United Kingdom 
United States 
Deutschland 
France 
España 
Italia 
International 
Those who think Starmer is doing well are pleased he has kept us out of the conflict; those who say he has done badly often criticise the PM’s indecisiveness
As the US-Iran conflict drags on for another week, our polling shows that Britons are split on Keir Starmer’s handling of the UK’s response to the conflict: 38% think he is doing well, while 43% say he is doing badly.
Given that Starmer has largely kept the UK out of the unpopular conflict – an approach that the vast majority of the public favour – why do so many Britons say he is doing badly? We followed up, asking them to explain, in their own words, the reasons for their answer.
Why do Britons think Keir Starmer is doing badly at handling the US-Iran war?
Starmer comes in for criticism from opposing sides on the conflict: some are angry that he has failed to support the US and Israel, while others say he has not done enough to keep the UK out of the conflict.
Pro-involvement
- He should have allowed the US, the UKs biggest ally and protector, usage of UK bases, and come out swinging against the Iranian terror regime and human rights criminals from the outset of the conflict
- The horse has already bolted. It's no use the UK umming and ahing – we are automatically drawn into the mix. I can't see the Iranians saying "aren't the British nice" we will leave them alone. They are attacking world energy supplies: we are in that world and will be affected by it no matter what we do.
- He is damaging the special relationship at a time when all of the West should be working together to remove one of the vilest regimes on Earth.
- US and Israel are defending the world from the IRGC. All countries should join them in this enterprise to bring it to a swift close.
- He should have helped sooner then there wouldn't be a row with Trump.
Anti-involvement
- He is not entirely committing to keeping the UK out of this disastrous, globally damaging and illegal war of aggression by the US and Israel by allowing the US to continue to use UK military basis. That makes the UK complicit in this war.
- We shouldn't be involved in any way shape or form. We shouldn't provide support to the US for this war, and we have no obligation to. The US attack is illegal under international law, so providing even token support to the US is tantamount to collaboration.
- He should cut all ties and deny the USA involvement with the UK as we do not / should not want to be dragged into the war because of another country forcing our hand, this war is optional and should remain optional.
- Is supporting the US, Iran have stated that they view UK action as offensive action. Puts UK in a dangerous situation. Should have no involvement in an illegal war of choice.
- He is letting the UK get into another one of the USA's pointless escapades.
- He should condemn what is happening in Iran and get much closer with Europe.
A particularly common theme running through critiques of Starmer’s handling of the conflict is indecision, with many respondents complaining that he seems to either constantly change his mind, or is unable to make decisions.
- He said he wasn't going to get involved, which I agreed with. He went up in my estimation. Then did a massive U-turn and got us in the firing line. He showed me he is weak and incapable of running a country and keeping us all safe.
- His dithering over whether to allow US use of our airbases at the start cost all the goodwill he had managed to build up with the Trump administration at a stroke. It will be a long and hard road to rebuild that. Also, he has shown once again that he has no plan, no moral compass that he is prepared to stick to.
- Indecision. Changes of decision. Late to make decisions. Wrong decisions. Has made the UK look like an absolute laughing stock over the Cypriot and Chagos issues. Makes all the tough guy talk, with nothing to back it up. He is an embarrassment to the UK.
- Has U-turned on use of bases and for what purposes? Twice now he has put us in a bad position with US, and we are not in a good place to defend ourselves and I’m not sure that the US would have much interest in defending us now.
- He's weak, indecisive: a follower. No sense of presence. No commitment to anything. Changing his mind. Be firm. We're not helping the US to invade a country that has zero to do with the UK. Be firm. He's wishy-washy weak.
- He is totally useless. Every decision he makes he has to change his mind a couple of days later.
- He started out well by standing up to Trump. He's now weakened and it's disappointing.
- He is indecisive (in all that he does). He has bowed to the pressure from Trump.
Others feel that the prime minister is weak, has failed to show leadership, and has proved unable to stand up to Donald Trump.
- He is weak and seems to have to find out what other country's leaders are doing before committing. He seems to have to have France and Germany with him before he commits to anything.
- I think he's a spineless individual who can't make a decision. Instead of taking a stance one way or another he's sitting on the fence, which is not helpful. I am uncomfortable with how he sucks up to Trump-the-mad-man but also none of us really know what goes on behind closed doors and probably never will.
- He has no firm beliefs on anything and has no leadership ability at all. He should provide leadership, not manage by committee.
- He gives no sense of confidence or leadership. He should have giant splinters from his time of sitting on the fence.
- Lack of decisive leadership, is reactive instead of proactive.
- He should have allowed the use of UK bases when requested. His later allowing limited use and then more use pleases no-one and shows his weakness.
- I think that, as usual, he is being indecisive. He takes too long to make decisions and is constantly made to look weak.
- He is weak and indecisive, has no ideas of his own, is a lap dog to Trump and is a totally pathetic PM.
- He's just a nodding dog to Trump. He should stand up to him and not let Trump to order us about.
The decisions surrounding the US use of British airbases have particularly cut through with the public, as well as (to a lesser extent) the sending of the HMS Dragon to the region.
- Permission should have been given for the US to use our airbases immediately. At the beginning, despite having had some notice, our readiness to send a vessel to Cypress was far too slow and it has made the UK look weak.
- When our base in Cyprus was hit by Iran’s drones our warships should have been there immediately, instead it was still sitting in a port in the UK for WEEKS afterwards!!!!
- Delayed in getting one ship to Cyprus. Slow in allowing US to use airfields he is incompetent of facing challenges of this level and keeps U-turning
- Our warship should have been sent straight away. And by letting American planes land in UK is part of joining in so he can’t say we are not in it.
