Make Germany Great Again



“If the French are rightly proud of their emperor and the Britons of Nelson and Churchill, we have the right to be proud of the achievements of the German soldiers in two world wars.”

Alexander Gauland – Alternative for Germany leader

“At some point between now and 2030 or so we can expect another round of serious crisis, comparable to the mess that overwhelmed Europe and its empires between 1914 and 1954 — you know, two world wars, the Great Depression, the end of European global domination.”

John Michael Greer


The Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman commented at the beginning of the year that it was unlikely that any German party would ever be successful with a slogan “Make Germany Great Again”. The stunning electoral success of the hard right Alternative for Germany party in the federal elections has shattered that assumption among the European chattering classes.

The nationalist right-wing Alternative for Germany (“AfD”) party surged to 12.6% of the vote and will send almost 100 MPs to the German Bundestag on the back of widespread anger about Angela Merkel’s decision to open the borders to over a million predominately Muslim refugees in 2015/2016.

In contrast, the traditional establishment parties gained the smallest share of the vote since the war. Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic led coalition gaining only 33% of the vote and the Social Democrats did even worse, only 20%, one of their worst ever performances in their history.

The same liberal commentariat who were crowing only a few months ago that the populist threat had peaked on the Continent after the crushing victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French elections have gone very quiet now. Populism has arrived in the most powerful country in the EU with a dark history of genocide, totalitarianism and imperialism.

Although the German economy has grown a strong argument can be made that the German economic model is rotting from within. Ambrose Evans Pritchard, writing in the Telegraph, notes that net public investment has been negative for most of the last fifteen years and economic growth and productivity has been dismal since 2000. For ordinary German workers, real incomes have stagnated and the wealth gap is rising between the rich and poor.

One of the drivers for the surge of support for the AfD, apart from the migration crisis, was the growing number of economic “losers” within Germany. Many of these relatively poor workers live in the former East Germany which suffered massive economic and social changes after reunification. It is no coincidence that the AfD performed particularly well in the industrial Rust Belt areas like the Ruhr and eastern Germany.

Of course, the eruption of the nationalist right should be placed in perspective. The majority of the German electorate voted for other parties and polls indicate that many of those voting for the AfD saw it as a means to register their hostility towards the Merkel’s refugee policies. These voters are certainly not neo-Nazi’s nor do they approve of those elements within the AfD which flirt with the far-right.

The election of the dynamic President Macron appeared to herald a promising new dawn in the eurozone. The eurozone is a botched half-job which has muddled through, lurching from one crisis to another. The German elections were supposed to be the moment that the Franco-German motor would rev up and make real progress in the creation of euro-wide fiscal and political union. The German elections has had the opposite effect and gravely weakened those hopes.

The political reality in Berlin is that the new coalition government will be dominated by Eurosceptic conservative voices from within the CSU and the Free Democrats who are bitterly opposed to President Macron’s ambitious reform agenda. A eurozone which continues muddling along raises the growing risk, as Macron has predicted, of imploding within the next 10 years or so.

Historians will likely look back at the Merkel years as a 21st century version of the long Edwardian summer before the horrors of the Great War. Alistair Macleod has predicted that by early 2019 at the latest, the eurozone will be plunged into another major economic crisis, triggered by rising interest rates and a collapse in government bond prices, resulting in the bankruptcy of eurozone banks. There is a growing consensus among economists that the current bull market is in its maturing phrase and is unlikely to last much longer.

Last year, in my post “winter is coming”, I attempted to forecast our likely future within the context of the limits to growth models which have proved eerily accurate since the 1970’s. To summarise, the peaking of global fossil fuels, accelerating climate change and an insolvent global economic system based on the false god of perpetual growth is leading us to another major crisis, potentially within the next few years.

Looking ahead, one can start to sense a foreboding future for Germany as the next decade arrives. Another economic crisis, potentially triggered by a deeper energy and food crisis, at the end of this decade, will plunge the eurozone into another recession. Rising unemployment, increased poverty and a loss of hope among broad layers of the population could lead to even bigger electoral successes for populists of both the Left and Right across the EU. Should Italy or one of the other eurozone countries exit the eurozone, under Target1, Germany could face crippling economic losses.

