Keir Starmer bombed at Labour conference according to the new poll (Image: Getty)

The LibDems are up one point to 14%, with the Greens and SNP recording no change on 8% and 3% respectively.

Luke Tryl from More In Commons pointed out that the fieldwork for the poll was conducted before Keir Starmer gave his disastrous conference speech yesterday, but did include the first two days of Labour’s annual Liverpool gathering.

Yesterday Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy was forced into a humiliating climbdown after claiming Mr Farage had “flirted with the Hitler Youth” as a young boy.

Hitting back, Mr Farage said Labour’s conference had been “extraordinary”, pointing to his dominance of all the ministers’ speeches.

Mr Farage said that the Prime Minister had given up attack Reform’s arguments, and as a result had decided to “descend into the gutter”.

He said: “Let us be clear, Reform want illegal migrants deported from our country… Reform want the benefit system to be for British citizens only, not for foreign born nationals. Reform want foreign criminals removed from our country ASAP.

“Labour say this policy is racist and immoral, and by implication that Reform supporters, voters and sympathisers are racist too.”

Keir Starmer in crisis as Labour plummets in polls after conference speech flop

Keir Starmer faced renewed pressure after Labour failed to secure the polling boost that party conferences traditionally offer, with fresh figures showing continued weakness following his much-anticipated speech in Liverpool.

Starmer’s conference address was designed to reset the political narrative around his government. He promised a period of “national renewal”, attacked Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and argued that the coming years would involve a wider struggle over the country’s political direction.

But the immediate polling evidence suggested that the speech had not translated into a significant improvement in Labour’s position. Opinium found that Starmer’s approval rating fell to a net -44 per cent following the conference, while 50 per cent of voters said Labour had experienced a bad week at its conference, compared with only 20 per cent who said it had been a good week.

Those figures help explain why the conference has been portrayed by critics as a setback. However, they do not by themselves establish that Starmer’s leadership was in terminal trouble or that Labour was “finished”. Polling measures public opinion at a particular moment, while electoral outcomes depend on a much wider set of factors.

Starmer’s attempt to change the political conversation

The prime minister entered the conference under considerable pressure.

Reform UK had been making gains in national polling, while Labour was dealing with arguments over taxation, public services, immigration and the government’s economic strategy.

Starmer therefore used his speech to present a more combative political message.

He said he would take “no more lectures” from Farage and described the coming period as a “fight for the soul of our country”. He also attacked what he called “snake oil merchants” on both the political right and left, while arguing that Labour’s programme represented a more constructive alternative.

The speech contained a number of themes intended to reinforce Labour’s identity: patriotism, public-service reform, economic renewal, opposition to racism and a warning about Reform’s political agenda.

But one of the central questions after the speech was whether the emphasis on Reform helped Labour communicate its own programme or simply gave Farage and his party additional prominence.

The Institute for Government later concluded that the conference had been heavily focused on both Reform and domestic reform, with Starmer’s speech helping to establish that dual message. It also noted that relatively few major policy announcements were made, with important economic decisions left for the November Budget.

The polling picture

The most striking post-conference figures came from Opinium.

Its poll, conducted around the period of Labour’s conference and published on October 4, found Starmer’s approval rating at net -44 per cent, down three points. Farage led Starmer by five points when respondents were asked who they preferred as prime minister, with Farage on 31 per cent and Starmer on 26 per cent.

The poll also found that 34 per cent viewed Starmer’s conference speech negatively, compared with 23 per cent who viewed it positively.

Among people who had voted Labour in 2024, however, the picture was different: 45 per cent considered the speech a good job, while 19 per cent took a negative view.

That distinction is important.

A speech can fail to change the minds of the wider electorate while still consolidating support among existing voters. Conversely, a party may generate enthusiasm among activists without seeing an immediate improvement in voting intention.

Polling should therefore be read as a series of snapshots rather than a definitive verdict on a political leader.

Reform was not Labour’s only problem

Starmer’s decision to make Reform a major target at conference reflected the party’s concern about Farage’s growing support.

Yet some polling analysis suggested that Labour’s electoral difficulties could not be explained simply by voters moving directly from Labour to Reform.

