PUBLIC favourability for both Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves has fallen sharply, according to a poll.
As the Government faces criticism for withdrawing winter fuel payments from all but the poorest pensioners, research this month found 32% of people viewed the Prime Minister favourably, a six-percentage point drop since August.
Those who view Starmer unfavourably increased by eight points to 46% over the same period, leaving a net score of minus 14 compared with a net score of zero last month.
The percentage who view Starmer unfavourably matches the highest level of negativity previously recorded for him by Ipsos following the Hartlepool by-election in 2021, which the Conservatives won from Labour with a swing of almost 16%.
The Chancellor, who has warned of difficult choices ahead of the Budget on October 30, has seen her favourability fall by four points to 23%, at a time her unfavourability has risen by nine points to 44%.
READ MORE: Delivery of delayed Glen Sannox ferry pushed back again
This resulted in a net score of minus 21 in September compared with a score of minus eight in August.
The proportion of people who view the Labour Party favourably has fallen by four points to 36%, while unfavourability has increased by eight points to 45%.
However, despite some internal party concerns over the winter fuel allowance squeeze, positivity towards the Prime Minister and his party among Labour voters remains unchanged this month at 69%.
Meanwhile the Chancellor’s favourability has slipped by two points among Labour supporters to 46%, with those viewing her as unfavourable increasing by four points to 21%.
The poll found that 39% of the public support the means testing of the winter fuel allowance and 42% are opposed.
Among the under-55s, 46% support the measure and 32% are opposed, but 58% of those aged 55 and over are against the measure.
READ MORE: Scottish bus manufacturer warns of 160 jobs at risk
More broadly, 55% of those polled said they think Britain is heading in the right direction, an increase of three points from August.
This is lower than the final rating under the Conservatives ahead of the July general election of 62%, but is higher than the first rating of 49% recorded following Labour’s victory in early July.
The poll found no notable differences in public favourability for the remaining Conservative leadership contenders, with all four scoring around one in five favourable and one in three unfavourable.
Tom Tugendhat has the lowest net negativity of minus 13, but large numbers of those polled did not offer an opinion either way for each candidate.
Keiran Pedley, director of politics at Ipsos, said: “There are some early warning signs in these numbers for Keir Starmer and Labour.
“Whilst the next general election is several years away – and perceptions of Labour remain stronger than perceptions of the Conservative Party – these figures do represent a sharp drop from those recorded in August.
“Moving forward, Labour will want to strike the right balance between setting public expectations about the pace of change whilst maintaining confidence that the change Labour supporters voted for in July is coming.”
Ipsos interviewed a representative sample of 1147 adults aged 18 and above and interviews were conducted between September 6 and 9.
Data was weighted to match the profile of the population.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel