@TSE - Nice try by the Mirror, which somehow is less excited by the rise in approval for Cameron, Clegg, and especially Farage..
Also, buried at the end of article:
Voters’ intentions were largely unchanged from 10 days ago, with Labour two points clear of the Tories by 33% to 31%.
UKIP were up one point to 18%, and the Greens were down one point to 3%.
The Lib Dems were unchanged on 9%.
Looking at it Cameron, Miliband, and Farage have now the same approval ratings. So Ed is no longer crap according to the voters, but hasn't shifted many votes.
I would remind everyone the Coalition Economic record is decidedly pitiful over the last 5 years based on mathematical analysis.
In 1996, in last recession under John Major Conservative government the unemployment rate was 8.5%. When the Labour government came into government in 1997 it was 7.5%.
During the height of Credit Crunch, under Gordon Brown leadership is only reached 8%. Therefore, the Credit Crunch can be viewed as typical UK recession, in terms of employment. The length recession can viewed, on the objective facts and empirical evidence as prolonged recovery caused by the foolish Austerity Program of cuts to governmental expenditures, which delayed the recovery, until George Osborne pursued policy options akin to a return to a Credit Expansionary Bubble in assets, primarily focused on property assets.
Over the last 5 years, the Trade Union negotiated pay cuts to salaries, below the rate of RPI (inflation) of about 6%. These pay cuts allowed more people to be employed, simply by the variables of businesses hiring more stuff at the same expenditure on salaries as they did at the height of recession in 2008.
As an example, 29.4 million people are in employment, whose wages are lowered by 6.% via deflation of salaries compared to Retail Price Index (inflation). This allows more people to be employed, this allows business or the government to employ an extra 1.764 million people for the same total expenditure on salaries as the did in compared to 2008 or 2010. This largely explains why the tax income today is remaining as bad as it is in most recessions during the post war era.
1,764,000 divide by 5 (years) divided by 365 (days) equals 966 jobs created each day over the Coalition governments term in public office. Everyone is poorer, and it pays considerably less to be employment then when the Labour Party was in government.
Any idiot can cut wages and hire extra staff, but this is not why people elect political parties to govern a country - they elect a government to be paid more wages from their current employment. This is not governance, it meaningless governance, which delivers nothing (a bit like diet drinks, zero calories, yet has the aesthetic aspects of being nice to taste), it massive con-job on the UK electorate.
On that basis the Spanish economy is the most successful in Europe, as it - among larger countries - has seen the greatest increase in employment over the last 15 years.
I defy you to turn up in Andalusia and trumpet the triumph of the Spanish economy.
London hospitals write off up to 96% of foreign debt.
How generous of them. If the staff had to pick up the bill rather than the abstract taxpayer, I'd guess their oh so caring open handedness would radically and rapidly change.
Probably it would. However, what would be the cost of collection, even if it were possible to get the money from the estates of dead foreign patients? This policy will have increased the costs to hospitals. It might be cheaper to go back to treating everyone for free, or to have a central body for cost recovery rather than doing it at the local hospital or trust level, or simply to require everyone entering the country to have some sort of insurance. That's without considering bilateral agreements or (say) Commonwealth-wide ones. The possibilities are endless, but clearly the current system, with all due respect to the back of a fag packet it was drafted on, is not working.
Survation. @Survation 2m2 minutes ago NEW: Survation/@DailyMirror (chg vs 25/03) LAB 33% (NC); CON 31% (NC); UKIP 18% (+1); LD 9% (NC); SNP 5% (NC); GRE 3% (-1); AP 1% (NC)
EICIPM
Interesting and flies in the face of the two party squeeze that seems to be trending in the polls. Was it panelbase that still had Ukip around 18%? Their figures are all over the place.
The red team had better start talking up leadership ratings again...
In all seriousness, it'll be interesting to see if Ed's improved leadership ratings can give Labour a poll boost (if they do the Tories are screwed), or if it's a case of those who thought he was a raving lunatic blancmange realising that he's actually a normal intelligent human being, even if they still disagree with him and don't want him as PM.
I bet there will be a few nervous people in CCHQ watching the challengers debate, firing out tweets. The worry being that even if the others go for him as the 'head challenger', that's treating him rather like a Prime Minister.
Comments
So Ed is no longer crap according to the voters, but hasn't shifted many votes.
NEW: Survation/@DailyMirror (chg vs 25/03) LAB 33% (NC); CON 31% (NC); UKIP 18% (+1); LD 9% (NC); SNP 5% (NC); GRE 3% (-1); AP 1% (NC)
EICIPM
I defy you to turn up in Andalusia and trumpet the triumph of the Spanish economy.
Any other polls expected tonight?
In all seriousness, it'll be interesting to see if Ed's improved leadership ratings can give Labour a poll boost (if they do the Tories are screwed), or if it's a case of those who thought he was a raving lunatic blancmange realising that he's actually a normal intelligent human being, even if they still disagree with him and don't want him as PM.
I bet there will be a few nervous people in CCHQ watching the challengers debate, firing out tweets. The worry being that even if the others go for him as the 'head challenger', that's treating him rather like a Prime Minister.