From Mandate to Malaise: What the UK Labour Polling Collapse Could Signal for the Carney Government

Some comparative polling data and political analysis

When Keir Starmer led the UK Labour Party to a commanding victory in July 2024, it looked like a textbook reset: a stable majority, disciplined messaging, and the promise of post-chaos governance. But twelve months later, Labour’s support has collapsed. National polls now place the party at around 21 percent, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has surged into first. Starmer’s personal favourability has plummeted, and even among 2024 Labour voters, disapproval now outweighs support. A government returned to “end the chaos” is now widely seen as chaotic itself.

There is a view, both defensible and worth engaging, that Starmer won a mandate to undo deeply embedded Conservative policies and simply hasn’t had time to finish the job. From that angle, what looks like drift is actually the slow and difficult work of institutional repair. But that interpretation runs up against a body of public opinion data that shows a very different voter experience. The issue wasn’t just that Labour hadn’t delivered yet. It’s that many felt the government had already made choices—on spending cuts, on welfare reform, on immigration—that actively contradicted the platform they thought they voted for.

Trust eroded quickly. Polling from early 2025 found only 16 percent of Britons approved of the government’s performance. More than 60 percent disapproved. Among Labour’s own 2024 voters, disapproval had climbed to 40 percent. The top reason cited by those leaving the party was a belief that Labour had broken its promises. Four in ten voters who moved from Labour to Reform said this was their primary motivation. Perceptions of economic mismanagement compounded the problem. Nearly 70 percent of voters said Labour was mishandling inflation and the broader economy. Even supporters who had given the government the benefit of the doubt began to conclude that cost-of-living conditions hadn’t improved—and weren’t likely to anytime soon.

Policy choices played a significant role. The government’s attempt to cut £5 billion from welfare, including disability supports, triggered a major backbench rebellion and forced a public U-turn. Starmer’s failure to defend his Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, during a moment of market anxiety rattled internal confidence. His ambiguous comments about whether he would seek a second term added to a sense that leadership was unfocused or unsure. Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, meanwhile, capitalized on the vacuum - positioning itself as the voice of voters who felt economically abandoned and culturally ignored.

There is no simple comparison between British and Canadian politics, but the contrast is instructive. In Canada today, the mood is significantly more stable. According to a new Abacus Data survey conducted from June 26 to July 2, 52 percent of Canadians approve of the Carney government’s performance, while just 25 percent disapprove. Four in ten now say the country is headed in the right direction—the highest mark in over three years. Carney’s personal favourability is solid, at plus 21, and the government’s support spans most regions and demographics. There is no evidence of a major fracture within the Liberal coalition. In fact, views of the government are excellent with even a sizeable portion of opposition party supporters giving the Carney government favourable performance evaluations.

But the coalition is new, and its expectations are specific. When we asked those who voted Liberal in the April federal election why they did so, two answers dominated. About 80 percent said they believed Carney was the leader best equipped to manage the relationship with Donald Trump. Another 20 percent said they wanted change and that Carney represented the version of change they were most comfortable with. Those numbers are revealing. They suggest that for most Liberal voters, this wasn’t just about domestic policy. It was about competence, reassurance, and the capacity to shield the country from instability to the south.

Starmer, by contrast, was tasked with cleaning up the chaos left behind by his own country’s previous government. Carney’s challenge is different. His job is to protect Canada from the chaos of someone else’s.

That context matters when evaluating how voters will judge performance. In a second Abacus survey conducted with my Abacus Data colleague Oksana Kishchuk in mid-June, we found strong alignment between the government’s priorities and what Canadians say they want. Ninety percent of Canadians say affordability should be a federal priority. Eighty-six percent say the same about housing. Support is similarly high for economic unity, sovereignty, and spending restraint. Among Liberal voters, those numbers are even stronger.

But when it comes to perceived progress, gaps begin to emerge. Just 32 percent of Canadians believe the government is on track or ahead of schedule in making life more affordable. Only 30 percent say the same about housing. A majority say the government is either behind or hasn’t started on these files. Among Liberal voters, confidence is somewhat higher—but even then, only 42 percent say progress is happening on affordability and 41 percent on housing.

Normally, such numbers would be more politically dangerous. But the motivation behind the Liberal vote gives some insulation. For most Carney voters, success is defined less by immediate progress on every file and more by whether the country feels stable, governed, and protected from external shocks. Rising optimism in the general direction of the country - now up to 40%, a three year high - is a proof point. Affordability and housing still matter a lot. But they’re not the whole story. If voters continue to believe Carney is keeping the country on an even keel and protecting it from Trump’s volatility, gaps in other areas may be tolerated longer than they otherwise would.

That doesn’t mean the gaps don’t matter. As we’ve seen in the UK, when the narrative of competence starts to fray, it can unravel quickly. But it does suggest that the political weight of each priority is not equal—and that performance is judged not only by what is delivered but by what voters expected in the first place.

This dynamic is now being tested. Canada is negotiating a new free trade agreement with the Trump administration in real time. The reversal of the Digital Services Tax, once pitched as a measure of economic fairness, was widely seen as a concession to avoid provoking the U.S. administration. Whether voters interpret that as pragmatism or retreat depends on the broader framing. If it feels like part of a strategic effort to shield Canadian interests, it may reinforce Carney’s credibility. If it feels inconsistent with the tone of the election campaign, it could begin to erode it.

Which brings us back to the UK. One of the defining features of Starmer’s first year was that the narrative collapsed. What voters had heard during the campaign - about fairness, cost-of-living relief, national renewal - began to diverge from what they saw in government. That divergence created confusion, then disillusionment. The polling data didn’t shift all at once. But over time, the impression took hold that the government was either unable or unwilling to follow through. And once that perception set in, it proved very difficult to reverse.

That’s the cautionary tale. It’s not about ideology or individual decisions. It’s about coherence. In polling terms, it’s the gap between alignment and perceived progress. Right now, the Carney government is largely aligned with the public. But on two of the most important issues to Canadians—affordability and housing—the progress numbers are soft. That softening may not mean immediate consequences. But if left unaddressed, it can change the shape of public opinion over time.

In the months ahead, three indicators will be worth watching. First, does the government maintain alignment with the public’s stated priorities? Second, does the perception of progress begin to improve, particularly on affordability and housing? And third, does the story the government is telling still make sense to the people who are listening?

These are the signals that shape political momentum. And as we’ve seen in the UK, when momentum slips, it rarely returns on its own.