I predicted it'd be 6-7 this morning (I am Mystic Nick). As i said, I think that's the underlying position, with a bounce upwards when there's a new scandal, settling back when nothing much new has emerged for a few days. (No Opinium tomght?)
HYUFD isn't wrong that that is a recoverable lead two years out from the election. The MPs who've declared no conifdence will be in an awkward position if the challenge fizzles, though.
I would not be happy if I was Starmer. A 7 point lead can easily be turned around. Election is almost certainly still 2 years away, absent a major political crisis.
I know it didn't end up that way, but May was polling 20+% leads back in 2017. Starmer wants a clear 10% lead now to have a chance of pulling this off.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
She just stated something that was going to happen anyway. There's no such thing as princess consort.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
Eh, I don't really get the outrage. As far as I recall - it happened when I was a child - Charles and Diana were unhappy in marriage and he was certainly unfaithful (I don't recall if she was or not before the split), and while she sadly died before she could have lasting happiness, Charles has gone on to have a happy and lasting marriage. I have zero problem with Camilla being queen because of some supposed insult to the memory of Saint Diana.
Penny Mordaunt became the latest Minister to be put on 'resignation watch' tonight as sources in the pro-Boris Johnson camp said a no-confidence vote was inevitable.
Would catapult her straight into the leadership race as the only one with the backbone.
The timing for Rishi must be tricky. Knowing when to jump....
BTW, the gossip in the bar at the SW Conference was that at least two Cabinet Ministers have fully manned operations for their leadership bid up and running.
Have they installed telephone lines! (Sorry I am showing my age here) 👍
Two Cabinet ministers have fully manned ops up and running?
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
she'll be married to a king, what else you gonna call her but queen?
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
She will be Queen Consort not Queen and as I posted earlier last time Yougov asked the question 53% of voters agreed Camilla should become Queen Consort.
I predicted it'd be 6-7 this morning (I am Mystic Nick). As i said, I think that's the underlying position, with a bounce upwards when there's a new scandal, settling back when nothing much new has emerged for a few days. (No Opinium tomght?)
HYUFD isn't wrong that that is a recoverable lead two years out from the election. The MPs who've declared no conifdence will be in an awkward position if the challenge fizzles, though.
I would not be happy if I was Starmer. A 7 point lead can easily be turned around. Election is almost certainly still 2 years away, absent a major political crisis.
I know it didn't end up that way, but May was polling 20+% leads back in 2017. Starmer wants a clear 10% lead now to have a chance of pulling this off.
Though consistent 10%+ leads probably kills off Boris with the Tory Party and ensures Sunak is PM within a year.
Less than 10% leads and certain hung parliament territory means Boris likely survives
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
She will be Queen Consort not Queen and as I posted earlier last time Yougov asked the question 53% of voters agreed Camilla should become Queen Consort.
Surely a regency would give the lie to the notion that we need a monarchy?
Nobody 'needs' a ceremonial monarchy. The question is whether there is any practical point to getting rid of it. I'd argue few of the major problems we have necessitate getting rid of it, though others feel the symbolism is more a stumbling block than I do.
So I don't think a regency affects things one way or another. A core group of ribbon cutters would remain, and they can already fill in on all occasions bar, I assume, signature of Acts of Parliament.
Surely a regency would give the lie to the notion that we need a monarchy?
Nobody 'needs' a ceremonial monarchy. The question is whether there is any practical point to getting rid of it. I'd argue few of the major problems we have necessitate getting rid of it, though others feel the symbolism is more a stumbling block than I do.
So I don't think a regency affects things one way or another. A core group of ribbon cutters would remain, and they can already fill in on all occasions bar, I assume, signature of Acts of Parliament.
We have a constitutional monarchy not a ceremonial monarchy.
Surely a regency would give the lie to the notion that we need a monarchy?
Nobody 'needs' a ceremonial monarchy. The question is whether there is any practical point to getting rid of it. I'd argue few of the major problems we have necessitate getting rid of it, though others feel the symbolism is more a stumbling block than I do.
