Heres my own bale string analysis with a bit of gaffer tape, every little helps it may not be pretty but it’s enthusiastic and well-meant. I suspect you chaps are on the money. The range of seats predicted by the polling extremes is 14 seat majority at the low end and 114 seats at the high end, the final vote, in my opinion, will break one way or the other on the day, depending on two things, Turnout as in 2017 will be key, is it the Brexit election and will disgruntled Brexit voters from 2016 turn out in force and Vote for “BRINO”, and secondly The don’t know’s, will they go for one side or the other or simply not bother? So my prediction is this, it will either be a Hung Parliament with Labour short by up to 30 or so seats or a Tory Majority in excess of 100 seats. And the telling factor will be whether or not the Norweigan Blue is in fact deceased.
Applying the same method again, the table below shows that both the 2018 and 2019 rounds of local elections point to a clear lead for the Conservatives in a subsequent general election. However, the forecast shares of the vote from both rounds do not suggest a big enough lead for the Conservatives to be sure of an overall majority. On the average of the two set of vote shares, coupled with a uniform change projection (also using last night’s YouGov MrP projected SNP and PC vote shares) points to a very narrow Conservative majority of 8.
Forecast share based on 2018 results
Forecast share based on 2019 results
Average forecast share
Standard Error of share forecast
The fact that a forecast based on local elections 7 and 19 months ago should be so close to last night’s YouGov MrP projection of Con 339, Lab 231, LD 15 is remarkable. There is just a difference of 10 seats for the Tories and none for Labour.
I am not sure she did. However, a free trade deal was always a possibility (and still is).
She did not want a free trade deal because she wanted to be in the single market and customs union, because she is a Remainer. What she tried to negotiate was access to the single market and customs union without membership. The end result is a deal to remain in the EU but with no say in EU policy. This is why Remainers are claiming (correctly) this is worse than Remain. It is a dog’s breakfast that will be rejected by parliament. I doubt the majority against will be much under 200. The more she advoca…
At the start of negotiations, the objective was a bespoke free trade agreement. Ideally it would be less tied into Europe than a Norway deal (the soft Brexit end of the spectrum) but giving more access than a Canada deal (the hard end of the spectrum).
Both Norway and Canada were on offer from the EU at that point.
Since then, the EU has developed the NI border issue to such an extent that neither deal is on the table any more. Even a soft Norway deal does not satisfy all their demands for NI.
May’s current deal is close to a Norway deal. It’s a clever, if tortuous, attempt to get round the EU’s NI border demands. Many people say it’s worse than the Norway deal for precisely that reason (because we may be legally tied into a backstop forever).
If May had gone for a Norway deal at the start, would it have gone through? Before the NI border issue became ‘weaponised’? I think the answer is ‘yes’.
The fault lies in most Brexiters (who would never have accepted a Norway deal at that time). But also the EU, for moving the goalposts to an impossible position.
Norway voted on entry to the European Union (EU) in 1974 and 1994, rejecting membership both times. Today a majority remains opposed to EU membership.
The relationship between NATO and the EU is a matter of major importance for Norway. Norway enjoys close collaboration with the EU in many fields including that of defence and security policy. Norway participates in the EU’s rapid response forces. The Norwegian frigate Fridtjof Nansen is taking part in the EU’s operation ATALANTA in the Gulf of Aden. Norway is closely associated with the European Defence Agency (EDA) which works for a more closely integrated market in Europe for defence materiel.
In the field of security policy the EU has become a more important actor than it has been in the past. The Lisbon Treaty, which came into force a month ago, is likely to strengthen this development. This is something in which Norway takes an active interest. It is now important that there should be in place effective arrangements for collaboration between NATO and the EU. Both operationally in order to avoid duplication in the development of military capabilities and financially in order to avoid the squandering of resources.
In the 1980s the EU underwent a process of vitalisation which resulted in among other things to the decision to establish an internal market. With the changes of regime in Eastern Europe and the re-unification of Germany in 1989-90, the integration process was given an extra push. The changed framework conditions inevitably led to fresh interest in the question of Norwegian participation in the European integration process.
