Posted on 09/18/2025 3:42:29 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
A new poll will make grim reading for Keir Starmer, with Labour's popularity seemingly tumbling even further. Find Out Now's Voting Intention tracker surveys the public on who they would vote for if an election were called tomorrow. Their latest polling, conducted on September 17 and 18, shows the governing party on its lowest ever share of the vote (16%).
It represents a drop of -3 since September 10, according to the firm. Little more than a year after Sir Keir's landslide victory, Labour is now level with the Tories, who also got just 16%.
But it's good news for Reform UK, who remain at 34%, and appear to be cementing their position as the main opposition to the current Labour Government.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems were found to be on 13%, representing an uptick of +1 on last week, and the Greens still on 12%.
However, the firm notes that "small week-on-week changes in results may be caused more by random sampling variation, rather than reflect genuine shifts in public opinion".
(Excerpt) Read more at express.co.uk ...
Good!
Maybe the people don’t like having their country flooded with muslims, and the government does nothing to deport them.
Remember, folks. Labour has a huge majority in Parliament. So there will probably be no national election in the UK before there must be one. And that would be in August of 2029.
That gives Labour plenty of time to enroll new Muslim voters, and cause all sorts of additional havoc.
I did a bit of research on this. It’s confusing, and I might be wrong. But evidently the law changed in 2022, and the monarch can now once again dissolve Parliament and call for a new election.
Will Charles do it? I doubt that very much. He’s too busy playing grab-ass with Camilla to worry about the destruction of his country.
What will the muslims do when there are no more taxpayers left to leech off of ?
Charles III has an inherent power to dissolve Parliament and call an election, and statutory power under a 2022 law. It would come with some political cost, but if he has the gumption, he could pull it off.
King cuck does not have the stones to dissolve parliament no chance
Once upon a time ago.
“What will the muslims do when there are no more taxpayers left to leech off of ?”
Move to Michigan, Illinois, CA, and other corrupt states?
Now the delay becomes setting extreme budgetary shortfall traps in the Exchequer, the NIH, you get the idea, for the day Farage moves into 10 Downing.
The King begged Trump, "Go easy on us, mate." given Farage is buttressed by the same conservatives who helped TrumpII overachieve. Gosh, including me.
The King must follow the advice of his ministers. Since there is a government with a firm majority in the House of Commons, the government will not be advising the King to dissolve Parliament.
In other words, that not how this works…
If he did, do you think Parliament would obey its own law?
When was the last time a British monarch was permitted to make a consequential decision contrary to Parliament?
> The King must follow the advice of his ministers. <
You’re right about that. But I’m no expert. Is that a law or tradition?
Charles is weak, a nothing. But let’s say Charles issues a proclamation dissolving Parliament, and he calls for a new election.
What would happen? I suppose Parliament would ignore the King, and carry on destroying the country. And then Charles would be humiliated.
But it would make for a good novel. The UK is going to hell. So the King dissolves Parliament. Parliament refuses. So the King calls out the army, and dissolves Parliament the hard way.
Good reading that would be.
📖
Unwritten tradition, which in the Westminster system is ironclad constitutional law dating to the 18th century.
The King MUST appoint as Prime Minster the individual who can command a majority of the House of Commons. Until this Parliament expires, that is the leader of the Labour Party.
The King MUST, in his official duties, act on the advice of that Prime Minister and government.
> When was the last time a British monarch was permitted to make a consequential decision contrary to Parliament? <
I actually looked that up. It was in the early 1700s.
So then the question must be asked. If the monarch has zero effect on the course of British history, then what good is an expensive monarch?
It might be better to replace him with a cheaper ceremonial head of state. Germany has one like that, the Federal President of Germany.
(And yeah, I know. My rabid anti-royalist stance is showing.)
Sadly... They could drop to 0% in the polls and it will have no effect on the Labour Party’s control of the UK... They’ll be running the show there until 2029.
That photo looks like it was taken from a gay magazine cover.
You don’t have to guess where they have the other hand. /spit
I am very glad to read this in the evening. Had I read your comment in the AM over my first cup of coffee, I would be cleaning much and quickly.
It came from Sky News, but looks like it could've been Guy News.....
The British monarchs provide valuable services in:
* Public relations.
* Foreign Diplomacy.
* Tourism.
* Tradition.
If the monarchy was abolished, some of their duties (and funding) would be shifted to other branches of government.
It might be cheaper, but there might also be less tourist money coming in, so maybe not. Either way, the British public believes that doing those duties "+ tradition" is worth the additional cost.
The U.S. also "wastes" money on tradition that doesn't bring financial returns. Such as by maintaining historical sites or ceremonies.
Tradition has its own value that can't be calculated in financial terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.