Tory Wipeout — such was the headline in London this week from The Daily Telegraph, a staunchly conservative newspaper published by the British establishment for the British establishment.
Here was a paper whose business model is built on a Tory readership declaring, in effect, the demolition of the Tories as a political force in the UK, at least for the foreseeable future.
On current indications, a political tsunami is coming towards the UK and it will be devastating for the conservative side of politics here.
In their own contrarian way, Britons are set to move to the left while much of Europe is veering to the right.
Analysing its new opinion poll, The Daily Telegraph reported that the latest polling suggested that three quarters of the current British cabinet are set to lose their seats, including the prime minister and his chancellor.
This would leave the Conservatives with 53 seats in the House of Commons, compared with Labour's 516 seats, and remove several of the next generation of possible Tory leaders. These numbers would give Labour double the majority won by Tony Blair in 1997 in what was seen as the dawn of the era of New Labour.
Meanwhile, the front page of another conservative bastion, The Times, declared the Tories "set to suffer worst poll defeat for 100 years".
Like The Daily Telegraph, The Times is a newspaper by the Tories for the Tories. It predicted that: "Labour is on track to win the biggest majority of any party in a century, with the Conservatives haemorrhaging support to the Liberal Democrats and Reform, the latter led by Nigel Farage who helped lead Britain out of the European Union when he led the UK Independence Party."
The Evening Standard – the free newspaper for commuters — predicted a "massacre" of the Conservatives in London. The Daily Mail, one of the Tories' few remaining supporters, reported this week that "three major polls warn of wipeout for the Tories".
Opinion polls, of course, can be wrong. And of course it's possible that the Tories will win the July 4 election.
But given the British media scene is one of the fiercest in the Western world, even they appear to have accepted that the Labour Party is on the brink of taking office.
In uncertain times, a lack of charisma can become an advantage
Very few things today are certain, particularly in the swirling domain of politics where populations around the world are angry, for varying reasons.
The fact that such large numbers of Britons seem comfortable with Labour would have been unthinkable under the party's previous leader Jeremy Corbyn, a 1970s-style left-wing firebrand who worried suburban Britain.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer does not scare the horses. Often criticised for lacking charisma, in a turbulent world where fortunes can swing wildly during a 24-hour news cycle, lack of charisma can now prove a political advantage.
In these current troubled times it seems people may be preferring stability over charisma.
As people around the world face a cost-of-living crisis in an increasingly unpredictable world, blandness and reliability trump charisma. Starmer has achieved exactly what he set out to be — someone who rarely says anything controversial but appears steady and considered.
His legal training and time as a barrister undoubtedly has proved useful. This is, after all, a man who in 2008 was appointed chief prosecutor and head of the UK's Crown Prosecution Service – for five years he was the final arbiter as to whether a prosecution should be brought or not.
This week, apart from the Tory Wipeout dagger that The Daily Telegraph wielded, it also carried a front-page story singing the praises of Labour's national security credentials and damning those of the Conservatives.
Security, intelligence and defence have long been seen as the stronghold of the Conservatives, while Labour, as in Australia, has been identified with education, social security and health care.
And so Conservative strategists would have despaired when they saw one of "their" newspapers running a headline: Labour security plans backed by former chief.
The GCHQ is the UK's intelligence, security and cyber agency and, as it proclaims in clear language on its website, "our mission is to help keep the country safe".
It's the equivalent of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Signals Directorate.
Not only did former GCHQ director Sir David Omand back Labour's security plans, but he accused the Conservatives of putting the effectiveness of Britain's nuclear deterrent at risk.
There could be few more serious charges than accusing a government of putting at risk the country's nuclear deterrent.
Sir David said the Conservatives were guilty of avoiding "tough decisions" on defence during 14 years in power and The Telegraph pointed out that only last month Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had claimed Britain would be less safe under Sir Keir.
So here was a well-respected former keeper of the security secrets accusing the incumbents of putting Britain's nuclear deterrent at risk — and all displayed on the front page of The Telegraph.
The intervention by the former security chief highlights the mountain the Conservatives are trying to climb as they seek re-election.
LoadingA Tory loss would bring an end to 14 years of Conservative government
A conservative victory would be a stunning political achievement. Fourteen years in office brings 14 years of baggage. Those 14 years have seen five different Tory prime ministers, and many scandals.
Swinging voters are likely to look back over those years and think of the worst. There have been many low episodes in the Tories' revolving door of leaders — the prime ministership of Liz Truss, lasting 44 days, perhaps among the worst.
British tabloid The Daily Star made clear its doubts about Truss's durability when it began a livestream of an iceberg lettuce to see who would last longer. The lettuce won, and still looked vaguely edible.
The lettuce livestream was not exciting television, but The Daily Star's editors were tapping into a mood among the British public. The revolving door had become so farcical that it was verging on national pantomime.