In order to meet the challenge involved in the introduction of the internal market, Norway and the other EFTA members (except Switzerland) reached an agreement with the EU in 1992 on the establishment of the European Economic Area (EEA). Through this agreement a number of important principles enshrined in the EU treaty were made applicable to the EEA area in its entirety. This applied especially to the requirements concerning the internal market, i.e. the body of rules governing the free exchange of goods and the free movement of persons, capital and services. In November 1992 the Norwegian government decided to take another step forward. Once again the government applied for Norwegian membership of the EU: once again the Norwegian people said “no”. In a referendum held in November 1994, 52.2% of the votes cast were against Norwegian membership of the EU. After this Norway again fell back on the EEA agreement.
The EU’s gradual implementation of the economic and monetary union and the introduction of the euro in 1999 gave European integration a more binding character. The EU stands as a central European forum for cooperation and plans for a further expansion of the Union to include Central and Eastern Europe will further strengthen this development. At the same time Norway is becoming increasingly dependent on trade with the EU. Today, more than 75% of Norwegian exports go to the EU countries. The EFTA pillar within the EEA is, however, both shaky and fragile after EFTA shrunk in 1995 to embrace only three small countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. EFTA’s, and thereby Norway’s possibility of influencing EU developments is slight.
The EU members’ common foreign and security policy, (CFSP) and co-operation on legal and police matters is not covered by the terms of the EEA agreement. Norway’s potential to influence developments is therefore relatively limited. In connection with the Schengen co-operation Norway has admittedly negotiated an agreement. In other sectors Norway attempts to safeguard its interests through an ongoing exchange of information and presentation of its viewpoints and interests through various channels of contact with the EU. An active bilateral diplomacy towards the individual EU countries is also important this context.
– The security situation has deteriorated. That is why this Government has increased its defence budgets every single year since we took office, and we will continue to strengthen the defence in the years to come, says Minister of Defence Frank Bakke-Jensen.
The Government proposes to increase the defence budget by more than 2 billion Norwegian kroner. The defense budget for 2020 will thus amount to almost 61 billion Norwegian kroner. We are now entering the last year of the current long-term plan. With the government’s proposal, the goals in the long-term plan have been fulfilled.
The Norwegian Army’s share of the budget is about 6 billion Norwegian kroner. This includes funding for the introduction of the new short range air defence into service. More ammunition for training and exercises will be procured, and spare parts for the Army’s main battle tanks will be procured to maintain the operational capacity until new main battle tanks are acquired. The budget allows for the strengthening of the Finnmark Land Command with the continued establishment of a ranger company at the Garrison in Sør-Varanger and a new manoeuvre element at the Garrison in Porsanger. The Government will continue the high level of training and exercises in the Home Guard.
The Norwegian Navy’s share of the budget, including the Coast Guard, is about 5.7 billion Norwegian kroner. The main priorities for 2020 are increased manning for frigates and the Coast Guard and a continued high level of activity.
The Norwegian Air Force’s share of the budget, including the Rescue Helicopter Service, is about 6.9 billion Norwegian kroner. In 2020, introduction into service of the F-35 fighter aircraft and the new NH90 helicopters, and increased activity in air defence units will continue. In addition, preparation for the transition to and reception of new P-8 maritime patrol aircraft from 2022 will continue.
The Government proposes to allocate 105 million Norwegian kroner for temporary measures to reduce the negative effect on operations after the loss of the frigate KNM Helge Ingstad. This includes increased manning and number of days at sea for the logistics vessel KNM Maud and the procurement of lost spare parts.
– The investments produces results. The Chief of Defence reports an increase in activity and that the development is moving in the right direction, says Minister of Defence Frank Bakke-Jensen.
With the government’s defence budget proposal, including adjustments in reporting defence spending to NATO, the preliminary forecast on defence spending’s share of GDP is about 1.8 percent in 2020.
