Talk:Leap2020

This article seems to have been written by a member of the Leap2020 staff (the use of '<< >>' gives it away). I thought articles on Wikipedia have to be written by an independent person not involved with the organisation being discussed? Interesting....

I agree : this article doesn't seem very balanced. Last time I stumble upon some of LEAP's work, they were announcing the end of the world for the next 6 months. We're still waiting, it was a few years ago. This article should be handle with care until some more work is put on it. 130.223.75.54 (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly this article is unbalanced and improperly unreferenced. For example, the Manual of Political Anticipation, which is supposed to underpin their objectivity is a link to the editor of the Manual of Political Anticipation. McKidd (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems now that their staff have removed the use of '<< >>' in this wikipedia article. Interesting again..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.134.254 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Biased Reporting
Anyone who has been reading Leap’s reports for a while and bothers to do their own research would surely come to the conclusion that the reports, and the people who write them, are decidedly pro-euroland and are highly selective in their choice of material in order to bolster their case.

Here are a few examples.

There was the belief that Hollande would easily win the French presidency and that as a result, much would be done by him to rectify Frances' problems. But then, he just scraped in and in his first year in office achieved almost nothing except for things like his facetious remark about the euro crisis being over. But Leap had no reporting on this nor on the problems faced by France such as high labour costs. There was virtually no coverage in Leap’s reports or the website press clippings about the Cyprus 'problem' nor its solution and the far-reaching (negative) effects it may well have.

There’s been total neglect of the rise in euroscepticism and the related rise in formerly minor political parties in, for example, Spain. Something that may well alter the political landscape of Europe and the threaten the single currency, since the nationalist parties are opposed to further eurozone integration.

The growing antagonism in Euroland to the ECB’s ‘solutions’, which have resulted in huge and still growing unemployment, is also ignored. The IMF forecasts through 2018 for Spain in particular are not even covered though they predict a dire situation ahead. Likewise, Greece is likely to need a further bailout (bail-in?) since Trokia forecasts were so highly exaggerated.

Blame and dire forecasts are made for the US, Japan and the UK, while the EU formulas are touted as “reasoned austerity”! The Eurozone is supposedly strengthening its governance, which directly conflicts with reports that further integration is unlikely.

We read that the ECB is a “good steward of the crisis”. By what measure, one wonders. The OMT programme is little more than a method of bailing out speculators. And there’s been no coverage at all of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court which is looking at the legality of OMTs. 48% of Germans side with the 37,000 plaintiffs, believing that the Court should stop the ECB’s whatever-it-takes-to-save-the-euro approach; only 31% believe that the plaintiffs are wrong. The fact that the ECB lied when it said that the OMT purchases were 'unlimited' (a statement now retracted) was never considered.

The fact that all these issues are ignored or glossed over by Leap leads to only one conclusion. Totally biased reporting.

At the end of each monthly report is the result of a survey which has 16 questions. There are two relating to social unrest: one asks about social unrest in the UK; the other about social unrest in "your country". Since there are no questions about social unrest in Spain or Italy or any other country, apart from the UK, the bias, against the UK, is quite obvious. It is also noteworthy that information as to who the survey respondents are and where they are located is not only not provided, but was refused to be provided; one must wonder what they are hiding.

Tony (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)