# Yes, Keir Starmer is Britain's most unpopular PM ever. That could liberate him | Polly Toynbee
What if being the most unpopular Prime Minister in British history is actually a political superpower?
That's the provocative question at the heart of Polly Toynbee's analysis of Keir Starmer's current predicament. While conventional wisdom suggests that political success requires popularity, Toynbee argues that Starmer's historic unpopularity might paradoxically become his greatest asset.
> "When you have nothing left to lose, you have everything to gain."
Consider this:
As The Guardian's analysis shows, Starmer's approval ratings have reached unprecedented lows. But what if this terrible news contains a hidden opportunity for genuine transformation?
Let's explore how being Britain's most unpopular PM could paradoxically liberate Keir Starmer to achieve what more popular leaders never could.
The numbers don't lie - Keir Starmer has achieved a level of unpopularity that makes political history. The data paints a stark picture of public sentiment toward Britain's current Prime Minister.
When you compare Starmer's numbers to his predecessors, the scale of his unpopularity becomes even more striking:
As The Guardian's polling analysis reveals, Starmer's numbers place him among the most unpopular leaders in the entire Western world, not just British political history.
These aren't just bad numbers - they represent a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between a Prime Minister and the public they serve.
Popularity isn't just a nice-to-have for politicians - it's a cage that constrains their ability to make meaningful change. The need to maintain public approval has paralyzed leaders throughout modern British history.
Popular Leaders, Limited Achievements
Many of Britain's most popular Prime Ministers achieved surprisingly little in terms of lasting reform. Their popularity came from avoiding controversy rather than driving change.
The Incrementalism Problem
When leaders are constantly checking the polls, they tend toward small, safe policies that won't upset anyone. This leads to years of governance without meaningful transformation.
The Over-the-Shoulder Syndrome
Popular politicians spend more time managing their image than making difficult decisions. Every policy is weighed against potential backlash rather than long-term benefit.
Tony Blair's Third Term
Despite massive popularity after Iraq, Blair became increasingly cautious, avoiding the radical public service reforms he knew were needed.
David Cameron's Coalition
The need to maintain popularity across coalition partners led to watered-down policies that pleased nobody and solved little.
Theresa May's Brexit
Her attempts to please everyone resulted in a deal that satisfied no one, ultimately costing her the premiership.
Popularity creates a political straightjacket that prevents leaders from taking the bold actions necessary for genuine progress. The constant fear of losing public support becomes the primary driver of policy, rather than what's actually needed for the country.
> "Starmer's unpopularity could paradoxically become his greatest asset - freeing him from the constraints that have paralyzed previous leaders."
Polly Toynbee's radical insight challenges everything we think we know about political leadership. In her Guardian analysis, she argues that Starmer's situation creates a unique opportunity.
When you're already at rock bottom in the polls, what do you have to lose? This psychological liberation could allow Starmer to:
Ignore Short-Term Backlash
Popular leaders fear every policy decision that might cost them support. Starmer can focus on long-term benefits without worrying about immediate polling consequences.
Take Genuine Risks
Real reform requires upsetting established interests. With no popularity to protect, Starmer can tackle the difficult issues others avoided.
Lead Rather Than Follow
Instead of chasing public opinion, he can shape it through bold policy decisions that demonstrate genuine leadership.
History shows that some of the most transformative leaders were initially deeply unpopular:
Margaret Thatcher faced massive public opposition during her early reforms, but her determination reshaped Britain's economy for decades.
Clement Attlee pushed through the NHS and welfare state against fierce resistance, creating institutions that define modern Britain.
Winston Churchill was deeply unpopular in peacetime but became the leader Britain needed in crisis.
Toynbee's theory suggests that Starmer's unpopularity might be the very thing that enables him to join this pantheon of transformative leaders.
So what could Starmer actually achieve with this newfound freedom from popularity pressures? The policy areas where he could make transformative change are precisely those that more popular leaders have avoided for decades.
Radical Tax Reform
Popular leaders avoid touching the tax system for fear of alienating voters. Starmer could overhaul Britain's outdated tax structure to fund public services properly.
Wealth Redistribution
With no wealthy donors to appease, he could implement genuine wealth taxes and close loopholes that have benefited the richest for generations.
Public Investment
Massive infrastructure spending on green energy, transport, and housing - the kind of investment that pays off in decades, not election cycles.
Honest Debate
Instead of pandering to anti-immigration sentiment, Starmer could lead an honest conversation about Britain's demographic needs and economic benefits of immigration.
Rational System
Create an immigration system based on economic need rather than political fear, acknowledging both the benefits and challenges of migration.
Electoral System
As The Guardian notes, even the Tories now admit the electoral system is broken. Starmer could push for proportional representation.
House of Lords
Abolish or radically reform the unelected upper house, a change every modern PM has promised but none has delivered.
Devolution
Proper federal settlement for England, Scotland, and Wales, ending decades of constitutional ambiguity.
These are precisely the reforms that popular leaders avoid because they're politically risky. For Starmer, they represent opportunity rather than threat.
There's one major obstacle to Starmer embracing his liberation theory: the rise of Reform UK. Nigel Farage's party represents the political reality that could constrain even an unpopular Prime Minister.
Reform UK has fundamentally changed Britain's political landscape. According to recent polling, they're now a genuine threat to both major parties, with support levels that could determine the outcome of future elections.
The Electoral Math
Even with his current unpopularity, Starmer must consider how Reform UK's presence affects:
So far, Starmer appears to be responding to the Reform threat in conventional ways:
Tougher Rhetoric
He's adopted harder lines on immigration and cultural issues to prevent defections to Reform
Policy Adjustments
Some progressive policies have been watered down to appeal to potential Reform voters
Electoral Positioning
Labour is increasingly positioning itself as the sensible center against Reform's populism
This creates a fundamental tension in Toynbee's theory:
Can Starmer truly embrace his unpopularity if he's constantly looking over his shoulder at Reform UK?
The liberation theory assumes that rock-bottom popularity means having nothing left to lose. But with Reform threatening to become a permanent fixture in British politics, Starmer might actually have more to lose than previous unpopular leaders.
This is the political tightrope he must walk - balancing the potential freedom of unpopularity against the very real threat of electoral annihilation.
Toynbee's analysis forces us to ask a fundamental question: what does political success actually look like? Is it popularity, or is it achievement?
Popularity vs Legacy
History judges leaders by what they built, not how popular they were while building it. Clement Attlee was deeply unpopular during much of his premiership, but created the NHS.
Short-Term vs Long-Term
Popular leaders optimize for the next election. Transformative leaders build for the next generation.
Courage vs Caution
The real test of leadership isn't avoiding controversy, but having the courage to make necessary but unpopular decisions.
If Starmer embraces his liberation, what could his legacy look like?
The Green Transformation
He could make Britain a world leader in renewable energy and climate policy, accepting short-term costs for long-term benefits.
The Education Revolution
Radical reform of Britain's education system to address inequality and prepare for the AI economy.
The Constitutional Settlement
Finally resolving Britain's constitutional questions with a modern, federal system.
The Economic Rebalancing
Addressing regional inequality and creating an economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy.
Starmer faces a fundamental choice:
Option A: Spend his premiership trying to recover popularity through cautious, incremental policies that please everyone and achieve little.
Option B: Embrace his unpopularity as liberation and pursue the transformative reforms Britain desperately needs, accepting that he may never be popular but could leave a lasting legacy.
As Toynbee suggests, the very thing that makes his position seem hopeless - his historic unpopularity - might be the key to achieving what more popular leaders never could. The question isn't whether Starmer can recover his popularity, but whether he has the courage to stop worrying about popularity altogether.
Polly Toynbee's liberation theory offers a radical reframing of what political leadership can mean in the 21st century. It challenges the fundamental assumption that popularity equals success and suggests that sometimes the greatest freedom comes from having nothing left to lose.
Starmer's historic unpopularity could be the very thing that enables him to break free from the constraints that have paralyzed British politics for decades. While the rise of Reform UK presents a real challenge to this theory, it doesn't negate the core insight: that transformative change often requires leaders willing to make unpopular decisions.
The ultimate test of Starmer's leadership won't be whether he can recover his popularity, but whether he has the courage to use his unpopularity as a tool for genuine reform. As Toynbee suggests, Britain's most unpopular Prime Minister might just be the leader who finally delivers the transformation the country needs.
What do you think? Could unpopularity be the key to political liberation, or is popularity still the essential currency of democratic leadership?