A toxic cocktail of rising Islamist terrorism and challenges in integrating the refugees, economic crisis in the eurozone and the proletarianization of a contracting German middle class could drive up to half the electorate into the hands of extremist parties on both the Left and Right. A revival of nationalist currents across the political scene could lead, by the end of the 2020’s, of a nationalist-conservative government in power. Should the worst case scenario happen and the eurozone/EU disintegrate, a German-Russian axis could reemerge as the dominant geopolitical force within the European continent.

To summarise, the broader global headwinds are wreaking the stable liberal post-Cold War era of international relations. The election of President Trump in November 2016 heralded, as I predicted months earlier, the beginning of a new era in world history, of Scarcity Industrialism. This era, described in detail by the German military in a report on peak oil, will lead to a breakdown in market based economies, the end of globalisation and the return of power politics in the world arena.

If, dear reader, that doesn’t sound promising terrain for a nationalist party attracting significant support already, then you haven’t read enough history.

For better or for worse, Germany is becoming a “normal” Western country and nobody knows for certain how European politics will be impacted in the years to come by this transformation.

One thing is for certain, it will not be boring…


Make Germany Great Again

Thoughts on Poland




Please accept my apologies for the long delay in posting on the blog. I have recently got married in Poland to my lovely new wife and have only just returned from our honeymoon. Normal service will be resuming soon on Forecasting Intelligence!

I thought you may find interesting my on-the-ground thoughts on how Poland has developed since the end of Communism and how the ordinary people feel about the European Union, Russia and the migration crisis.


I first visited Poland in 2000 during a tour of central and Eastern Europe when it was still recovering from dark days of being a satellite state of the Soviet Russian Empire. The contrast between the West and East was stark as you crossed the border between the enlarged Germany and Poland with respect to the roads, quality of life and general development. This was prior to Poland joining the European Union (“EU”) in 2004 and it was clear to me that in many ways Poland was still a developing country.

Despite the relative poverty I found the Polish people the friendliest and welcoming of all the countries we toured and Krakov was a stunning city with lots of history and culture. Even then, I had the sense that at some point in my future, I would be returning to Poland.

After I met my Polish wife a few years ago, I returned a second time to Poland to meet her family, who live in the south-eastern part of Poland, near the Ukrainian border. What struck me the most was the massive improvement in the overall infrastructure and development of the country since I had last visited 13 years ago. The region was filled with gleaming new motorways; the regional cities had modern new airports and shopping malls with all the brands common to a West European city. Poland had arrived.

Whilst in the countryside and the cities there are still pockets of deep poverty, the overall standard of living has massively improved since the end of the Cold War for the average Pole. Speaking to ordinary Poles, it was clear that the vast majority appreciated the benefits of membership of the EU, including the freedom to travel and work in Britain and Germany and the development aid which had transformed the country for the better. There also seemed to be a consensus that Poland would join the euro in the future but only once wages and living costs had caught up with the west European standard. Overall Poland seemed comfortable about its role within the EU and optimistic about the future of the country.

The spectre of Russia still haunted the Polish psyche and President Putin was a feared figure across Polish society. The Ukrainian crisis had erupted and the Poles take very seriously the prospect of another Russian invasion which is understandable given their tortured history.

The migration crisis in 2015 transformed Europe’s politics and was the critical factor in the Brexit vote in my opinion. The scenes of huge numbers of young Muslim men marching across the Balkans into Germany horrified many across Europe, in particular central-Eastern Europe. Virtually every single Polish friend and family member was opposed to Angela Merkel’s decision to open the borders to the vast hordes of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa (”MENA”).

The migration crisis and the rising wave of Islamist terror attacks across Western Europe have sharpened the sense that the importation of significant Muslim populations has been an historic mistake. Poland and other countries in the former Warsaw Pact bloc are determined to avoid making the same perceived mistakes. This is the principal reason for the rise of nationalist governments to power in the region.