- I think the decision to permit the US to use Fairfield and the Chagos Islands to carry out actions to "defend" shipping in the Straits of Hormuz is ill judged. I think this has made us much more vulnerable to attack and to terrorism now and in the years ahead.
- If the prime minister had immediately sided with the USA and allowed use of our bases, he would have had influence in the direction of this war. As a result of his poor choices, we will suffer as a nation.
- He has got us far too involved. We should not be letting USA use our bases.
- He should not have allowed the US to have access to our air bases to launch air strikes from. It makes us look like we condone the attacks and could lead to reprisals from the Iranian military.
Others criticised the UK’s military preparedness…
- He has not acted quick enough. He has not reacted after UK bases have been hit. He should have already had ships etc in place, as everyone knew this was going to happen relatively quickly, and he has not invested enough in our armed forces.
- I think the reaction has been too slow. Starmer should have pre-empted the potential conflict in the Middle East and prepared British naval assets and got them to the region to protect our territories.
- Other countries defending Cyprus as we had nothing ready.
…while others are criticising the way Starmer has managed the relationship with Donald Trump and the USA more generally
- While I do not agree with the Iran war I do believe we should stand by our allies. Kier Starmer has shown extremely poor judgement and leadership in dithering and not being able to make a confident decision. All the time he is alienating our closest allies and causing distrust and showing weakness to the rest of the world. Shameful.
- He should have been much more accommodating to the US in the early stages and not have annoyed our biggest ally.
- His inaction has alienated our strongest ally, and caused us to be at odds with the world's biggest superpower.
- He has clearly got a poor relationship with the US president and as a result we are not 'really in the loop' UK opinions are now irrelevant to the US a legacy of previous behaviours. The Chagos Diago Garcia plan is likely terminal to his credibility in US eyes.
- He has managed to ruin to UK/US partnership and has made the UK a less safe place to be.
- He is dithering about and upsetting the US president, which is never a good idea, particularly this US president!
- He did nothing, then committed to doing something, but still managed to fall out with the first US president that actually cared about the UK.
Why do Britons think Keir Starmer is doing well at handling the US-Iran war?
By contrast, the reasons people give for approving of Starmer’s handling of our response to the conflict generally revolve around only one theme: that he has largely kept us out of it.
- Kept out of the conflict, stood his ground, only using military capabilities for defence to avoid being dragged into a harmful war that’s not in the national interest.
- Despite not being politically aligned with Keir Starmer, I feel he is right to not get the UK embroiled in a questionable conflict, we've been there before!
- He is trying to take a back seat in the conflict. It is not our war and we don't want to be involved in it. He is protecting our country and our people.
- it’s a bit tricky. Obviously I would rather we are not involved at all. But this defensive stuff sort of makes sense and appears to be thought-through.
- Initially holding back support for the US then gradually escalating as Iran targets countries that weren’t otherwise involved including our own bases seems like a sensible option to me.
- I think it's necessary not to oppose Trump too overtly (because it wouldn't work). So trying to keep in with him but not join the US-Israel war effort is a difficult strategy. Starmer's line hasn't been a disaster and it's hard to see what would have been a better approach.
And a common characterisation of that decision is ‘standing up to Donald Trump’.
- He is not immediately aligning and bowing to Trump… because that is not what is best for the country. Starmer is not a strong or convincing speaker, but I do think he has the nation’s best interests at heart.
- I like that he has not bowed to Trump and stayed firm on keeping the UK out of this mess. The Conservatives, who I have always previously voted for, are keen to join him which is absolute madness. There is no special relationship with them now.
- He has stood up to trump mostly although I don’t agree with using UK bases for US bombers. This war is illegal and being a NATO member means abiding by the rules. He has also had to stand firm against reform and Tory nonsense who seem to lack any kind of morality on this.
- He has stood up to Trump's warmongering and dangerous unstable personality. The Iran war is a disaster for democracy, international law, the environment and global economy.
- Keir is standing firm in the face of substantial childishness and mockery from Trump. He is putting his principles and the interests of the UK above everything else.
What is notable, however, is even in saying he is handling the conflict well, many of the same criticisms emerge. (Of the 38% who had said he is doing well, this included only 7% who said “very well”)
- He is showing unusual strength, and is not bowing to US pressure to involve himself in something that will almost certainly not end well.
- I think he was right not to support them outright. It’s wrong and immoral. Although his slight backtracking was not good, although it’s very tricky dealing with Trump.
- Standing up to Trump and not joining in just because of our 'special' relationship, and being adult about Trump’s insults. Our lack of being war ready is his fault though.
- Starmer didn't cave to the psychotic bully Trump, he held his ground for once.
- Sticking to what he said for a change, and hopefully not pandering to Trump.
- We have not gotten involved, but I do not trust him to keep it that way.
- Seems to be keeping the interests of the UK foremost, but worried he could U-turn as he has before on other issues.
- He is not being intimidated by Donald Trump. However, the delay of the Royal Navy ship sailing to Cyprus was embarrassing i.e. is the UK not war ready?
- He did something positive initially by refusing use of UK airfields, but U-turned as usual. Good he didn't agree to send ships.
- Despite what others say, he is being decisive here by not joining the offensive actions. He has however taken a long time to get boats out there, and has made it look / sounds like we have a small navy. Now that the war has started, we may need to increase the military action we take and he'll likely not budge from his position.
Interested in taking YouGov surveys? What do you think about the US-Iran conflict, how the UK has responded, and everything else? Have your say, join the YouGov panel, and get paid to share your thoughts. Sign up here.
Interested in commissioning YouGov research? We connect in real-time with real people around the world to gather their thoughts, behaviours, and opinions, to ensure that our research data is powered by reality. Explore our survey services here.
Photo: Getty