So I don't think a regency affects things one way or another. A core group of ribbon cutters would remain, and they can already fill in on all occasions bar, I assume, signature of Acts of Parliament.
We have a constitutional monarchy not a ceremonial monarchy.
One does not preclude the other, I used the term to highlight the limited nature of the practical power - constitutional can mean anything from ceremonial in all practical respects to having major power and practical influence in the running of the country, within a constitutional framework.
Morocco has a constitutional monarchy too, but Mohammed VI is far more a political player, and not really directly comparable to our constitutional monarchy.
I predicted it'd be 6-7 this morning (I am Mystic Nick). As i said, I think that's the underlying position, with a bounce upwards when there's a new scandal, settling back when nothing much new has emerged for a few days. (No Opinium tomght?)
HYUFD isn't wrong that that is a recoverable lead two years out from the election. The MPs who've declared no conifdence will be in an awkward position if the challenge fizzles, though.
I would not be happy if I was Starmer. A 7 point lead can easily be turned around. Election is almost certainly still 2 years away, absent a major political crisis.
I know it didn't end up that way, but May was polling 20+% leads back in 2017. Starmer wants a clear 10% lead now to have a chance of pulling this off.
No he doesn't.
Two months ago Labour were 7 points behind. They will be again when the new PM enjoys their honeymoon. Then the economy bites hard. We can already see 40% plus voters are now prepared to give Starmer a whirl. He and Labour do not frighten the punters like Corbyn.
If the economy bobs along nicely, the Conservatives win. It it doesn't it's anyone's game.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
She just stated something that was going to happen anyway. There's no such thing as princess consort.
It's an effort to forestall complaints when Charles does it, as will be inevitable since apparently people cannot let things go, so he can point out his mummy said it was ok.
Survation have not conducted “hypothetical leader” private polling for the Labour Party as reported in The Times today. We also don’t view simple “leader name switching voting intention” to be of much predictive value."
Survation have not conducted “hypothetical leader” private polling for the Labour Party as reported in The Times today. We also don’t view simple “leader name switching voting intention” to be of much predictive value."
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
Eh, I don't really get the outrage. As far as I recall - it happened when I was a child - Charles and Diana were unhappy in marriage and he was certainly unfaithful (I don't recall if she was or not before the split), and while she sadly died before she could have lasting happiness, Charles has gone on to have a happy and lasting marriage. I have zero problem with Camilla being queen because of some supposed insult to the memory of Saint Diana.
The monarchy is an undemocratic archaic system of privilege that struggles to be justified in the 21st Century. The only justification that overcomes all of that is that the monarch is someone of grace and dignity that sets a moral example for the nation and acts as point of pride facing the rest of the world.
That can't possibly be said for Charles and Camilla. They were flagrantly pissing over the vows each of them took. In the case of one set of vows, the very next week after committing before the nation. It is bad enough we have to suffer Charles but it can be grudgingly accepted as a necessity of monarchy. But for the monarchy to actively legitimize and even reward Camilla for cheating on her husband is a bridge too far.
And oh, the "unhappy marriage" you speak of was a week old to a bridge who was besotted with her husband. It's as flimsy an excuse as Boris Johnson would provide.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
She will be Queen Consort not Queen and as I posted earlier last time Yougov asked the question 53% of voters agreed Camilla should become Queen Consort.
Diana was of course Prince William's mother, so if he is happy with his stepmother having the title, so should we be
What a surprise that someone who is a militant Christian in so much of their politics shrugs off blatant, ongoing adultery the week after a vow before God.
Just shows what a crock of hypocrisy types like you are.
Chris Williamson @DerbyChrisW Spent the morning on the doorstep in #Erdington today campaigning for @davenellist, who is the @TUSCoalition candidate and a genuine socialist.
Dave is exactly the sort of MP we need in parliament to shake up the cosy neoliberal consensus between the Tories and @UKLabour .