The political elites of Western Europe, including the Brussels bureaucracy, think that it is only sensible that every country in Europe should share the burden in hosting refugees who have arrived in Europe since 2015. The fact that clear majorities in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are opposed to such a thing matters little. Since 2015, relations between Poland and the EU have sharply deteriorated.

My visit to Poland this year was naturally dominated by planning for the wedding but there were a number of conversations about the EU, the migration dispute and the Euro. I noted that among ordinary Poles, a hardening of positions on preserving the Zloty currency, keeping the refugees out of the country and in some quarters a sympathetic view on Britain’s Brexit vote last year which I had successfully predicted.

If Europe insists that Poland accepts Muslim refugees, I think that a narrow majority of Polish people would be prepared to leave the EU. This intuitive feeling of mine has been confirmed by a recent poll, as noted in this Bloomberg article, in which “…fifty-one percent said they’d be ready to surrender membership in the 28-member trading bloc”. Whilst any Polexit scenario remains unlikely for the foreseeable future, it should not be dismissed outright.

The Polish people have suffered greatly in the 20th century and those in their eighties can still remember the barbaric Nazi occupation, the brutal post-war years and the poverty and shortages under Communism. They are a proud, dignified and strong people who value their culture, traditions and the independence restored since the end of the Berlin Wall. Poland has now crossed a point that it can survive, and indeed prosper, outside the EU, if needs be, should it decide that this is in its best interests. The economy is booming, real wages are rising and EU aid is no longer quite as vital as it was a decade ago.

My own view is that a generation from now Poland could be one of the main economic great powers of Europe, if it plays its cards right in the coming years. I will be preparing soon a mega-post on the future of Europe in a post-peak world which will incorporate the likely impact of further mass movements of people from an imploding MENA region as well as other key trends, including resource scarcity, technological regression and accelerating man-made climate change.

I hope you enjoyed this post.

Thoughts on Poland

British general election: What went wrong?


Hung parliament



Readers, I failed you.

In my last post, I predicted that the Conservatives would win a comfortable majority in the British general election, which turned out to be spectacularly wrong. It is true that many pollsters, pundits and political experts also got it wrong, but this provides me with scant comfort as Forecasting Intelligence (“FI”) is supposed to be superior to the conventional wisdom of the Pundocracy.

The writer John Greer, whose book I have reviewed before, wrote an article (which is no longer online), when Jeremy Corbyn (“Corbyn”) got elected Labour leader in 2015, predicting the Corbyn surge. He argued, presciently, that Corbyn’s Bennite brand of old-school socialism offered an alternative to a set of economic and political policies that had failed the majority of the population. The stagnating wages, the growing income inequality between rich and poor and the nearly decade of austerity by the ruling Conservative Party would inevitably lead to an electoral backlash.

A young person growing up in 21st century Great Britain in the twilight era of a declining industrial civilisation faces the prospect of crippling student debt, a ferocious competition for good quality jobs, sky high housing prices and  overwhelmed public services heaving from the burdens of an ageing society, mass migration and years of public sector austerity. I haven’t even mentioned the growing but partially hidden crises of climate change, resource depletion and the massive army of jihadi extremists walking our streets. The truth is that the Tories under Theresa May had nothing to offer younger voters and this was reflected in the ballot box.

Yet, I anticipated this aspect of the election in my blog, predicting that Labour would do well in the university towns (for example Cambridge, Oxford, Bath and Canterbury) and the metropolitan cities, for example London seats like Battersea where the Tories lost an 8,000 majority to Labour. Whilst I didn’t specifically write about Scotland in this general election, the huge anti-SNP tactical voting validated my prediction made last year that we would not see another “Indyref2” referendum anytime soon.

It was in the Midlands and the North of England, the Brexit Rust Belt constituencies, which failed to swing Conservative which destroyed the Tories chances of a comfortable majority. It was also the basis for my forecast of an enlarged Tory majority.

During my pre-election review, prior to writing my post, I struggled to find any writers among the Corbyn Left, who expected anything other then a disastrous defeat for Labour in the Brexit northern heartlands. It was the overwhelming consensus from Labour MP’s, activists and pollsters that Corbyn was toxic for many traditional Labour voters and as a consequence the Tories would sweep the board. This turned out to be massive political intelligence failure by both political parties. My mistake was to assume that Labour campaign headquarters had accurately read the mood of their own supporters.

