Indeed - I think it used to be the case but thought ME had changed the rules on that lately. Incidentally, if priceofdawn had not amended his original post, his total faults would have been 160.3 so he should have left well alone, though the difference is hardly great.
Maybe priceofdawn did not know the rules about late changes (I didn't when I started) and thought he had been 'instructed' to add the Green candidates - see his brief interventions above ... Middleenglander may choose to consider some leniency on late faults for a new contender. I must say I am very pleased that there are so many newcomers, and hope that one of the recent additions ends up triumphant this month.
Maybe priceofdawn did not know the rules about late changes (I didn't when I started) and thought he had been 'instructed' to add the Green candidates - see his brief interventions above ... Middleenglander may choose to consider some leniency on late faults for a new contender.
Post by middleenglander on Feb 2, 2018 15:40:33 GMT
My initial thoughts were to maintain priceofdawn's original post which would have given 14 additional faults (6 for Cornwall and 8 Sunderland), thereby resulting in a total of 160.3 for the week against the 166.3 Pete posted above. If princeofdawn had posted all his ultimate predictions before 9.00 am he would have incurred 136.3 faults. I am now minded to take his final figures but give 15 additional faults instead of 30 for a late entry, giving him 151.3 for the week.
The only other one where I disagree with Pete is greenrobinhood who also incurred 10 additional faults for a wrong winner in Sunderland, bringing his total for the week to 136.3.
The cap of 100 was originally introduced so that an extremely bad prediction was not penalised more than not making one. However this only works where there is only one or two rogue predictions, not like this week where approaching half the participants either got more than 100 in Sunderland or very nearly did. In this case, as in most recent examples, capping at 100 would penalise those just below whose predictions, whilst not very good to say the least, were nevertheless better than those over 100. Therefore the cap will not be applied.
Objections please by noon Sunday
There are 7 by-elections next week. Predictions on this thread by 9.00 am on Thursday.
It looks as though we shall be at my daughter's part-time for a few more weeks as she is working away and we are needed to house sit. Continuing help will be very much appreciated.
That adjudication seems very fair to me and thank you for explaining your reasoning so clearly. Yes, nobody exactly covered themselves with glory this week, and the difference between first and last could disappear in a flash- last month I was first after week 1, and on week 2.... 17th, so all changes very fast. I agree with Robert that it would be good to see a newcomer triumph and maybe that should be taken to include the long-absent returners like Dibs and AJS. On the whole though the more experienced regular participants in this game have an uncanny knack of coming through in the end whatever happens in the short-term.
Yes, when there are as many contests as this month, there can be no doubt that the eventual winner will have deserved their success! I do hope all or almost all predictors 'stick with it'. I believe it is a decent way of learning not only about the current electoral situation, but (more importantly in my opinion) about this wonderfully varied country of ours.
Brighton: Lab 45; Con 25 LibDem 20 Green 10. Weymouth, Tophill East: Con 60 Lab 30 Green 10. Weymouth, Tophill West: Lab 50 Con 40 Green 10. East Staffordshire Stretton: Con 45 IndSoS 25 Lab 20 Libdem 8 UKIP 2. South Staffordshire Codsall South: Con 65 Lab 25 Green 10. South Staffordshire Codsall: Con 75 Lab 15 Green 10. Eden Hartside: Con 50 Ind 40 Green 10.
Had no time last week, and entered some random numbers several hours late in the thought that I couldn't do worse than not making a prediction at all, and there were plenty of by-elections later in February to draw it back. My predictions (pretty much picking anything adding to 100) were so bad that I scored well over 100 in Sunderland, and in fact only marginally better than simply passing for the week. lesson learned!
I predict some high scores this week - several contests where I don't see the winner as at all clear cut but I will go for:
BRIGHTON: LAB 45 GREEN 25 CON 25 LD 5 EAST STAFFS: SOS 40 CON 35 LAB 20 LD 3 UKIP 2 EDEN: CON 50 IND 40 GREEN 10 STAFFS: CON 75 LAB 20 GREEN 5 SOUTH STAFFS: CON 70 LAB 22 GREEN 8 WEYMOUTH(TE): GREEN 45 CON 35 LAB 20 WEYMOUTH(TW): LAB 45 CON 35 GREEN 20
As someone who lives in Weymouth & Portland, and having followed the Tophill by-elections fairly closely, I'd just like to point out that:
The above two comments have shortened the Borough name to Weymouth. This would usually be fairly fine, but these two wards just happen to be 2 of the 3 wards which are Portland and not Weymouth.
I would put Labour naturally ahead of the Conservatives in both wards in general, and considering that the polls nationally have Labour ever so slightly ahead, without looking at local issues, it would make sense to predict Labour to win, I think. Looking more in depth, the Labour candidates, in particular the one in Tophill East, have been running a strong and seemingly popular campaign; the Conservatives gave out almost identical leaflets in both wards - only the names and pictures have been switched, but even the pictures have the same captions, i.e. candidate A will sort out potholes in the area, with the candidate pointing at a pothole; the Greens have been very popular locally recently, and I understand they're properly going at it for these by-elections.
So, I think Labour will be higher than most are expecting, and the Greens will probably have a notable vote share.