Ed Miliband is the most popular member of Keir Starmer’s cabinet among members (Image: Getty Images)

A Reform spokesperson said: “It’s no surprise voters are calling for an early general election. As Nigel Farage has always argued, this Government has no answer to the litany of problems the country faces. Reform UK stands ready to meet those challenges.”

The polling also highlights challenges for Kemi Badenoch’s party. Fewer than one in four (24%) think it will be a “credible party of power” in time for the next election.

Separate research by Survation for the LabourList website found 83% of Labour members think Sir Keir has dealt with the saga poorly, with just 14% saying he handled it well. Even so, 61% do not think he should resign over the scandal, with only 29% saying he should quit.

The polling suggests that Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband is in a strong position if he wants to make a run for the leadership. He had the highest favourability rating among members (+65) of any cabinet member, ahead of Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn (+55) and Defence Secretary John Healey (+46).

The least popular member was Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood (-12), who has taken a tough stand on tackling illegal migration. Also in negative territory was Science Secretary Liz Kendall (-6) who while at the Department for Work and Pensions attempted to curtail eligibility for benefits.

Sir Keir is in the ‘relegation zone’ (Image: Getty Images)

Emma Burnell, editor of LabourList, said: “Keir Starmer falling into the relegation zone should raise serious concerns for the PM. Especially as it comes at a time when he has tried to balance criticisms with the way he has handled the Mandelson crisis with his praiseworthy performance on the international stage.

“If Labour members are weighing up those aspects of his job and still finding him wanting overall there is a lot of work to be done to restore the trust of the membership. Equally, Shabana Mahmood knew that her proposed immigration reforms would be unlikely to be popular with Labour members and we have seen that in previous polling on the issue.

“In the same way that the unpopular welfare reform packages have become a millstone for Liz Kendall – despite a change in role – we are now seeing the same for Mahmood when it comes to immigration reform. It remains to be seen if she can make a case for them that resonates with a membership who will have to sell them on the doorsteps.”

Keir Starmer Must Go? What UK Voters Said About His Leadership and the Call for an Election

The headline “Keir Starmer must go” captured a growing political argument in Britain during the final months of his premiership: should the Labour leader remain in office, should he be replaced before the next general election, and should voters be given another opportunity to choose the government?

The question became increasingly prominent during the spring and summer of 2026 as Labour suffered heavy losses in local elections and pressure mounted on Starmer’s leadership. Polling showed that a substantial proportion of voters wanted a change at the top of the Labour Party, although opinions differed sharply over whether Starmer should leave immediately or remain until a later point.

That distinction is important because calls for a change of party leader and demands for an immediate general election are not the same thing.

One of the clearest indications of public dissatisfaction came from Ipsos in April 2026. Its Political Pulse survey, conducted among 2,262 British adults between April 17 and 21, found that 50 per cent believed Starmer should stand down as prime minister, while 36 per cent thought he should continue. At the same time, 68 per cent said they thought it unlikely that Starmer would win the next general election.

The figures did not, however, establish a single public demand for an immediate election. They demonstrated dissatisfaction with Starmer’s leadership, but also uncertainty about what should happen next.

That uncertainty became even clearer in May.

An Ipsos survey conducted between May 8 and 12 found that 66 per cent of Britons thought Starmer should not lead Labour into the next general election. But the public was divided over the timing of his departure. Thirty-five per cent said he should resign immediately, while 31 per cent believed he should leave sometime before the next general election but not immediately. Only 17 per cent said he should lead Labour into the next election.

Those numbers provide an important context for the rhetoric surrounding Starmer at the time.

Critics described the prime minister in highly negative terms, with words such as “clueless” appearing in political campaigning and newspaper headlines. Such language represented political criticism rather than an objective description. The polling itself measured attitudes toward Starmer’s leadership, not whether he was objectively competent or incompetent.

The pressure was intensified by Labour’s performance in the May 2026 local elections.

Reform UK made major gains, while Labour lost large numbers of councillors and councils. The results generated renewed questions about whether Labour could recover before the next national election and whether Starmer could remain party leader.

The political consequences were significant because Labour had won a large parliamentary majority at the 2024 general election. By 2026, however, the party’s position in local government and national polling had become substantially more difficult.

For Starmer, the problem was not simply criticism from opposition parties. The question of his future became an issue within Labour itself.

