Voting intention: 4th February 2026
See the full data tables here.
More than half of the public now believe Keir Starmer should resign as Labour leader, as controversy surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson deepens and the Prime Minister’s approval ratings remain entrenched in negative territory.
Majority say Starmer should step down
A majority of the public (55%) believe Starmer should resign as Labour leader, compared with just 23% who think he should remain in post. This finding has remained broadly stable since November.
Among 2024 Labour voters, opinion is split: 37% believe he should resign, while 48% say he should stay.
Starmer’s overall approval rating has fallen again to net –44, reinforcing the sense of political strain around his leadership.
Mandelson appointment widely viewed as a misjudgement
Public opinion is strongly critical of the decision to appoint Mandelson as UK ambassador to the United States.
More than half (56%) believe Starmer should have anticipated the controversy surrounding Mandelson’s past associations and should not have made the appointment. Just 15% think the decision was reasonable based on what was known at the time.
When asked about Starmer’s response to recent reporting on Mandelson’s links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, more respondents disapprove (35%) than approve (22%) of the Prime Minister’s handling.
A plurality (45%) believe the controversy reflects equally negatively on Starmer and his advisers in Downing Street, while 18% think it reflects most negatively on Starmer personally.
There is also overwhelming support for action against Mandelson himself. Seven in ten (71%) believe he should be stripped of his peerage, with only 6% saying he should retain it.
Support for reforming the House of Lords
The controversy appears to have intensified public appetite for institutional reform.
Three in five (62%) support changes to the House of Lords that would make it easier to remove peers or strip them of their title. A similar proportion (60%) support stricter rules governing peers’ outside roles and interests.
Among those backing reform, there is especially strong support for removing peers following a criminal conviction (87%) or breaches of parliamentary standards (81%).
Leadership ratings: a difficult moment for Labour
Reform remains ahead in voting intention on 31%, followed by Labour on 23%, the Conservatives on 16%, the Greens on 13%, and the Liberal Democrats on 10%.
Starmer’s approval rating stands at –44, while Kemi Badenoch has improved to –9, and Nigel Farage sits on –11.
On the “Best Prime Minister” question, Starmer holds only a narrow lead over Badenoch, while he trails Farage in a head-to-head comparison.
When voters assess leadership attributes, Starmer scores particularly poorly on being “in touch with ordinary people” and “representing what most people think.” Badenoch performs better on traits such as being decisive and sticking to her principles, though significant scepticism remains about her readiness for office.
Foreign relations and immigration: mixed verdicts
A majority (52%) believe the government is doing a bad job handling relations with Donald Trump, and nearly half say it is doing a poor job representing Britain’s interests internationally and in Europe.
However, more than half (56%) believe Starmer handled Trump’s recent comments about Afghanistan well — suggesting voters distinguish between broader diplomatic strategy and individual moments of leadership.
On immigration, Labour holds a modest lead over the Conservatives on fairness and integration issues. But when compared with Reform, Labour trails significantly on handling overall migration numbers, underscoring a continuing vulnerability on the right of British politics.
Commentary
Opinium’s James Crouch said:
“The deepening fallout from the Mandelson appointment has pushed Starmer’s rating even lower, with most voters now questioning his judgement on the appointment and placing equal blame on the prime minister and his advisers.”
Taken together, the findings suggest a Prime Minister facing sustained public scepticism, not only over a controversial appointment, but over leadership direction and political judgement more broadly.