To an extent, Sunak ended that circus – bringing relative stability — but stabilising a sinking ship is not the same as saving it.
Throughout the Tory soap-opera stood Sir Keir Starmer — dour, serious and uncharismatic. Just what the electorate ordered.
Britons, it would seem, have had their fill of prime minister-as-vaudeville actor. Boris Johnson gave them more than enough of that. He was the wild man of British politics, always quick with a one-liner and a stunt, whether hurtling down a flying fox or crash-tackling a child in a rugby game.
But then he successfully convinced Britons to vote for Brexit — arguably the worst act of self-inflicted harm committed by any democracy.
The country left the largest trading bloc in human history, in which they had been able to trade their goods and services freely, quickly and without any barriers.
Many countries would long for those sorts of markets and opportunities. But not Britain after Johnson and Nigel Farage had convinced them it would be a good thing to exit.
A study by Cambridge Econometrics earlier this year estimated that the UK economy will be 311 billion pounds worse off by 2035 — with the average Londoner already 3,400 pounds worse.
Investment bank Goldman Sachs estimated in a report in February, that the UK economy had grown 5 per cent less than comparable economies, as a result of Brexit.
Some might think that delivering such economic misery might spell the end of someone's political career. But not Nigel Farage.
Farage is banking on anti-immigrant sentiment to deliver votes
The key appeal for many who voted for Brexit was the argument by Farage that the UK had lost control of its immigration. Just as trade had been relatively easy around Europe, so had migration.
While the UK economy is struggling under the weight of losing the benefits of easy trade around Europe, Farage has returned to British politics pushing the immigration issue. He says he wants this to be "the immigration election".
He clearly still has a constituency – his pitch against immigration has greater cut-through with many voters than the damage Brexit has caused to standards of living.
The emergence of Farage further endangers the Tories — according to some political analysts, Farage's Reform UK threatens four or five Conservative seats.
Farage is proving, as he did over Brexit, a divisive figure. This time he has both the Tories and Labour gunning for him. Both sides are attacking him over comments he made in a BBC interview this week that NATO and the European Union had "provoked" Russian president Vladimir Putin to attack Ukraine.
"He's a pub bore," responded former defence minister Ben Wallace, trying to dismiss what both Labour and the Conservatives claim are opinions that reflect the arguments of Putin.
In the media there are still some Farage loyalists. Rupert Murdoch's The Sun gave a major spread this week over two pages to the headline Nigel: I'll stop boats in 100 days.
Farage shows the potency of the immigration issue in many countries. Despite the obvious economic pain suffered by Britain from leaving the European Union, Farage is still able to leverage the immigration into a possible victory for himself in the House of Commons seat of Clacton.
Playing with a poor set of cards brought upon by a long period of incumbency, Rishi Sunak's strongest card is that he's slayed the inflation dragon.
When inflation was 11 per cent, Sunak committed to halve it. It's just reached 2 per cent.
This is a case of a politician vastly exceeding a commitment to the electorate.
But such are British politics today that Sunak may not be given much credit for this.
The "it's time" factor is almost overwhelming. The Starmer Express is gathering speed, and at this stage it looks unstoppable.
The split Farage is causing on the right was evidenced in a column by Charles Moore in the conservative magazine, The Spectator:
"Mr Farage has well articulated conservative dissent for many years. But what does he add now? The bandwagon has been rolling without his help for quite a long time. His late entry (to pursue a House of Commons seat) feels like a rush to jump on to it. At a general election, voters work out what government they want. Mr Farage's gift is throwing a spanner in the works. Lots of people can do that. What is really missing is someone to steer the careering vehicle."
Just as The Spectator echoes disillusionment from the right about the state of Britain, The New Statesman reflects the fear on the left that even if Labour wins, it will be a conservative Labour government that will not address the country's many problems.
The New Statesman listed what it saw as the country's woes: frozen pay packets, soaring house prices, queues for food banks, dying high streets, the persecution of sub-postmasters, the endless Brexit frenzy, queues at Dover, profiteers, cancelled trains, crumbling school ceilings, polluted rivers, a broken social care system and broken criminal justice system.
"Keir Starmer continually affirms that after '14 years of conservative chaos' there must be no going back. But there are still rival nightmares holding Labour back from promising to tax or borrow enough to transform public services at speed. The fear, even now, of sounding like the party of 'I'm afraid there is no money," Phil Tinline wrote.
But those are the problems a Labour government would inherit.
For now, though, there's still an election to be won. And while Labour has the Conservatives on the run, the immediate challenge for the Tories as they try to save the furniture is others on the right – Farage in particular.
That battle is becoming dirtier by the day.
The Brexiteers are eating their own as Labour strategists are already dreaming of life behind Number 10, one of the most famous doors in the world.