snowychap Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 So, they're expecting a 0.6% increase in GDP for the second quarter and that is sufficient (on top of the 0.3% in the first quarter) to regard it as a return to sustained growth?Is that a return to the sustained growth of 2010, George? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 The US and German economies have recovered to their pre-crisis levels. France is also near that point I believe Interesting that we havent recovered as well as those 3 mentioned Did they all adopt the same method ... I.e austerity cuts ? Or did they try and spend their way out of it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I guess the difference is that their cuts were made by somebody with a clue about economics. Osborne's plans are and always have been, a shambles which is why they do not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Yawn Care to answer the question though ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 If it makes you feel better, yes, they did make some cuts. Apparently the right ones. Not cuts in terms of Tax for the cabinet and their millionaire friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Ok ... it's just I could have sworn Balls was proposing that we spend our way out of our troubles and that the Government approach was wrong .... and yet it doesn't appear that any of the countries coming out the other side spent their way out ??? Now as the economy is most likely going to be the key issue at the next General Election ... I know he has u-turned on his initial plan but where does that leave Balls ? Of course the economy has a long way to go , and growth isn't where it was in 2010 .. but I don't think the labour landslide everyone was expecting in 2015 is a foregone conclusion just yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Maybe not a landslide but a good majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 The party I've banged a drum for are doing really really really shit, but the other lot are shit too! So there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Are you with the Green party or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 The party I've banged a drum for are doing really really really shit, but the other lot are shit too! So there! They're all shit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Are you with the Green party or something? I do like the greens as a matter of fact! When I'm not pretending to be a Tory tit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Maybe not a landslide but a good majority I should imagine that Ed Balls is really looking forward to completing the job that his boss started. "No more boom, only bust, and bust again" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Labour will not win with a majority. They're useless. Tories are toxic. Lib Dems are impotent. Democracy <3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 The right wing media, including the BBC! are a lot to blame for the utter mess we're in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 The right wing media, including the BBC! are a lot to blame for the utter mess we're in. Continuing voter apathy doesn't help. As a nation we might put some of that moaning energy into researching who you might vote for. Not all the independents are racists or fruitcakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 No... Just the majority of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 The right wing media, including the BBC! are a lot to blame for the utter mess we're in. Continuing voter apathy doesn't help. I presumed the vast majority of people that do vote , vote along partisan lines regardless .... I mean they would never admit it but Ajax , Drat and the other lunatics etc know that Brown was a disaster , but they still wouldn't change their vote in a bid to see him out of office ... now , arguably that is because they are voting for their local MP rather than the PM of course ... but do people really vote on local issues at a GE ? And there are the "we are so clever" student types who of course try and arrange some tactical voting , and then forget to get out of bed in time to go and vote .... but really the main 2 parties can pretty much guarantee x amount of support no matter what maybe it's the non voters (and the swing ) that need to be shaken up from the Apathy ... maybe it's the partisan voters that need to be sent away to re-education camps but yeah , I doubt much will ever change ... we are still left with different shades of Blue at present and the foreseeable future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Apathy suits the parties, because, as tony said, they can guarantee a certain amount of support no matter what, and a small percentage of the electorate will fluctuate between the two, so parties put their money into winning over that crowd and that will do. I can see people being encouraged to vote in huge numbers if something genuinely new came along, for better or worse, but the current system prevents a new party from making that breakthrough - just look at UKIP, they bang on about their support but they haven't even got an MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Apathy suits the parties, because, as tony said, they can guarantee a certain amount of support no matter what, and a small percentage of the electorate will fluctuate between the two, so parties put their money into winning over that crowd and that will do. I can see people being encouraged to vote in huge numbers if something genuinely new came along, for better or worse, but the current system prevents a new party from making that breakthrough - just look at UKIP, they bang on about their support but they haven't even got an MP. They do target floating voters (though not at the expense of losing the core vote, which would be counterproductive, as both Lab and Con have found out), but it's more targetted than that. They target floaters in a small number of marginals. Beyond that, the calculation will go something like this (taking a council ward, marginal between two parties, as an example). Electorate = (say) 9,000. Assume 33% turnout, 3,000 people. Assume minor parties get 20% of the vote, so 2,400 votes are divided between the two main parties. Winning candidate needs 1201 votes. Of that 1201, a certain number can be relied on as loyal voters. Electoral activity becomes focussed on two things: getting previous supporters to turn out to vote (increasingly this is done by first securing postal votes, then phoning known supporters to emphasise how crucial it is they come out and vote), and to a lesser extent, persuading floating voters to support you this time round, usually through high-profile media coverage of trigger issues which research has shown might make a difference. If you're a non-voter, or don't live in a marginal, you make no difference, and effort will not be expended on trying to find out your concerns and address them. Of course this further distances people from the political process, and pushes levels of turnout down still further...which of course means you need fewer votes to win those seats... Electoral strategy takes place seat by seat, ward by ward. This is why Michael Ashcroft has put a lot of money into polling and targetting a small number of areas where spending a lot on seeking tory votes will be most effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) This is why Michael Ashcroft has put a lot of money into polling and targetting a small number of areas if only there was something in it for him those polls are interesting reading though PS only one t in targeting Edited July 26, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts