Perception in Politics: Why Did Keir Starmer Win?
What we learned from publishing six perception reports on top UK political figures.
If you follow our official LinkedIn page or Ben Graville's (Visible Founder) then you've noticed that a few days before the elections we published 6 online perception summaries for: Keir Starmer, Nigel Farage, Carla Denyer, John Swimney, Rishi Sunak and Sir Edward Davey.
While political campaigns are supposed to be battlegrounds of policy and principle, at their core they resemble something far more familiar - a popularity contest.
This means that understanding the nuances of public perception becomes not just useful but essential for predicting and influencing electoral outcomes.
With 5 prime-ministers in 8 years, the past few years have seen British politics sway with dramatic flair. From the tumultuous tenures under Boris Johnson to the brief and contested leaderships of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, our political scene has been anything but stable.
As a result, this year the popularity vote swayed towards the candidate who projected stability and competence over decisiveness and showmanship. Keir Starmer.
Starmer promised a "politics that treads more lightly on all our lives," pitching stability as part of his election campaign. He contrasted his leadership with the chaos and division of the past 14 years of Conservative rule. And he won.
Interestingly, when we analysed how critics viewed Keir Starmer, the uninspired persona he is accused of and his lack of charisma seems to have ultimately worked in his favor, especially among voters who were fatigued by the "ostentatious displays" of other candidates.
One of the inherent challenges with relying on perception analysis is that it often captures just a snapshot in time, failing to account for the dynamic nature of political careers. It is unclear how many know about Starmer's significant shifts in ideology and strategy over time, but they weren’t insignificant.
While the framing of Starmer in the media often emphasizes his role as a centrist leader, since entering politics he adjusted his trajectory from soft left to a more centrist position. You would think that each point in this evolution—not just where he stands today—shapes public perception and influences how policies are received and supported, but how much of that is true?
This fact raises important questions:
How much do a politician's previous opinions weigh on their current policies and image? Does a change in stance reflect genuine evolution, or is it merely an adaptation to political necessity? And ultimately, does the reason behind the change even matter, or is it solely up to voters to interpret and decide?
While our analysis at Visible was intentionally designed to create snapshots of political perceptions just before the elections, we recognize the inherent limitations of this approach.
Capturing a single moment in time provides valuable insight, but it's just the beginning. The true value lies in tracing how hot topics, sentiments, and public perceptions evolve over time. Such an analysis can reveal the complex interplay between public discourse and political persona, demonstrating that influencing perceptions sometimes may be as simple as turning a knob.
In today's rapidly changing political and social landscape, where information—and misinformation—abound, the ability to critically evaluate political figures has never been more crucial.
As we continue to refine our tools and methodologies, we aim to capture these changes more comprehensively, providing deeper insights into the dynamics of social (and in this case, political) perception.
We currently offer the ability to request your own free AI perception report based on your LinkedIn activity, you can request your own perception report here.
A word before you leave: it’s almost impossible to discuss politics without leaning into political bias, however, at Visible, we strive to remain as neutral as possible. Our focus isn’t on swaying opinions; it's on educating about online perception—our area of expertise.