However, there were clear signals throughout the campaign that something was going disastrously wrong for the Tories. The Yougov experimental poll predicting a hung parliament turned out to be spot on. The writer Rod Liddle in the Spectator wrote during the election campaign that many northern Labour and UKIP voters were turning to Labour rather then the Tories as expected. Similarly, the moment when the BBC Question Time audience laughed at Theresa May when Jeremy Paxman accused her of being a blowhard should have raised a bigger alarm bell with me then it did. When the electorate are laughing at you, it is a sure sign of danger, as Ed Miliband and David Cameron can both attest to.

What worked in the 2015 general election failed in this election. In May 2015, David Cameron won a shock majority despite all the polling evidence to the contrary. Although it was pre-FI, I successfully forecast the Tory majority, and placed money on it on the political betting markets, using the underlying polling data on perceptions of economic competence and leadership. David Cameron had a significant lead over the Labour leader Ed Miliband on who was more trusted to run the economy and be the best Prime Minister. In the end, despite what the surface polling indicated, the voters went for the party who was best judged to run the country best.

This time around it was different. Whilst Theresa May enjoyed significant leads on both issues going into Election Day, her likability and favourability ratings had collapsed compared to the surging Corbyn. Throw in the political uncertainty of Brexit and the clear desire for revenge among many Remain voters, and the normal rules of politics were thrown away. Across the Western world, electorates are increasingly prepared to vote for change candidates who are perceived to be outside the despised political class. Emmanuel Macron brilliantly positioned himself as an outsider of a corrupt and failed Parisian political establishment and swept to power on that same anti-establishment wave.

When the dominant political and economic ideology, neo-liberalism, fails the majority of the electorate, people will vote for a leader who offers an alternative assuming that they are sufficiently charismatic and plausible. This is the lesson for the Tories, who failed to own the “change” message, and suffered accordingly.

Corbyn was successful because he was charismatic, offered a set of policies that appealed to many voters, particularly younger voters, and promised a New Jerusalem to a population increasingly tired of a failing business as usual status quo. The Labour party played a superb game on Brexit, appealing to middle class Remain voters who want a soft Brexit whilst signalling to their traditional base in the north that they would restrict immigration through a hard Brexit. At some point Corbyn will have to choose between a soft or hard Brexit and will end up disappointing one side or another of his new electoral coalition. Whether it is Great Grimsby or Kensington and Chelsea remains to be seen.

The writer John Greer has a chilling warning to those who dismissed Corbyn’s chances in a general election, “…the British politicians and pundits who are busy decrying Corbyn’s election just now might want to temper their rage and consider the alternatives: if Corbyn fails, Nigel Farage and the UKIP party are waiting in the wings to harness the public’s frustration with the abject failure of business as usual, and if Farage falls in his turn, what replaces him could be much, much worse.”

After Trump, Brexit and the Corbyn surge, who would now dare dismiss such a warning?

There is no doubt, to paraphrase the old Chinese curse, that we live in interesting times…

British general election: What went wrong?

British general election: Final forecasting prediction

2010 General Election Polling Day



The British electorate will be voting tomorrow in the snap general election called by Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May. The polls have been variable, with Yougov predicting a hung parliament and other pollsters predicting a landslide victory for the Tories.

The Tories have not had a great campaign with the dementia tax u turn damaging Theresa May’s (May) mantra of “strong and stable” leadership. The average of the polls show the Tories took a modest hit in their support, dropping from 47% to 43% since the launch of their manifesto.

The biggest story of the campaign is the better then expected performance by Jeremy Corbyn (Corbyn), which I warned was a possibility, when previewing the snap general election in April. Corbyn’s energetic and impassioned performance on the campaign trail has galvanised the Labour core vote and enthused non-voters, including many younger voters.