The Kingdom of Norway is not a member state of the European Union (EU). It is associated with the Union through its membership in agreements in the European Economic Area (EEA) established in 1994, and by virtue of being a founding member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) which was founded in 1960, one of the two historically dominant western European trade blocs. Norway had considered joining the European Community and the European Union twice, but opted to decline following referenda in 1972 and 1994.
Currently, parties supporting or opposing EU membership are to be found in both right-wing and left-wing coalitions: as a result, most governments contain pro- and anti-EU elements. To avoid further debates concerning EU membership, anti-EU parties usually require “suicide paragraphs” in government-coalition agreements, meaning that if some party in the coalition officially begins a new debate on EU, the government will fall. This has been true for both the previous centre-right Bondevik government and the centre-left Stoltenberg government. The following table shows the different parliamentary parties’ stance on EU-membership, sorted by their vote share in the latest parliamentary election (2017):
Norwegian political parties’ positions, Spring 2019
On average, Norwegian voters are strongly opposed to Norwegian membership in the European Union. Polling averaged over a 10-year period shows around 70% of Norwegians voters are opposed to full EU membership.
According to a 2010 poll, the majority of the voters of every Norwegian party were against EU membership.
How far people will have cottoned on to Borisś Oven Ready Turkey, not being BREXIT but a rather ragged old rubber chicken of a bad and corny joke BRINO, we will see. As there is not actually a Brexit on the Table from Boris, unless, it is to be believed, he has planned all along to go Full WTO in December 2020. I do not think Boris has the Balls to do that in Brexit Turkey terms he is, in fact, a Capon.In the event, it has turned out that for WTO Brexit there is no credible vote available that will make a “Full English Brexit” possible. The only real chance of something approaching Brexit is not Boris’s Caponed Turkey but actually, Chairman Corbyn’s Turkey Perched on a fence, the so-called “Credible option protecting Jobs and supply chain Brexit”. Not so much a Norweigan Blue as a Norweigan Turkey, I grant you, but it is the Norway option and actually whilst the Establishment might think the Tory WTO Blue is deceased and they can breathe a sigh of relief, Mr Corbyn might yet deliver a credible leave option on a Ballot if he is able to form a minority government or if the British electorate and the WASPI women take their courage in both hands and give him a Majority.
What Norway tells us about The Tories Claims to fealty over the Economy?
At Dyce near Aberdeen, Her Majesty the Queen presses the button that sends the first North Sea Oil flowing into the Grangemouth Refinery. It marks the fruition of years of research, technology, hard work and grim determination. From the Forties Field by under sea pipeline, a marvel itself in engineering, the oil comes ashore at Cruden Bay. It travels then by underground pipes to the BP Refinery at Grangemouth. To the people of Aberdeen oil has already meant a change in their life style, could it also be the turning point in Britain’s economy.
he U.K. and Norway oil and gas sectors provide an ideal comparison through which to compare the outcomes from different approaches to oil sector governance. The two countries have equivalent geology and a similar resource base – the North Sea Basin is effectively split down the middle between them. The U.K. and Norway both began offshore exploration and production in the mid-1960s with the first oil discoveries made in 1969. Since then, both countries have produced similar amounts of hydrocarbons: the U.K. has produced 42.8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) and Norway 40 billion boe (figure 1).Figure 1. U.K. and Norway oil and gas production since 1971Source: BP Statistical Review 2014 and Norway government data (www.norskpetroleum.no)Whilst the geology and resource base in each country is similar, the two countries have taken very different approaches to governance of the sector. Since 1986 the U.K. government has had effectively no direct equity participation in the North Sea and has had a fully private upstream sector, with taxation as the only channel of government revenues from hydrocarbons.Norway has taken a different approach, with over 50 percent of production coming through Statoil (of which the state owns a majority) and state ownership of assets via the State Direct Financial Interest (SDFI), held through Petoro (wholly owned by the state). Norway generated more than double the revenue the U.K. did from each barrel it produced. The purpose of this article is not to debate whether the current U.K. tax regime is optimal today, but rather examine why the Norwegian approach to oil governance in the past appears to have generated so much more revenue. For other countries seeking to extract more from their resources this case study suggests a valuable lesson: given political stability and competent institutions, a state can have both a relatively high tax burden on its industry and direct ownership of assets, and deliver more revenue for its citizens and still attract investment.
