Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

 My latest poll looks at expectations of Andy Burnham, whether there should be a leadership election, when the next general election should happen, the most important issues facing the country and voters’ attitudes to Restore Britain.

What did Starmer do?

We asked respondents to name, unprompted, anything they can remember the Labour government doing since it was elected in July 2024. Top of the list this month was lifting the two-child benefit cap, very slightly ahead of means-testing the winter fuel allowance, which has dominated recollections for the last eighteen months. Employers’ National Insurance and workers’ rights are next on the list.

Our political map shows which parts of the electorate are most likely to mention different government actions. The two-child benefit cap and the winter fuel allowance both appear close to the centre of the map, showing that they were widely recalled across voter types. The minimum wage, NHS waiting lists, renewable energy, the social media ban and staying out of the Iran war were most likely to be recalled in Labour and Lib Dem-supporting territory, while Israel and disability benefits were most likely to be mentioned close to the Greens’ centre of gravity in the bottom left. Tax, migration, defence and the economy were most likely to be mentioned on the Conservative or Reform-leaning right-hand side of the map.

Since we have asked this question every month since January 2025, we can see the most recalled actions of the Labour government over the last 18 months.

Andy Burnham and the Labour leadership

Overall, voters said they would like to see a contested leadership election by a 50 per cent to 27 per cent. However, 2024 Labour voters said they would like to see Burnham become PM without a leadership election by a 7-point margin, and current Labour leaners by a 26-point margin.

 A clear majority said there should be a general election within a year or so of the new PM taking office. Four in ten voters said he or she should call an election as soon as practically possible, with a further 19 per cent saying there should be an election in the next year or so. Just over a quarter, including more than half of 2024 Labour voters and 63 per cent of those currently leaning towards Labour, say there is no need for an early election and the government should continue until 2028 or 2029.

 More than four in ten voters said they thought Burnham was more left-wing than Starmer – more than twice the proportion who thought they had similar political views. Current and 2024 Labour voters were more likely than most to see Burnham as being further to the left. Nearly four in ten said they didn’t know whether his political views stood in relation to Starmer’s.

 Voters as a whole were more likely to think Burnham would perform about the same as Starmer in each policy area than to think he would do either better or worse. They were more likely to think he would do a better job than a worse job on the economy, the NHS, the cost of living, crime and policing, and running the country in general. They were more likely to think he would do a worse job than a better job on immigration, government borrowing and debt, setting tax rates at the right level, defence, and Britain’s relationships with other countries.

A majority of all voters said the new PM should feel bound by Labour’s 2024 manifesto promises on income tax, National Insurance and VAT. Current and 2024 Labour voters were also more likely than not to take this view.

Most important issues facing Britain

The cost of living was rated the most important issue facing the country, with half of all respondents choosing it in their top three. Among voters as a whole this was followed by immigration and asylum, the NHS and social care, and the economy and jobs. For 2024 Labour voters, the NHS was second after the cost of living, followed by climate change and the environment. Immigration and asylum topped the list for current and 2024 Conservative and Reform UK voters. National security and defence was the second most important issue to 2024 Tories, ahead of the cost of living.

Asked who would do the better job running the economy, 33 per cent of voters said a Labour government, 20 per cent said a Conservative government and 18 per cent said a Reform UK government. Just over two thirds of 2024 Labour voters said a Labour government would do the best job, while 62 per cent of 2024 Conservatives named the Tories (and nearly one in five of them named Reform UK).

Restore Britain

Just over one in ten said they like a lot of what Restore Britain stand for and might well vote for them next time. This included nearly four in ten Reform voters from 2024 and more than a quarter of those currently leaning towards Reform. A further 14 per cent say they probably wouldn’t vote for Restore but they say things that need saying so they’re glad the party is around. Just under four in ten say they don’t like what Restore stand for and would never vote for them. A quarter say they have never heard of Restore Britain. Of those who say they might well vote for Restore Britain, 33 per cent are currently leaning towards Reform, eight per cent towards the Conservatives, and 25 per cent towards another party.

For those interested in Restore Britain, the most appealing factors were that “they have more radical policies on things like migration and repatriation” and “they want to keep Britain British”. Cutting taxes and welfare benefits and forcing other parties to pay attention to important issues were the next biggest attractions.

 The political map

Our political map shows how different issues, attributes, personalities and opinions interact with one another. Each point shows where we are most likely to find people with that characteristic or opinion; the closer the plot points are to each other the more closely related they are. Here we see how different kinds of voters see the most important issues facing the country, how soon people would like to see a general election once the new prime minister is installed, and where we are most likely to find different views of Restore Britain.

 Leadership ratings, best prime minister and next general election

Equal numbers said they had a favourable view of Kemi Badenoch and Andy Burnham, though Badenoch’s unfavourability score was higher than Burnham’s. Nigel Farage had the next highest positive rating, but with negatives of 63 per cent. In order of net scores, the results were Burnham (-9), Davey (-13), Badenoch (-15), Lowe (-20, but with 42% saying ‘don’t know’), Polanski (-23), Starmer (-39), Farage (-41).

When we asked who would make the better prime minister, Burnham led Badenoch by eight points. 2024 Labour and Conservative voters were equally likely to choose their respective party leaders. Last month, Badenoch led Starmer by one point (32 per cent to 31 per cent).

Given a choice between Burnham and Farage, voters as a whole chose Burnham by a 26-point margin. Last month, Starmer led Farage by 18 points.

 Offered a choice between Burnham, Badenoch and Farage, voters chose Starmer over Badenoch by an 18-point margin (compared to Starmer’s 14-point lead last month) with Farage third on 17 per cent.  More than seven in ten Labour voters preferred Burnham (compared to 65 per cent who preferred Starmer last month).

Andy Burnham has taken over from Nigel Farage as the leader voters consider most likely to be PM after the next general election. 33 per cent named Burnham, with 20 per cent naming Farage (down from 27 per cent) last month. Just under two thirds of those currently intending to vote Reform thought Farage would be PM (down from 74 per cent last month), while 65 per cent of Labour leaners expect Burnham to be PM (more than three times the proportion who last month expected Starmer still to have the job).

We ask people how likely they are to vote for each party at the next election, rather than which party they would pick in a hypothetical election tomorrow. Those who voted Labour in 2024 put their chances of doing so again at the next election at an average of 48/100. They put their chances of voting Green at 25/100. Those who switched to Labour in 2024 put their chances of voting for the party again next time at 36/100, and those who switched from the Conservatives to Labour in 2024 put their chances of voting Labour again next time at an average of 30/100.

Looking at those more likely than not to vote for a particular party (those whose highest likelihood of voting for one party was at least 50/100), this implies vote shares of Reform UK 21 per cent, Conservative 21 per cent, Labour 21 per cent, Green 17 per cent, Lib Dems 9 per cent, Others 10 per cent.

Full data tables at LordAshcroftPolls.com

The post Lord Ashcroft: Burnham compared to Starmer, should there be an election, and what do we think of Restore Britain? appeared first on Conservative Home.

Source link

Sam Liccardo said he “groaned excessively” when the U.S. national team’s Folarin Balogun was given a red card.

Yet the Silicon Valley representative objected after President Donald Trump pressed FIFA to review the play at issue, before the world soccer organization suspended the penalty and allowed the U.S.’ lead scorer to play in today’s knockout round match against Belgium.

“We can’t win this way,” Liccardo, a Democrat, wrote on social media. “I won’t cheer FIFA’s capitulation to power.”

Few other American politicians have expressed a similar sentiment, perhaps wary that they’ll be viewed as rooting against their own country’s success. But Liccardo joined a chorus of international officials who took issue with the pressure campaign that culminated in Balogun’s return to the pitch, while stressing that the “right outcome” had been reached despite what he viewed as foul play by FIFA leadership.

“The fact that we should see this outcome after this corruption summit between FIFA and Donald Trump accentuates the distaste for many,” he told POLITICO in an interview just over an hour before the U.S.-Belgium match.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Were you at the match where the red card was issued in Santa Clara?

I was not, I’m ashamed to say. It’s slightly outside my district, and a few thousand dollars outside my tax bracket. … I watched on television and cheered wildly for the U.S. team, and groaned excessively when Balogun got his red card.

Democrats have accused President Trump of a lot of instances of corruption throughout his second term, so why speak out on this particular incident?

Well, I think in your question there’s an implication, and it’s a fair one, which is: Far be it from me to suggest that FIFA could ever be corrupt. But at least we could say that for once it was Americans that benefited from the corruption, not the Qataris or the Russians.

Look, I root for the U.S. men’s team every time they take the field, and, like virtually everyone else watching that game, I felt Balogun was treated very unfairly. That being said, since 1962, FIFA has never allowed a player to appear at a World Cup game after receiving a red card in the game immediately following. The intervention of a head of state — in what should be an international celebration of sports that should be above politics and beyond it — is troubling. And the fact that we should see this outcome after this corruption summit between FIFA and Donald Trump accentuates the distaste for many. [FIFA has repeatedly asserted that Trump’s call for a review had no impact on its decision, and Trump said the same today, while confirming he had asked for another look at the play.]

