Labour's honeymoon with the British public is over – and it's crashing faster than most political recoveries ever have. If you're following UK politics, you've probably noticed the storm clouds gathering over Keir Starmer's administration, and it's got everyone talking. But here's where it gets controversial: is this just a typical midterm slump, or is something deeper brewing that could keep Labour out in the cold for years? Let's dive in and unpack it all, step by step, so even if you're new to the political game, you'll get the full picture.
Governments often hit rough patches where everything feels off-kilter, and voters start grumbling. Sometimes, they rebound strongly and sail to another term in office. Yet, Labour's current woes stand out as exceptionally severe. It's not merely the depth of their struggles – polling data indicates the party's backing has plummeted dramatically (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention), dropping from 34% to around 18% since winning the 2024 general election. And it's not just the swiftness of this public discontent, although that's astonishingly rapid too.
What truly stands out is how uncommon this level of negativity is toward a administration unless the nation's finances are in complete turmoil. Imagine if unemployment were soaring into double digits and property values were tumbling – then Labour's political woes would make total sense. But that's not the case here.
Sure, 2025 hasn't been a banner year for the economy, but it also hasn't descended into catastrophe. The UK has continued plugging along, much like it did after the 2008 global financial meltdown. Performances have been average at best, but far from apocalyptic.
Indeed, while growth has tapered off from a solid beginning in 2025 and joblessness has ticked upward, the unemployment figure sits at 5.1% (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/16/uk-unemployment-rise-high-budget-october-ons#:~:text=UK%20unemployment%20rose%20to%20four%2Dyear%20high%20of%205.1%25%20before%20budget&text=UK%20unemployment%20and%20employment%20statistics,The%20Guardian), a full point above where it was when Labour took charge in July 2024. Still, this pales in comparison to the devastating recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s, when job losses were far more widespread. Plus, for those who are employed, life has gotten a bit easier because salaries are growing faster than inflation. Typically, this kind of prosperity boosts a government's standing, but Labour isn't reaping the rewards here.
Previous Labour administrations have weathered far stormier times without such a sharp erosion in popularity. Take 1947, for instance, when Clement Attlee's team battled severe fuel scarcity amid a freezing winter, followed by a currency upheaval. Wartime rationing lingered on, making daily life incredibly challenging.
Or consider 1975, when prices skyrocketed to a postwar high of 25%, triggering a financial panic that forced Jim Callaghan's government to accept harsh austerity measures from the International Monetary Fund in 1976 to secure a bailout. Labour's comeback from that embarrassment took ages.
And don't forget 2008, when the banking system nearly imploded during the worldwide crisis, causing the economy to contract for over a year. From its highest point to its lowest, it shrank by more than 6% (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/the2008recession10yearson/2018-04-30). By contrast, the past year has seen modest expansion of just over 1% (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/quarterlynationalaccounts/julytoseptember2025).
Labour remains optimistic that their luck will swing as people begin to enjoy higher earnings and lower borrowing costs. This pattern has played out before, though it hasn't always shielded the party from electoral setbacks.
Attlee squeaked by in 1950 and achieved Labour's best-ever electoral turnout, only to lose in 1951 despite robust economic recovery following the IMF intervention. By 1978, Callaghan even considered an early vote (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/30/archives-callaghan-labour-memo-1978), but ended up defeated in May 1979, just as Gordon Brown did in May 2010 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/11/gordon-brown-resigns-prime-minister).
Starmer holds the dubious honor of being the least popular prime minister ever recorded (https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/30/uk/keir-starmer-labour-party-conference-intl), with approval scores dipping lower than Callaghan's – even after the infamous 1978-79 winter strikes known as the 'winter of discontent,' where he still edged out Margaret Thatcher in popularity polls (https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/british-public-opinion-march-1979) – and Brown's, who, though time ran out in 2010, managed to deny David Cameron a outright victory.
And this is the part most people miss: It's puzzling why this current Labour regime has shed support so extensively and swiftly compared to those in the 1940s, 1970s, and 2000s, despite facing milder economic headwinds. Undoubtedly, it's a mix of elements: everyday hardships are hitting many folks hard (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/the2008recession10yearson/2018-04-30), particularly the younger generation; after 15 years of stagnant prosperity, public frustration is at a boiling point; Labour's absence of a clear strategy has become glaringly apparent; and non-economic concerns, like migration and refugee policies (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country), are swaying voters more than ever.
But here's where it gets controversial – some argue that Labour's perceived 'lack of plan' is subjective, with critics saying they've rolled out ambitious reforms that just haven't paid off yet. Is this a fair assessment, or is it voter impatience at play? One certainty emerges: Voters might not warm to Labour again, even if – and this seems improbable – the economy revs up strongly in 2026. Instead, complications could intensify due to missteps by institutions like the Bank of England and the Treasury. The Bank has dragged its feet on reducing borrowing costs, and their recent cut (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/18/bank-of-england-cuts-interest-rates-to-375#:~:text=The%20Bank's%20nine%2Dmember%20monetary,quarter%20of%20the%20new%20year.) from 4% to 3.75% feels like too little, delivered too late. Meanwhile, Chancellor Rachel Reeves increased the costs for businesses to hire staff (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/30/bosses-reeves-tax-rises-employers-national-insurance-contributions) by hiking employers' national insurance in her 2024 budget, making employment more pricey.
Every administration stumbles, and those errors don't always spell doom. Still, Labour is deluding itself if it believes it has ample breathing room to rectify matters, with the upcoming election potentially not until summer 2029 – and plenty could shift in the interim.
As 2025 draws to a close, the economy lacks meaningful momentum. Corporate morale is low (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/22/uk-economy-entering-2026-amid-sharp-private-sector-downturn-says-cbi), and retail purchases dipped in October and November (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/19/retail-sales-unexpectedly-fall-in-great-britain-in-run-up-to-christmas). The Bank's rate adjustment was a reaction to a sluggish economy that's actually in genuine trouble.
So, the core challenge is this: Labour's already wildly unpopular. A downturn, no matter how brief or mild, could be an irreversible blow.
*
Larry Elliott is a Guardian columnist
What do you think – is Labour's rapid decline more about policy blunders or voter fatigue from past disappointments? Could a stronger economy really turn things around, or are immigration and other social issues the real game-changers now? Share your views in the comments; I'd love to hear if you agree, disagree, or see a counterpoint I'm missing!