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
We're similar, only our family tree is full of pedants.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
She will be Queen Consort not Queen and as I posted earlier last time Yougov asked the question 53% of voters agreed Camilla should become Queen Consort.
Diana was of course Prince William's mother, so if he is happy with his stepmother having the title, so should we be
What a surprise that someone who is a militant Christian in so much of their politics shrugs off blatant, ongoing adultery the week after a vow before God.
Just shows what a crock of hypocrisy types like you are.
I am a member of the Church of England, founded by a King who committed adultery at the break with Rome.
I expect the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope to live saintly lives, however I do not expect our monarchs or PMs to, it is helpful that they do, as say the Queen or Theresa May did but not a pre requisite
Surely a regency would give the lie to the notion that we need a monarchy?
Nobody 'needs' a ceremonial monarchy. The question is whether there is any practical point to getting rid of it. I'd argue few of the major problems we have necessitate getting rid of it, though others feel the symbolism is more a stumbling block than I do.
So I don't think a regency affects things one way or another. A core group of ribbon cutters would remain, and they can already fill in on all occasions bar, I assume, signature of Acts of Parliament.
We have a constitutional monarchy not a ceremonial monarchy.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
She will be Queen Consort not Queen and as I posted earlier last time Yougov asked the question 53% of voters agreed Camilla should become Queen Consort.
Diana was of course Prince William's mother, so if he is happy with his stepmother having the title, so should we be
What a surprise that someone who is a militant Christian in so much of their politics shrugs off blatant, ongoing adultery the week after a vow before God.
Just shows what a crock of hypocrisy types like you are.
I am a member of the Church of England, founded by a King who committed adultery at the break with Rome.
I expect the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope to live saintly lives, however I do not expect our monarchs or PMs to, it is helpful that they do, as say the Queen or Theresa May did but not a pre requisite
Nice to know how little you care for one of the ten commandments. If obeying the basic rules of Christianity isn't expected from the monarch, then why the hell should they be head of the faith?
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
She will be Queen Consort not Queen and as I posted earlier last time Yougov asked the question 53% of voters agreed Camilla should become Queen Consort.
Diana was of course Prince William's mother, so if he is happy with his stepmother having the title, so should we be
What a surprise that someone who is a militant Christian in so much of their politics shrugs off blatant, ongoing adultery the week after a vow before God.
Just shows what a crock of hypocrisy types like you are.
I am a member of the Church of England, founded by a King who committed adultery at the break with Rome.
I expect the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope to live saintly lives, however I do not expect our monarchs or PMs to, it is helpful that they do, as say the Queen or Theresa May did but not a pre requisite
Nice to know how little you care for one of the ten commandments. If obeying the basic rules of Christianity isn't expected from the monarch, then why the hell should they be head of the faith?
They aren't. The Archbishop of Canterbury is principal leader of the Church of England and primus inter pares of the global Anglican Communion.
The monarch is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
I think my family goes back at least as far as his. Just that most of them were peasants.
We're similar, only our family tree is full of pedants.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
she'll be married to a king, what else you gonna call her but queen?
Phil the Greek was married to a queen, what else you gonna call him but king Phil the Greek?
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Why are you in awe of people who inherit wealth? They are not special. I'm rather proud of the fact that I did alright and didn't.
Fair enough, though Charles went to Eton and Oxford and has his own career in financial services so it is not as if he just relied solely on family wealth
He went to Eton and oxon and fs 'career' solely because of his family!
If Johnson being PM wasn’t offensive and degrading to the U.K. enough, having Rees Mogg and Dorries as Govt spokespeople, let alone Cabinet Ministers should be reason enough alone to get rid of him.
Not grammar schools again, please. The only place I ever come across nostalgia for grammar schools is on PB. They are the past, not the future. Even the Tory Party has shut up about them (apart from in Epping).