Corbyn’s soft socialist manifesto, including higher taxes for the wealthy, increased corporation tax for business and nationalisation of the railways, has proved popular with sections of the electorate. Labour under Corbyn has consolidated the left of the British electorate at the expense of the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. Subsequently Labour’s ratings in the polls have surged into the mid-thirties during the course of the campaign.

However, as I warned in a post last year, concerns about whether Corbyn is “soft” on national security, immigration and representing Britain in the difficult Brexit negotiations have proved toxic on the doorsteps. This has proved particularly damaging in Labour’s heartlands in the Midlands and the north.

Having reviewed the forecasts on the likely outcome of the British general election, two schools of thought have emerged. The first school bases itself on the current average polling, with the Tories on a 7% lead, leading to the most likely outcome of a 60-70 seat majority for the Tories. Nadeem Walayat, who has successfully forecast the Leave, Trump and 2015 Tory victory, has forecast a Tory majority of 66. Lord Ashcroft has predicted a Tory majority of 64 based on his own polling models.

The other school of thought is that the Tories will do better then expected on the night, as has happened in every British general election (barring 1983) for nearly fifty years. When reviewing the underlying polling data May enjoys double digit leads on who will best manage the economy, run the country and negotiate the best outcome in the Brexit negotiations. In the Mail on Sunday poll, which showed a Tory lead of only 1%, 53% of the electorate trusted Theresa May to defend Britain versus only 25% for Jeremy Corbyn.

Whilst it is not impossible that the normal rules of politics are overturned this time, it is still unlikely that the British electorate will vote for Labour in sufficient numbers considering their huge concerns about Jeremy Corbyn. It is for this reason that Michael Moszynski, who successfully predicted the 2015 Tory victory and the Leave result, has forecast that the Tories will win a majority of 104. It is also worth considering that Nadeem Walayat has stated that his second most likely scenario is a Tory majority of above 100 seats.

The surge in Labour support is overwhelmingly based in the metropolitan big cities and the university towns which already have mainly Labour MP’s. As Stephen Bush writes in the New Statesman, “…the Labour people who are sounding cheery – there are some – tend to be campaigning in big cities or university towns.” Outside these bubbles of Corbynmania, the picture looks grim for Labour, and the Conservatives are quietly confident of picking up droves of marginal seats in the West and East Midlands, in the north-east and Yorkshire, and in some of the outer London constituencies.

Overall, I continue to stand by my forecasting prediction, made on 20th April, that the Conservatives will win this general election by an enlarged majority (85% probabilistic chance).

In regard to the size of the Conservative majority, my forecast is that the Tories will win a majority of 104 seats.*

In regard to those forecasts of a smaller Tory majority (e.g. 60 to 70) I would consider these to be the second most likely scenario after a Tory majority of 3 digits.

We will find out whether I am right in the early hours of Friday morning.

* Please note that my forecasting prediction made on 20th April is not predicated on successfully predicting the size of the Conservative majority, only that the Tories will increase their majority.

British general election: Final forecasting prediction

Keep calm and carry on



On Monday 22 May 2017 my worst fears came true.

Salman Abedi, a 22 years old jihadi, was waiting in the foray of the Manchester Arena as young girls came out of a pop concert. Abedi blew himself up with a home made bomb, killing 22 and maiming dozens more, some for the rest of their life.

Last year, when discussing the growing threat posed by Islamist terrorism, I warned that jihadi terrorists would start deliberately targeting children. Tragically this warning has now come true.

The response from the public was overwhelmingly that we will not let this affect our lives and it is an understandable response. It is encapsulated in the slogan “Keep calm and carry on”. Yet, the time for platitudes, messages of solidarity and one minute silences, worthy as they are, cannot be the only response to this deadly threat.

It is time that our media and political elites start being honest with the general public about the scale of the threat, the nature of the ideology that drives young men to slaughter innocent men, women and children and the steps we could take to contain the threat.

As James Forsyth writes in his weekly column, the reality is that our security services are increasingly overwhelmed by the scale of the threat posed by radicalised terrorists. The security agencies have confirmed that there are 23,000 extremists on their radar but only 3,000 can be actually monitored at any time. Indeed, “…the reason the number of persons of interest to the security services has remained at 3,000 for so long is that the security services are operating an informal one in, one out policy. So no one can be added to this list unless someone else is taken off.”