Professor Sir John Curtice warned during the conference that Labour was losing more support to the Liberal Democrats and Greens than directly to Reform. His argument was that Britain’s increasingly fragmented electoral landscape makes the relationship between national vote shares and parliamentary seats considerably more complicated.

This creates a strategic problem for Labour.

If the party devotes much of its political energy to attacking Reform, it risks paying less attention to voters who are considering other parties. At the same time, ignoring Reform would leave Farage’s party with greater freedom to define the political debate.

Starmer’s conference strategy therefore involved a difficult balancing act: attack Reform sufficiently to demonstrate that Labour understood the challenge, while still ensuring that Labour’s own economic and public-service agenda remained central.

The question of substance

Another issue raised by the conference was the balance between political rhetoric and detailed policy.

Starmer’s speech was deliberately broad. He spoke about rebuilding Britain, defending democratic values and delivering national renewal, while highlighting measures already announced by the government.

However, some major questions remained unresolved.

The economy was one of the most important. Labour entered the conference facing difficult decisions ahead of the Budget, including questions about taxation, public spending and economic growth.

The Institute for Government noted that conference offered only limited new policy detail, with the Budget still expected to provide much of the government’s economic direction.

That means the political impact of the conference cannot really be assessed from the speech alone.

If the government subsequently delivers policies that voters regard as improving living standards, public services or economic security, the conference rhetoric may become less important. If the government struggles to demonstrate tangible results, critics are likely to return to the argument that Labour has relied too heavily on messaging.

Internal tensions remain

Another challenge for Starmer was maintaining unity within Labour.

The party had already experienced disagreements over the government’s approach to welfare, immigration and the economy. Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham was also increasingly prominent in national political debate and had openly argued for a different political emphasis.

The conference therefore had to serve two audiences simultaneously.

Starmer needed to convince the wider electorate that Labour had a coherent programme while also maintaining the confidence of Labour MPs, activists and supporters.

The Guardian noted that the speech’s central argument was framed around a contest between Labour’s vision of Britain and the politics represented by Reform.

That approach can provide a clear political dividing line, but it also carries risks if voters are more concerned about household finances, public services or government performance than about Westminster’s political battles.

What the numbers do — and do not — show

The description of Labour “plummeting” after the conference needs some qualification.

The party was already in a difficult position before the event, and the post-conference figures did not show a dramatic collapse caused by one speech. Instead, they showed that the conference failed to produce the kind of immediate improvement that Labour would have wanted.

The polling evidence is nevertheless significant because Starmer had explicitly used the conference as an opportunity to reset his government’s narrative.

When voters subsequently reported that Labour had had a bad week and when Starmer’s approval rating fell further, the government had to confront questions about whether its message was reaching beyond its core supporters.

At the same time, the polling should not be treated as an election forecast.

Political opinion can change substantially over months and years, particularly when governments have time to implement policies and when economic conditions change.

A difficult road ahead

Starmer’s conference speech was therefore an important political moment, but its consequences cannot be judged solely by immediate polling.

The government faced several practical tests after the conference: delivering economic growth, managing public services, addressing immigration, maintaining Labour unity and demonstrating that its promise of national renewal could produce measurable changes.

The confrontation with Reform was likely to remain part of that political landscape. But as Curtice’s analysis indicated, Labour’s challenge was broader than one rival party. The fragmentation of the electorate means that Labour must consider competition from several directions.

The post-conference polling provided little evidence of an immediate bounce for Starmer. Opinium’s figures showed continued dissatisfaction with both the prime minister and Labour’s performance, while the response to the conference speech itself was more negative than positive among the wider electorate.

But whether that amounted to a temporary setback or a longer-term political problem depended on what happened next.

The most important test was no longer the conference stage. It was whether Labour could convert its promises into visible results.

Starmer had asked voters for patience and presented his government as one pursuing long-term national renewal. The polling suggested that patience was under pressure. The government’s subsequent decisions on the economy, public services, immigration and living standards would determine whether the conference marked a temporary moment of difficulty or became remembered as evidence of a deeper problem for Labour.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.