Yet replacing a prime minister and holding a general election are constitutionally different processes. A governing party can change its leader without automatically triggering a national election. That distinction became especially relevant when speculation about Starmer’s future intensified.

Polling also suggested that voters were not united behind a clear successor.

In the April Ipsos survey, Andy Burnham was the most frequently preferred alternative among those asked who should replace Starmer, but only 17 per cent selected him. Meanwhile, 28 per cent said none of the potential candidates was their preference and 27 per cent said they did not know.

That illustrates one of the central difficulties facing Labour. Dissatisfaction with an incumbent leader does not automatically translate into overwhelming support for a particular replacement.

The situation was even more complicated in Scotland. An Ipsos survey published in June found that 68 per cent of Scots believed someone other than Starmer should lead Labour into the next general election. Thirty-nine per cent wanted him to resign immediately, while 29 per cent wanted him replaced before the election but did not believe the time for immediate resignation was right.

The debate over an election was therefore broader than Starmer himself.

Some voters and campaigners argued that changing the prime minister without consulting the electorate was insufficient. If the government had lost public support, they argued, voters should have the opportunity to choose a new Parliament.

That argument was reflected in petitions submitted to the UK Parliament. One petition calling for Parliament to be dissolved and a general election to be held attracted 221,477 signatures before closing on June 10, 2026. Other petitions subsequently called for elections following Starmer’s resignation.

Petitions do not themselves compel the government to hold an election, but the scale of support for the June petition demonstrated that calls for a public vote had become a significant part of the political debate.

There was another important development later in the summer.

On July 20, 2026, Starmer formally resigned as prime minister. His final speech outside Downing Street confirmed that he was leaving office and that he was passing responsibility to Andy Burnham. The official government record states that Starmer had served as prime minister from July 5, 2024, until July 20, 2026.

Consequently, the headline “Keir Starmer must go” is now, in September 2026, describing a political demand that has already been overtaken by events.

Starmer has gone from Downing Street, but there was no immediate nationwide general election following his resignation.

Andy Burnham became prime minister on July 20. The government continued under the existing Parliament rather than immediately dissolving it. The current UK government identifies Burnham as prime minister.

Starmer subsequently resigned his parliamentary seat for Holborn and St Pancras, creating another important constitutional event. Parliament records a by-election for the constituency on October 8, 2026.

The question that originally centred on Starmer has therefore evolved into a wider debate about democratic accountability when a prime minister changes during a parliamentary term.

That issue is not confined to Labour supporters or opponents. It concerns whether voters should automatically be consulted whenever a governing party replaces its leader.

Polling conducted after the leadership crisis showed significant public support for such a principle. An Ipsos survey in June found that 55 per cent supported introducing a law requiring an immediate general election if the governing party changed its leader during a Parliament.

At the same time, 45 per cent did not support that proposal or were otherwise not in favour, illustrating that the public debate remained divided.

The controversy also demonstrates the difference between political dissatisfaction and electoral choice.

A voter can believe that a prime minister should resign without necessarily supporting an immediate general election. Another voter can favour a new prime minister but oppose the disruption of a national election. Others may believe that voters should be consulted whenever a prime minister changes, regardless of which party is in government.

These distinctions matter when interpreting headlines claiming that “UK voters demand” a particular political outcome.

The available polling certainly showed considerable dissatisfaction with Starmer during 2026. Half of Britons told Ipsos in April that he should stand down, while two-thirds in May said he should not lead Labour into the next general election. But those surveys also showed disagreement over timing and uncertainty about his replacement.

Ultimately, the political story of Starmer’s final months in office was shaped by several forces at once: Labour’s electoral difficulties, Reform UK’s rise, internal Labour pressure, public dissatisfaction and a wider debate about Britain’s political institutions.

The demand for Starmer to leave Downing Street eventually became reality on July 20. The separate demand for an immediate general election did not automatically follow.

That distinction remains important as Britain enters a new political period under Andy Burnham. The argument is no longer about whether Starmer should remain prime minister. It is about what voters expect from a government whose leader changes during a parliamentary term — and whether the existing constitutional rules provide the public with sufficient opportunity to express its view.

The events of 2026 have therefore transformed a slogan about one politician into a broader debate about leadership, accountability and the relationship between Parliament, political parties and voters.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.