti-growth measures — tax increases, wage constraints, and immigration restrictions — that hit SMEs the hardest.”
Labour’s controversial reforms, including tighter controls on migrant labor, a national minimum wage increase, and overhauls to employment rights, have sparked backlash among business groups. For sectors like construction, hospitality, and logistics — all reliant on foreign labor — the labour market is tightening at the wrong time.
Beyond the economy, Starmer’s leadership style has also come under scrutiny. Critics say the Prime Minister lacks the charisma and dynamism of his political rivals.
“He’s competent, but uninspiring,” said Bill Blain, founder of Wind Shift Capital. “Starmer is precise and calm, but he’s no showman. Voters don’t just want policy — they want passion.”
This contrasts sharply with figures like Nigel Farage or former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who, despite their controversies, are seen as captivating communicators. Even within Labour’s own ranks, frustration is brewing. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been criticized for a cautious approach during a period that many feel demands boldness.
Some MPs have begun quietly voicing discontent. “There’s real risk of a backbench revolt,” Blain warned. “If poll numbers continue to slide, pressure will mount for internal change — or even a leadership challenge.”
The irony is that Starmer’s policy successes — the very achievements many prime ministers dream of — are failing to resonate with voters. His efforts to stabilize UK-EU relations, court international investors, and strengthen the post-Brexit economic framework may yield substantial results over the next 3–5 years. But in politics, perception often trumps progress.
For now, Labour’s strategy appears misaligned with voter sentiment. The party's focus on fiscal discipline and long-term growth may seem detached from the urgent cost-of-living realities many face daily.
To turn public opinion around, Starmer may need more than solid policy. He needs to reshape the narrative, connect emotionally with voters, and inject more energy into his cabinet. Otherwise, his leadership risks being remembered not for the trade deals he signed — but for the political capital he lost.