Winter is coming - looks like a frost tonight and talking of a bleak outlook -
Opinium have the Cons on 28% for the third straight poll. Opinium tend to avoid the lurches shown in other polls and their methodology directly seeks out the 'shy Tory'. So thats about as good as the Cons are likely to be.
Lab are 45 (-1) but Lab/LD/Green are 58 (+2). Again the methodology deflates any 'Lab' bubble but in those circumstances a Lab lead of 17% with serious potential for anti-Con tactical voting looks bleak indeed for Con Central Office.
Is this the end of the Sunak honeymoon? Maybe - or maybe 28% is the Sunak honeymoon.
The prospect of the end of Tory rule is the very antithesis of bleak.
As a sometime Tory voter, I sense we may well see something like 1997 again. Of course the entrance to Downing Street through hordes of Union Jack toting well wishers was artfully stage managed. But there was a genuine sense of change, revival and a new beginning. The nation seemed, for a while, more confident, happier in its skin, and Britpop was the epitome. You can argue that the economy was doing well, and that is less likely this time, but I still think there will be a sea change after the election.
We fear 1997, just as others get excited by it, because it was a deeply traumatic event for us Tories. I still fear it, viscerally, to this day.
Blair was untouchable and politics felt utterly futile whilst he was in office - you couldn't lay a finger on him. I thought we'd never win again. Depressing.
It's only now I appreciate that the times for him (1997-2007) were economically ideal and, also, he was very, very good at politics. Even then he did make mistakes - most of these were constitutional and those chickens did eventually come home to roost.
But, Starmer is no Blair and this isn't the 1990s so we won't get a 1997 result.
Poll leads going to his head. It is a change that couldn't be done without a manifesto promise or (joy of joys) a referendum.
I wonder what the threshold would be? Remainers tell us important constitutional changes need 60%.
Don’t need a referendum to abolish House of Lords.
And are you implying there’s currently any importance or added value to referendum promises after the antics of recent years?
It will almost certainly involve the disestablishment of the Church of England making it one of the biggest constitutional shake ups in centuries
I don't think so. Let us suppose that there were a revised HoL or a new chamber altogether with no bishops having the right to sit in it.
That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.
Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).
No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
The way he moves from rebellious insecure teen, to shock, to pain and inferiority, to embracing the pain and realizing his power, is incredible. He was perfect to play the loner introverted, yet incredibly powerful, Paul.
I've basically given up at this point. My rent is going up 20% (east London box room), my employer is telling me I'll probably have my hours reduced, after rent/tax/bills/food/travel I'm left with ~£6 a day of disposable income. Assuming I have no social life and save all of that, I'd have enough for a deposit in about a century. I am completely demoralised and tempted to just give up, get signed off with depression and live off benefits.
I wrote this morning that even as a leftie I am very uncomfortable with the thumping tax burden being imposed on middle income people.
Whilst, of course, many international companies, energy firms, and non doms continue to get away scot free.
I hope you can find a solution. Some people might try to live abroad?
Re tax burden a poll gives support for the increase in tax for those on £125,000 by 50%/13%
You are wrong about energy firms where the windfall tax, which has also been extended to electricity generators, has been extended by two years to 2028 raising 14 billion next year
Of course they do: most people don't pay it and it's a salary many can only dream of.
But, be careful: with inflation running at 10-15%, and fiscal drag, lots of people in their careers will end up paying this at some point. And the effective marginal rate is 62% - which is obscene and socialist.
None of us are going to be any better off if all the talent and this tax base deserts us.
One of my direct reports is switching down to 4 days per week after she comes back from maternity leave in May to avoid the £100k cliff edge. She doesn't want to but she's worked out she only keeps 30p in the pound because she won't get the tax free childcare for both of her kids (leaving her £4k per year out of pocket). I'm sure you've made the same calculation as well. With thresholds not rising with inflation this is going to become a bigger and bigger issue for higher skilled jobs, we're going to end up with a class of professional that works a 4 day week and earns £100k and not a penny over.
The government, yet again, had a chance to fix this by getting rid of allowance and tax free childcare withdrawal at £100k by just bringing down the 45p rate to £100k. A huge missed opportunity.
This government is useless.
Cameron had a good reform programme coming in but that petered out in 2012-2013 and the Tories haven't had a clue what to do since, except Brexit.
It beggars belief it hasn't been sorted.
I think since the introduction of the national living wage the government has basically done nothing domestically that has rated outside of Brexit, even that's internationally focussed. The Boris government was the most disappointing, a huge mandate and they just sat on their hands and blamed COVID for everything then proceeded to make terrible decisions and foist them on MPs while also doing nothing to improve economic conditions.
I fear that neither party has got answers on how to do it and I also fear that the British public is now endemically anti-success or too selfish to see beyond their own benefits. Recently I was accused by someone that by suggesting we remove the allowance withdrawal I didn't care about poor people. I just have no time for that kind of childish discussion but I'm pretty sure that's what the government fears if they do it, that some idiots will say that by cutting taxes for high earners they don't care about the poor so they just won't bother an they'll let that brownism exist until the end of time.
Not sure what you expected with Sunak. This was flashing in neon letters.
Labour leads by 17 points over the Conservatives, compared to 18 points last week.
Con 28% (nc) Lab 45% (-1) Lib Dems 9% (+1) Green 4% (+2)
Opinium shrugs
That’s a good solid poll for the Conservatives.
Are you being ironic? I laughed when I read your post and then it occurred to me you might be being serious. In these oddball times it isn't easy to tell
Comments
Blair was untouchable and politics felt utterly futile whilst he was in office - you couldn't lay a finger on him. I thought we'd never win again. Depressing.
It's only now I appreciate that the times for him (1997-2007) were economically ideal and, also, he was very, very good at politics. Even then he did make mistakes - most of these were constitutional and those chickens did eventually come home to roost.
But, Starmer is no Blair and this isn't the 1990s so we won't get a 1997 result.
We'll get a 2025 result, whatever that is.
That on its own would not disestablish the CoE, it would merely change a part of the state/ecclesiastical settlement. To disestablish would require primary legislation, which would also touch upn the constitutional settlement between parliament and crown.
Personally I am an antidisestablishmentarian, and I think the case is fairly decent intellectually; but the really profound case for the establishment is that it would be an immense upheaval, dig up huge numbers of sleeping dogs and buried bodies and fundamentally alter the meaning of the monarchy (in my eyes it would cease to exist really).
No government will ever be prepared for the effort, when most people simply don't care either way.
bought a bookshop in Basingstoke.
On a personal basis, I'd like the fact that I wear a crown to work to mean something other than a corporate logo
How can a private company make a postcard from John O'Groats to Lands' End cost the same as one from 10 to 11 Downing St?
Or Fly Fishing by J R Hartley?