The great Unanswered question mainly because it has simply not been asked , is this.
Did Theresa May decline a Norway Option for the sake of Continuing EU Military Unification? I think the answer to that is yes.
Military Unification has been on the European Union’s policy agenda for decades. In the past twelve months, the pressure to complete the task has accelerated the process, particularly since the Bratislava Summit of September 2016.
There, the 27 leaders of the EU decided to “give a new impetus” to European external security and defence.
They set as a target the December 2016 European Council to formalise an implementation plan.
To quote one commentator, “European Union Defence plans are associated with the eventual formation of a European Federal State. Under the current system of unaccountable governance, this means they will be run by an unelected oligarchy. A nation-state that contracts out its defence has ceased to be.”
And finally, Chris Curtis – political research manager at YouGov – says the company’s analyses show the Tories with a “comfortable majority”, and seats coming their way at the expense of Labour in the North and Midlands. Said Curtis:
“As expected, the key thing deciding the extent to which each of these seats is moving against Labour is how that seat voted in the European Union referendum…..In the seats that voted most strongly to Leave in 2016 (60% or more in favour of Brexit), the swing to the Conservatives is over 6 per cent.”
This is completely in line with the feedback I’ve been getting.
I stick with my long-held estimate: the Tories will get an overall majority somewhere between thirty and ninety seats.
I am not so convinced a 30 to ninety majority is going to be gifted to the Naughty School Boy, Boris de Spaffel Legend in da own trousers Johnson. He claimed that his Naughtiest Moment had been riding a bicycle on the pavement, Mrs May’s was running in a field of wheat. Boris has also in the “Ill Child on Coats” scandal provided a, “there are lots of complicated reasons for food banks”, moment, that may well have cut through as much as May Bots cringeworthy comment on Marr.
Election Campaigns are like Santa, they are going to find out whose been naughty or nice
The Polls are very widely drawn, averaging out such a broad spread is actually not at all likely to improve one’s chances of calling the result. That the result will be somewhere in the middle of two wrong extremes is possible but one of only 5 possibilities. That is The Low Group may be correct and an average of Low grouped polls would be a sample appropriate for smoothing. The High Group may be correct and again smoothing of this group would then perhaps improve accuracy the average of low and high together will produce the middle group and then there is the possibility that the low group is right in the right direction but well short of the mark and on the other side that the High Group is in the right direction but again well short of the mark.
Bearing mind what I just said about possible Groups the latest polls for samples with some respondents being questioned in December are in the table above there is a range of leads from 6% to 15% for the Blue team.
This is what would happen in Parliament if it is correct.
The range of seats predicted by the polling extremes is 14 seat majority at the low end and 114 seats at the high end, the final vote, in my opinion, will break one way or the other on the day, depending on two things, Turnout as in 2017 will be key, is it the Brexit election and will disgruntled Brexit voters from 2016 turn out in force and Vote for “BRINO”, and secondly The don’t know’s, will they go for one side or the other or simply not bother?
How far people will have cottoned on to Borisś Oven Ready Turkey, not being BREXIT but a rather ragged old rubber chicken of a bad and corny joke BRINO, we will see. As there is not actually a Brexit on the Table from Boris, unless, it is to be believed, he has planned all along to go Full WTO in December 2020. I do not think Boris has the Balls to do that in Brexit Turkey terms he is, in fact, a Capon.