UKIP wanted a "grammar school in every town". No other party is interested. Tells you all you need to know. And why? Because the evidence (educational and social mobility) that they do more harm than good is incontrovertible. Trust me.
Not sure why you'd expect anyone to 'trust you', and this post is a collection of sloppy empty clichés, of which 'they are the past not the future' is the emptiest.
Thanks for the rudeness. I've spent the last forty years working in education and educational policy, much of it on data analysis, at a high level. So while I'm pretty ignorant about much, I think I know about this. And guess what? The Tory party doesn't advocate the return of a tertiary system of secondary education.
Any time. I am sure that you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, but you claimed 'incontrevertible evidence' that grammar schools have done more harm than good. If you have such evidence, why not present it?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools. Grammar schools, by and large, do a great job of educating kids. The 25% of kids who get into grammar schools do better than the top 25% of kids in comprehensives.
The problem is that the educational outcomes of the people who end up at the secondary moderns is significantly worse than if they had been to comprehensive schools.
And I would argue that the educational system in the UK's big problem for a very long time has been a lack of focus on the 75% of kids who probably shouldn't be going to university. It's ensuring - as they do in Switzerland or Germany - that they get the right skills to succeed.
The grammar discussion is the wrong one. It's a myopic focus on kids who are mostly going to do fine anyway. When the people we should worrying about aren't the people getting good GCSEs and A-Levels.
I'm not sure that the top 25% in the most deprived areas are going to do fine.
So I can see the point of grammar schools in the likes of Knowsley or Hull.
I get that, and I'm not saying 'no selection'. I'm saying the purpose of selection needs to be as much to improve the outcomes of those who don't make it to grammar schools, as those who do.
And right now, poorer kids in selective counties do worse (academically) than those in non-selective counties.
Now, I suspect that this is an artifact of the top 5-10% doing better, but then 80-90% doing quite a lot worse.
And that's a serious problem.
But don't the selective counties counties tend to be the richer ones ?
So you're not comparing like with like.
The poor and dim in the posh areas are a different issue to the poor but clever in the deprived areas.
Wtaf are you trying to say?
That the issue of poor but clever kids in deprived areas in different to poor and dim kids in posh areas.
And that grammar schools may be of increasing use the more deprived an area is but may have increasingly negative effects the richer an area is.
Whereas in this country it tends to be the more affluent areas which have grammar schools.
So if my hypothesis is correct we've managed to get grammar schools in the wrong places.
Hmm. So the only reason that Grammars have failed is that they've not been tried properly...🤔
Perhaps so and perhaps not.
But the current systems, whether comprehensive or grammar, are certainly failing many. Especially among those lower down the socioeconomic scale.
I wouldn't argue with that at all. It is the lack of decent training, education and skills of those further down the SE scale that is the real root of the levelling up problem.
… My fundamental observation was that there was a good chunk of the kids in each class, maybe 25% or more, who had absolutely no interest in learning, no curiosity about the world, no self-discipline and who viewed every day as just an excuse to mess around from start to finish. They disrupted everyone else. Nothing any teacher did or said made any difference.
Just our rotten luck to be landed with one such as prime minister.
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Maybe but I doubt many if any with families also as rich as his is
Has @Charles left due to doxxing? Not cool if so. Although he was one who would have been easier to identify if one was so inclined. But that's no excuse. I hope he returns.
A real shame to miss out on his knowledge and experiences, which are different to almost everyone on the site. Only JackW could compete for the length of family history The loss is to the detriment of the site for those who either concur or dissent from his views. His candour was always remarkable because of the ease of identifying him. Forcing anonymity by doxing or other threats encourages bullying and keyboard warrior behaviour. When your identity is known you need far more balls, honesty and conviction than the regiments of internet personnas we see every day. I for one will miss @charles, as well as other departed posters.
I miss Charles too. A very nice man. Perhaps he could be invited to the March get together.
On a point of order there are others on here with even longer and quite as illustrious family histories, though perhaps not talked about as much.