Think about that for the moment. There could be hundreds, if not thousands, of dangerous extremists who should be monitored by the security agencies but who aren’t, as the resources simply aren’t available. The intelligence officers tasked with preventing terrorist attacks are playing God; taking a calculated risk that one potential terrorist is a greater threat then another radicalised extremist.

The truth is that our government has lost control of this problem.

I watched the BBC coverage in the aftermath of the Manchester bombing and not once was the issue of the radical Islamist ideology that drives these attackers discussed by the media talking heads. It is impossible to understand and defeat this insidious enemy if we are not prepared to call it for what it is, which is Islamic terrorism.

These jihadi terrorists are taught a selective and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam which worships the slaughter of infidels, the creation of a sharia based Islamic state which will conquer the non-Muslim world. They justify their actions by quoting the actions and words of the Prophet Mohammed.

This is a sensitive subject for obvious reasons, but my own reading suggests that there are two parallel interpretations within the Koran, a peaceful and aggressive interpretation, and both have theological roots going back to the beginning of Islam. As David Goldman, writing on this subject in Asian Times notes, “…there are two readings of the Qur’an and the Sunna (Islamic traditions connected to Muhammad): one that opts for the verses that encourage tolerance toward other believers, and one that prefers the verses that encourage conflict. Both readings are legitimate.”  

Thankfully, the vast majority of Muslims subscribe to the tolerant and peaceful interpretation of Islam, which is a blessing. Yet, in the absence of an Islamic Pope to make a final judgement and conduct a reform of the holy texts, the fundamentalist strand of Islamist thought will continue to exist within the Muslim world. The challenge for Britain and other countries is to contain and preferably destroy this extremist version from their societies.

Tarique Ghaffur, a Muslim former police chief, has publically called for the creation of special internment centres for the most dangerous jihadi extremists. These internment camps would work closely with Muslim religious authorities in removing these dangerous individuals from society and de-radicalising them with the assistance of moderate clerics. Colonel Richard Kemp, writing in the Telegraph, has also called for the internment of the most dangerous extremists, the deportation of foreign extremists residing in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and travel bans on jihadi’s who have gone abroad to fight for the so-called Islamic State (“ISIS”).

The above steps, if taken prior to the Manchester bombing, would have prevented Salmon Abedi from returning to the UK and carrying out his deadly attack. If the government does not take these steps then further terror attacks are almost certainly inevitable and more people will die over the coming years.

Having read extensively on the intelligence and security threat posed, I consider that the UK, in the absence of the internment of the most dangerous jihadi extremists, will face further deadly attacks in the coming years. Just as France experienced a series of jihadi terror attacks, culminating in the horrific Paris attacks which killed over a hundred French citizens in November 2015, Britain is on the same path.

At some point in the coming years, Britain will experience a terrorist attack on a similar scale to the Paris atrocity, and the government will be forced to implement a state of emergency. Internment, deportation and strict immigration controls will be put in place because the general public will demand a muscular response to this growing threat.

The tragic question is how many more innocent people have to die before such action is finally taken by our government?

Keep calm and carry on

French presidential elections: Final forecast

It’s nearly over.

The exit results will be published within the hour for the French presidential elections. All the opinion polls have shown that Emmanuel Macron (“Macron”) has consolidated his comfortable lead over Marine Le Pen (“Le Pen”) and the betting markets are overwhelmingly predicting a Macron victory.

The presidential debate held on Wednesday was the last big opportunity for Le Pen to build momentum going into the final days of the campaign. What she needed to do was reassure undecided voters that she could be trusted to take over the country, would not plunge the country into economic chaos and civil unrest and would restore order to a nation troubled by a series of jihadi terror attacks.

Whilst her aggressively populist pitch may have worked well with elements of her core base, it didn’t reach out to Fillon voters, who were most likely to switch to Le Pen. I noted in a previous post that the “silver voters” were the key kingmakers of this election and that Le Pen was struggling to get over 40% in the polls due to hostility to the National Front/Le Pen brand and opposition to her anti-Euro/Frexit economic agenda.