Do you think your constituents feel the same way?

People feel all kinds of different ways, and I don’t blame anyone for saying, “Hey, this is the right outcome.” That’s fine. I’m simply saying it’s the right outcome for the wrong reasons. And it’s hard to blame you global fans of the sport for having hard feelings.

Like, you said, a lot of people probably feel that this was the right outcome. Has that made this at all a tricky situation for Democrats to address politically?

No, because politicians shouldn’t address this. It’s not my problem to solve, and it’s certainly not Donald Trump’s problem to solve. So, I don’t have any problems. I’m a spectator, like everybody else. I’m simply saying we all want an umpire that calls balls and strikes, and we know that umpires get it wrong plenty of times. We just don’t want somebody bribing the umpire to get us a ball rather than a strike.

You’re a bystander in some ways, but this is also not your first time encountering FIFA. In addition to being a co-chair of the World Cup Caucus, you were the mayor of San Jose when the city was participating in the bidding process to host that tournament. Didn’t you and some of the other Bay Area mayors even go on a tour with FIFA officials of Levi’s Stadium a few years ago?

Yeah, I think we were at the stadium, and then we went to San Francisco. That’s what you do when you’re the mayor of the largest city in the region and you want the World Cup to come to your region.

So, when you say that FIFA is a corrupt organization, has that always been your view, or did this particular incident kind of drive you there?

It’s the view of the Department of Justice that indicted them for more than $150 million in bribes in 2015, it’s the view of lots of other folks who are concerned about how the Qataris ended up with the World Cup. We can go on and on. It’s not my view that matters here. The point is this: Nobody wants to see the head of state of any country calling an international sports organization to get a better call. That’s not the way sports should work.

The Olympics are coming to California in 2028. Should Democrats be trying to guard against Trump exerting influence once again to aid the host country in that international competition?

No, elected officials should be refraining from getting engaged in international sports competitions, the area where people don’t want politics. So it’s not about what we do or don’t do. It’s not about us standing up to Trump or not standing up to Trump. It’s about the fact that we should want international sports competitions to be free of political influence.

Source link

President Donald Trump said earlier Monday that he didn’t know what a red card was before last Wednesday’s U.S.-Bosnia match.

But FIFA President Gianni Infantino actually gave him a lesson on soccer’s disciplinary system during a 2018 Oval Office meeting after the United States secured the right to co-host the 2026 World Cup.

During the visit, which followed the successful United Bid, Infantino explained the sport’s use of yellow and red cards before pulling one of each out from a case.

“In soccer we have referees and they have cards: yellow cards and red cards,” Infantino told Trump. “Yellow card is a warning, and when you want to kick out someone, a red card. Like this!”

Trump appeared amused by the demonstration.

“I like that,” he said picking up the red card and holding it up. “Thank you.”

Infantino then joked that the cards might come in handy beyond the soccer field.

“That could be used for, I don’t know, the next media session,” he said.

Source link

The news that Folarin Balogun would be eligible to suit up against Belgium Monday night was met with near-universal celebration across the country.

Just don’t ask the Belgian fans living here.

POLITICO caught up with several of them at the Belgian embassy’s watch party at Wunder Garten, a trendy bar in Washington’s NoMa neighbourhood.,

“I had to keep up my vomiting,” said Johan Hamels, an Ottawa resident from Leuven in D.C. on a business trip. “Rules are rules. Every team is briefed by FIFA. And for every game, it’s in one of their slides. That you get a red card, you’re off next time.”

Balogun was given a red card in the Americans’ Round of 32 matchup last week against Bosnia and Herzegovina, which typically carries a suspension for the following game. But FIFA suspended his ban on Sunday.

Critics have charged that the White House pressured FIFA into making the switch. European politicians have slammed Balogun’s inclusion, and the Royal Belgian Football Association formally challenged FIFA’s reversal on Monday morning.

And while FIFA insists the ruling had nothing to do with politics, President Donald Trump is taking credit for getting Balogun back on the field.

“I’m Belgian,” said Win Van Dijck, a native of Brussels who has lived in the U.S. for the last five years. “So I appreciate surrealism. But it’s just too much.”

It’s another example of Trump pulling the strings in a tournament that has increasingly strayed into the political arena, they say.

“Having it reversed based on a call from the American God is a little bit lack of workmanship. And it’s sad for the kids here because that’s what they see as an example,” said Brigitte, a retiree who came to the U.S. in 1984.

Source link

Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Ruben Gallego rescinded their support of Graham Platner on Monday, with Khanna additionally calling for the Democratic nominee to drop out of the Maine Senate race.