In the event, it has turned out that for WTO Brexit there is no credible vote available that will make a “Full English Brexit” possible. The only real chance of something approaching Brexit is not Boris’s Caponed Turkey but actually, Chairman Corbyn’s Turkey Perched on a fence, the so-called “Credible option protecting Jobs and supply chain Brexit”. Not so much a Norweigan Blue as a Norweigan Turkey, I grant you, but it is the Norway option and actually whilst the Establishment might think the Tory WTO Blue is deceased and they can breathe a sigh of relief, Mr Corbyn might yet deliver a credible leave option on a Ballot if he is able to form a minority government or if the British electorate and the WASPI women take their courage in both hands and give him a Majority.
We do have a model for the scenario which seems to be playing out that is an electorate that does not have to think about Brexit Party or UKIP, both of whom Mr Farage by his own Hubris and incompetence has made an irrelevance, it is Farage actually, who has betrayed the Brexit vote more than anyone else, Followed By Mrs May’s, Tories and of course Boris Johnson. Boris has been trying to claim none of the Austerity and none of the Brexit subterfuge was done on his watch, he did resign as Foreign Secretary after Chequers but his real Brexit Credentials are found in his own Father a staunch EU Federalist and Boris, Miltary Union and All, is frankly a Poseur, an imposter and as we all know an inveterate liar.
So here’s the scores on the doors for back in February, remember none of the “Corbyn the terrible” memes has changed and the Purdha period allows the public to take a look at the man himself and he’s all right as a bloke, he’s actually not that odd when you consider he is a professional politician, after all. Boris is altogether odder and that he gets painted as a Toff of the people beggars belief.
So my prediction is this, it will either be a Hung Parliament with Labour short by up to 30 or so seats or a Tory Majority in excess of 100 seats. And the telling factor will be whether or not the Norweigan Blue is in fact deceased.
Survation and Survey Monkey Called it in 2015. (Too close to Call) Turnout Is Everything.
This Graph Explains the Importance of Turnout to the outcome of the Election Tomorrow.
If Turnout is the 72.2% of the Brexit Referendum last year you can see that the Light Blue line shows That the middle third of the probability distribution curve on Ashcroft’s polling numbers has a Tory Majority of between 20 and 60 seats.
The 2015 turnout was 66.1 % overall. around the same as 1997 general election less than the 77% for the 92 vote. Historically the 1950 and 51 elections had over 80% turnouts.
The total number of UK parliamentary electors in 2015 was 44,722,000, a fall of 1.3% from 2014.
The total number of UK local government electors in 2015 was 46,204,700, a fall of 1.3% from 2014.
Between 2014 and 2015, the total number of both parliamentary and local government electors fell in England, Wales and Scotland, but increased in Northern Ireland.
The number of parliamentary electors fell in all regions of England between 2014 and 2015. The largest decrease (-1.6%) was in the West Midlands, the smallest in the East Midlands (-0.1%).
Between 2014 and 2015, the number of local government electors fell in all regions of England, apart from the East Midlands which saw an increase of 0.02%. The largest decreases were in London and the South East, both of which decreased by 1.6%.
The 2015 electoral statistics represent the first full registers following completion of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) introduced in England, Wales and Scotland in 2014.
Electoral statistics are used by Boundary Commissions, the Electoral Commission and central government to help with the improvement of electoral policies and for statutory reviews of parliamentary constituency boundaries.
For this General Election, the Pollsters are using a number of different techniques to second guess actual declared voting intention with the Results for 2015 where they were somewhat bamboozled. The thing with Assigning probabilities and making educated guesses is that assumptions however screened for bias they may be are still predictions based upon a best guess.What we can say for certain is that the Higher the turnout than the higher the likelihood of other parties doing better than the conservatives.
The Tories were notable amongst all the parties on Social media in that they did not encourage voters, particularly the younger newly minted voters to Register, Lord Ashcroft perhaps told them something, The Same thing I am telling you now. If Turnout gets into the mid 70% range There is every chance of a Historic even Heroic electoral upset.
If the Turnout hits or Exceeds the record Brexit referendum voting level, Mrs May will be ordering a removal van, IS that a Boy Job or a Girl Job I wonder?
Exegesis Hermeneutics Flux Capacitor of Truthiness