Some pundits have argued that Le Pen never had a chance of winning as the so-called Republican Front would mobilise to prevent her from winning. Yet, polling showed that Le Pen would have defeated President Hollande if he had got into the second round. Clearly, if the mainstream candidate was unpopular enough, Le Pen could win a presidential election.

For Le Pen to win tonight, she will need to capture the “silver voters” and persuade sufficient numbers on the Left not to vote for Macron. If I had been her campaign manager, I would have ditched the unpopular anti-Euro policy early on and aggressively courted conservative voters by building alliances with mainstream Conservative Right politicians to assuage concerns about a Le Pen presidency.

The other issue which a lacklustre Le Pen campaign has struggled with is its core messaging. The core patriots versus globalist narrative that Le Pen has pushed for month’s turns out to have confused their core working class vote. Messaging matters in elections.

The Leave campaign stumbled upon the brilliant “take back control” message which was simple, effective and resonated with the British population. Le Pen’s campaign team appear not to have done the basics, focus polling their messages and seeing what would work best with their core and potential voters. The change in their message in the last weeks of the campaign to “protection” was probably a case of too little too late.

At the beginning of the year I predicted, with a 60% probabilistic rating, that Le Pen would get into the second round and go on to win the election. Whilst I clearly got the first part of my forecast right, it appears likely that the second half of my prediction will be proven wrong tonight. Whilst the majority of the underlying polling data indicated that Le Pen’s “France first” could resonate with the majority of the population, a superb campaign and exceptional debating performances by Le Pen, was also a prerequisite for pulling of a victory. At the end of the day, the campaign and the leader matter as much as the underlying mood of the country, as the Leave campaign can testify.

We will shortly see whether Le Pen has done better then the surface polling suggests, and has narrowed or even won the election. The lower turnout might strengthen her final result, but I maintain that the most likely outcome will be a victory by Macron.

French presidential elections: Final forecast

French presidential elections: And then there were two!

1st round result

Source: CNBC

“A week is a long time in politics”

Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson

It’s less then two weeks before the presidential election and the polls show that the centrist candidate has a commanding lead over the populist challenger. The consensus of the political experts is overwhelming. The race is over.

No, I am not referring to the current French presidential elections but the US presidential elections held last year. As an example, this Telegraph article dated 27 October, headlined with the Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton enjoying a massive 14 point lead and went on to describe the virtually inevitable political fallout of her victory on Election Day.

Of course, just because the experts have been wrong before doesn’t mean they are wrong this time.

Indeed, the 1st round of the French elections was striking for the lack of surprises. No hidden Marine Le Pen (“Le Pen“) vote. No unexpected surge of support for the conservative Francois Fillon (“Fillon“). The Emmanuel Macron (“Macron“) vote remained firm despite the risk of undecided voters floating away to other candidates.

Le Pen has had a lacklustre campaign and her polling has dropped from a peak of 27% to 22% in the final count as voters moved away to the hard left Eurosceptic challenger Melenchon. Yet, the relatively poor performance of the populist hard right is in no way indicative of a broader rejection of anti-establishment populism by the French electorate.

As Ambrose Evans Pritchard notes in the Telegraph, 48pc of the French population “…voted for movements – from the hard-Left to the hard-Right – that fundamentally reject the EU as currently structured, with the sovereignty candidate Nicolas Dupont-Aignan winning 1.7m votes on a pure anti-EU ticket”. In other words, approximately half the French population rejected the pro-European establishment personified by the politics of Macron.


Source: Telegraph

From a historical perspective, Le Pen performed very well, and her entry into the second round is an historical success for the nationalist hard right. As the above map shows, Le Pen came first across broad swathes of France, with certain regions of the north-eastern Rust Belt polling above 30%. This is a massive step forward from the elections held in 2012, let alone the electoral drubbing her father received in 2002.

Taking this into consideration the fact remains that the overwhelming consensus is that Macron will comfortably defeat Le Pen on 7 May 2017.  This is backed up by the polling evidence which suggests that Le Pen will struggle to get more then 40% of the vote.

