That's not really true. Centre-right parties on the continent have leaned into the policies and rhetoric of the populist far right .This hasn't staunched the loss of votes from the centre right, but instead given credibility to far right populist policies.

The EU can't be that split given Germany couldn't get support from enough other states to block implementation of the policy. There's another month to continue negotiations with China, and some observers still seem to think a deal with China is possible.

Incidentally whatever the markets consider the govt has in headroom for borrowing won't be changed by changing the definition of debt. Market makers aren't stupid. They know the household budget analogy is bonkers.

It will be perceived as conjuring up money by voters who believe the household budget analogy whose use you continue to defend.

It now seems likely Reeves will change the definition of debt to free up potentially £50 Bn for investment. Having continually told the public there is a £22 Bn black hole in the govt finances, don't you think voters might now ask how the govt can conjer up £50 Bn from thin air?

You don't change perceptions by continually repeating the same misleading narrative. If you continually lie to people then it's hardly surprising they distrust you.

Only the contrary, there are lots of ISA millionaires who have been contributing to ISAs and their predecessor PEPs ever since they were first introduced. Contributing £20k a year is well within the means of those working in well paid professions, even GPs and headteachers.

It will be interesting to see whether Reeves changes the rules on houses owned by companies. Currently they pay Corporation Tax (25%) instead of CGT and it seems CT rates are unlikely to increase further. Presumably too that was the logic of reducing the CGT on second homes to 25%.

they may start ...

I think it will take another election defeat for the Tories to come to their senses, but by then may they start from an even lower base than now.