Point of order noted. I suspect most of us have equally long familly histories. Some are better researched, known and documented. How far back can you trace yours?
15th century. Of course there are so many branches and not all have been researched. But most of the main ones have been.
Some of the Irish records get a bit ropey and I have dear @Charles's family to thank for that!
I do have some land deeds for the family farm from the 1780's ie before the Act of Union and I would love a professional archivist or historian to have a look at them. Apart from anything else Irish land law is quite interesting.
I do realise that that last sentence sounds like the saddest nerdiest thing that anyone could ever write.
So perhaps I should stop now ....
You can google Charles' family's net worth very easily and it is comfortably 9 figures
I have a cousin worth that. Not bad for someone who hasn't inherited a penny.
Self made though, not inherited and I assume they don't post on PB so he was still most likely the richest poster
Why are you in awe of people who inherit wealth? They are not special. I'm rather proud of the fact that I did alright and didn't.
Fair enough, though Charles went to Eton and Oxford and has his own career in financial services so it is not as if he just relied solely on family wealth
He went to Eton and oxon and fs 'career' solely because of his family!
No he didn’t.
But that’s because he was at Eton, *Cambridge* and fs career because of his family.
It's fairly despicable that the Queen is supporting the elevation of Camilla to a future Queen. Puts me off the whole royal family that they are legitimizing the hell Diana was put through. Its her first major mistake since the Diana years. Maybe we are better off as a republic after all.
she'll be married to a king, what else you gonna call her but queen?
Well Philip wasn’t called a king was he? Equality and all that please.
Comments
I know it didn't end up that way, but May was polling 20+% leads back in 2017. Starmer wants a clear 10% lead now to have a chance of pulling this off.
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/04/21/the-palace-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-regency/
LOL. That's just Truss and Sunak.
What about the other eighteen?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2014/06/10/Camilla-can-become-Queen
Diana was of course Prince William's mother, so if he is happy with his stepmother having the title, so should we be
Less than 10% leads and certain hung parliament territory means Boris likely survives
So I don't think a regency affects things one way or another. A core group of ribbon cutters would remain, and they can already fill in on all occasions bar, I assume, signature of Acts of Parliament.
Morocco has a constitutional monarchy too, but Mohammed VI is far more a political player, and not really directly comparable to our constitutional monarchy.
Two months ago Labour were 7 points behind. They will be again when the new PM enjoys their honeymoon. Then the economy bites hard. We can already see 40% plus voters are now prepared to give Starmer a whirl. He and Labour do not frighten the punters like Corbyn.
If the economy bobs along nicely, the Conservatives win. It it doesn't it's anyone's game.
@DamianSurvation
Survation have not conducted “hypothetical leader” private polling for the Labour Party as reported in The Times today. We also don’t view simple “leader name switching voting intention” to be of much predictive value."
That can't possibly be said for Charles and Camilla. They were flagrantly pissing over the vows each of them took. In the case of one set of vows, the very next week after committing before the nation. It is bad enough we have to suffer Charles but it can be grudgingly accepted as a necessity of monarchy. But for the monarchy to actively legitimize and even reward Camilla for cheating on her husband is a bridge too far.
And oh, the "unhappy marriage" you speak of was a week old to a bridge who was besotted with her husband. It's as flimsy an excuse as Boris Johnson would provide.
Just shows what a crock of hypocrisy types like you are.
Spent the morning on the doorstep in #Erdington today campaigning for
@davenellist, who is the @TUSCoalition candidate and a genuine socialist.
Dave is exactly the sort of MP we need in parliament to shake up the cosy neoliberal consensus between the Tories and
@UKLabour
.
===
Not even on BF's list.
I expect the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope to live saintly lives, however I do not expect our monarchs or PMs to, it is helpful that they do, as say the Queen or Theresa May did but not a pre requisite
The monarch is only Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The Democrats controlled the US House of Representatives continuously between 1955 and 1995.
But that’s because he was at Eton, *Cambridge* and fs career because of his family.