It’s a significant reversal from two formerly staunch Democratic defenders of Platner, following a POLITICO report that a woman who dated Platner said he forced her to have sex with him five years ago.

Platner has denied the allegations, but he also posted on social media that he was “taking the time to reflect on the best path forward” for his candidacy.

“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”

In his own social media post, Gallego (D-Ariz.) called the allegations “troubling and deeply serious” while announcing he would no longer back the progressive oysterman.

Source link

Source link

FIFA President Gianni Infantino on Monday defended his organization’s decision to defer U.S. striker Folarin Balogun’s one-game suspension ahead of the Monday World Cup match between the U.S. and Belgium.

“FIFA’s judicial bodies are independent,” Infantino said in a statement posted on X. “I read the decisions of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee when they are issued. Sometimes I am surprised by them. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I disagree. What I always do, however, is respect those decisions and the autonomy of the bodies that make them.”

On Sunday, FIFA announced that its disciplinary committee suspended the red card that Balogun received during the U.S. game against Bosnia and Herzegovina. U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday that he had called Infantino to lobby for the suspension to be lifted, though the president insisted that “all I did was ask for a review,” and “I didn’t say that you have to do this.”

Infantino acknowledged discussing Balogun’s suspension with Trump but said he explained the “ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies” to the U.S. president.

Infantino added that “respect for independent institutions and the rule of law is what protects the integrity of our competitions and the credibility of FIFA at all times.”

UEFA, European football’s governing body, said in a statement Monday that FIFA’s decision was “incomprehensible and unjustifiable.”

Source link

A high-ranking Dallas police commander met with Egyptian World Cup officials over the weekend to smooth over relations after an altercation between the team’s staff and a city officer.

Deputy Chief Osama Ismail, who speaks Arabic, met and exchanged gifts Saturday with Egypt head coach Hossam Hassan, his brother and team manager Ibrahim Hassan, team captain Mohamed Salah and others, the department said in a statement on social media.

“We understand one conversation can make a difference and respect is demonstrated through actions,” the statement said.

The team — and the Dallas police — made international headlines Thursday night when a Dallas officer was caught on video shouting at and shoving Ibrahim Hassan and other team staffers in the lobby of the team hotel.

Egypt went on to beat Australia in Dallas on Friday. Hossam Hassan said at the postgame press conference that he was satisfied with the police response, adding, “We have nothing to follow up in that regard.”

Source link

President Donald Trump said Monday that he asked FIFA President Gianni Infantino to review the red card issued against a star American soccer player ahead of a monumental last-16 game, but emphasized that he did not unduly influence the controversial decision.

The ruling by the international soccer governing body to suspend a red card issued against American Folarin Balogun during its knockout tilt against Bosnia and Herzegovina sparked concerns over the president’s potential influence over the decision. POLITICO reported Sunday that Trump had called Infantino regarding the red card, which the president subsequently confirmed Monday.

“Yes, I asked for a review by FIFA,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Oval Office.

However, the president rebuffed the idea that his talks with Infantino influenced the decision, even as the FIFA president has cozied up to Trump during his second term — showering him in compliments and creating a new “peace prize” that he awarded Trump ahead of the tournament.

“All I did was ask for a review,” Trump said. “I didn’t say that you have to do this.”

The comments come after a slate of other nations’ soccer federations panned the decision, with the European Commission demanding “fair play and transparent competition” in sports. Belgian officials, whose country will play against the U.S. today, expressed intense consternations and have formally challenged the ruling.

Trump on Monday described his reaction to the initial game call as confused. He characterized the collision between Balogun and Tarik Muharemović as the two players being “sort of entangled” and, upon learning that a red card would bar Balogun from suiting up for the U.S.’s match against Belgium, thought it was “unfair.”

“It is one thing to penalize somebody for the game,” Trump said. “But how do you penalize him for a game that hasn’t been played yet? It’s very unfair, you can’t do that.”

The president took the opportunity to celebrate the success of the World Cup— which has high attendance across its venues and strong viewership — and said Balogun’s red card would have been a “big stain” on the tournament had it been upheld.

The president on Monday cast suspicions on the referee who delivered the red card to Balogun, Brazilian official Raphael Claus, calling him “a little bit suspect, if you check his past.”

Asked by a reporter if he had spoken with the Belgian prime minister, Trump said he hadn’t but would be open to it. Belgium’s foreign minister told POLITICO that the decision “raises many questions,” its soccer federation issued a livid statement in the aftermath of the decision and subsequently challenged Balogun’s eligibilityahead of the match.

“I will tell you this,” Trump continued. “The people of Belgium, if they win the game, they can be very proud.”

Source link

Source link