It is interesting to note that according to Opinionway, the issue of security and terrorism is a top priority for approximately 40% of the electorate. The same proportion of the electorate plan to vote for the National Front in the second round. The bad news for Le Pen is that whilst there is likely to be a correlation between the issue of security and voting support for the populist hard right, the issue of terrorism is not the top concern for the majority of the French electorate.

As noted in a previous post, the over 65 voters who preferred the Republican candidate Fillon will be the main kingmakers in this election. These “silver voters” are socially conservative, support membership of the Euro and the European Union and wish to see a muscular approach to the threat posed by jihadi terrorism and the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism. The silver vote remained loyal to Fillon despite the corruption scandals and are now potentially in play for both candidates.

Le Pen and her inner circle have clearly been making steps to address the two biggest challenges to converting these voters, the first being the lingering toxicity of the National Front brand and the second the fear provoked by her economic plans to leave the eurozone. For pensioners relying on their savings, exiting the euro would likely lead to a significant depreciation of the value of their assets, potentially crippling the finances of a retired voter.

The decision to temporarily step down as leader of the National Front and to appoint the mainstream conservative Nicolas Dupont-Aignan as her proposed Prime Minister are further steps in distancing herself from the National Front. They are principally designed to reassure conservative voters who are open to voting for Le Pen in the second round.

It is potentially more significant that media reports are suggesting that a potential Le Pen/Dupont-Aignan government would not proceed with plans to call a referendum on leaving the Euro and the European Union. If true the main obstacle for the Catholic Right electoral block to switch to Le Pen has been removed. It has been calculated that Le Pen lost 4% of the electorate in the 2012 presidential elections due to its anti-euro stance.

The presidential debate due on 3rd May will be critical to Le Pen’s chances. If she performs well, reassures conservative voters fearful of her economic agenda and provokes Macron into a series of blunders, you may see a surge of support for the hard right candidate in the polls.

Many voters complain that they don’t know what Macron stands for and if, under pressure, he comes out with statements that shock both the Left and Right, it will drive further voters to either abstain or turn to Le Pen. Macron has stated publicly his support for Angela Merkel’s controversial decision to open the borders to over a million Muslim migrants in 2015. The centrist candidate has also argued that France will be unable to stop the further mass migration of refugees into Europe. A population where a majority (60%) would back a total ban on migration from majority Muslim countries would likely be appalled by such comments in a nationally televised debate.

The Republican Front is fracturing, with the hard left populist Melenchon refusing to endorse Macron and the conservative politician Nicolas Dupont-Aignan joining forces with Le Pen. It is true that the established parties have endorsed Macron but it remains an open question whether the Left will come out in force for an ex-Rothschild banker and supporter of globalisation.

There is a narrow path to victory for Le Pen which will rely on mass abstention from the Left, the conversion of the Catholic Right and a strong turnout by her core blue-collar vote on 7 May. A prerequisite of such a scenario will be a breakthrough in the 40% polling ceiling in the coming week. Without that surge in support, as the successful forecaster Nadeem Walayat notes, it is highly unlikely that Le Pen can win the election.

Should Le Pen see a surge in support in the coming week and hit the mid-40’s, the hard right leader will be within the margin of error of victory, as noted by the French political scientist Serge Galam.

Galam has argued in a mathematical paper that should Le Pen voters turn out in greater numbers then the Macron vote, Le Pen can win even though she trails in the opinion polls. As an example, “if Le Pen is projected to lose by 45 to 55 percent in the runoff, she could win if turnout for her is 85 percent versus 70 percent for her rival, for an overall turnout of 77 percent.”

Overall, my current forecast, as at the current state of play, is that Macron will defeat Le Pen in the second round of the French presidential election.

I will be providing a final forecasting update on the likely winner of the presidential election in a week’s time.

British general election – probabilistic forecast update

I recently reviewed the British general election which you can read here.

My probabilistic forecast is that the Conservative Party has an 85% chance of winning with an enlarged majority in the House of Commons.

French presidential elections: And then there were two!