|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Dec 19, 2012 22:59:04 GMT
Note: my recent edit was onlybecause I spotted I'd typed Meopham incorrectly (see justlooking's paste)
|
|
dibs
Non-Aligned
Posts: 63
|
Post by dibs on Dec 19, 2012 23:20:09 GMT
GRAVESHAM - Meopham North
CON 43 UKIP 33 LAB 10 LIBDEM 14
KENT - Gravesham Rural
CON 52 UKIP 21 LAB 16 LIBDEM 11
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Dec 20, 2012 2:00:17 GMT
My forecasts for
Meopham Con 44 UKIP 26 LD 16 Lab 14
Gravesham Con 51 Lab 22 UKIP 20 LD 7
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 20, 2012 6:34:17 GMT
no result from Spelthorne  |
|
|
|
Post by hempie on Dec 20, 2012 8:01:14 GMT
Gravesham, Meopham North: Con 57, Lab 18, UKIP 15, LD 10
Kent, Gravesham Rural: Con 59, Lab 21, LD 11, UKIP 9
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 20, 2012 8:44:51 GMT
GRAVESHAM - Con 58, UKIP 16, Lab 14, LD 12
KENT - Con 58, UKIP 16, Lab 14, LD 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 20, 2012 8:55:51 GMT
Going on the percentages provided by gkr, it looks like I have 17 faults for Sunbury where I would have had 16 if I had not amended my earlier prediction. It is very rarely a good idea to change one's mind in these situations and clearly I underestimated UKIP's share even on my initial prediction. It doesn't appear that the mess caused by the candidate in Kent will have had much negative impact outside that area
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Dec 20, 2012 9:29:12 GMT
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Dec 20, 2012 9:29:57 GMT
Going on the percentages provided by gkr, it looks like I have 17 faults for Sunbury where I would have had 16 if I had not amended my earlier prediction. It is very rarely a good idea to change one's mind in these situations and clearly I underestimated UKIP's share even on my initial prediction. It doesn't appear that the mess caused by the candidate in Kent will have had much negative impact outside that area Yes, combined with a percentage of postal votes cast well before the eugenics thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2012 9:49:01 GMT
I wonder if I will be the first to be the best in a particular prediction having had faults for not adding up correctly  |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Dec 20, 2012 9:56:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 20, 2012 10:00:16 GMT
I wonder if I will be the first to be the best in a particular prediction having had faults for not adding up correctly I think that by my calculations you would be first without the faults but not when the faults were added |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 20, 2012 10:03:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Dec 20, 2012 11:29:10 GMT
The Norwich predictions intrigue me. I accept that both will be dire. My assumption would be that the one in LD held seat would get at least twice the % of that in a Con/Lab marginal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 20, 2012 11:32:07 GMT
There is no LD held seat and there is no Con/Lab marginal |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2012 11:33:53 GMT
Constituencies?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 20, 2012 11:39:19 GMT
Ah yes I see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 20, 2012 12:02:18 GMT
And erlend was correct that they got well over twice the % in Nelson as in Crome, though he may not have anticipated quite how dire they would be. A good UKIP result in Crome and again I have gained extra faults by changing my initial prediction
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 20, 2012 12:03:59 GMT
Norwich - Crome
Lab 884 59.3%
Con 259 17.4%
UKIP 232 15.6%
Grn 73 4.9%
LD 42 2.8%
Norwich - Nelson
Grn 1121 56.0%
Lab 599 29.9%
LD 174 8.7%
Con 108 5.4%
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Dec 20, 2012 12:38:17 GMT
I make Pete well ahead on this week's results so far, and strengthening his already handsome lead for the month; phildav second for the week and moving ahead of gkr into second for the month.
Congrats so far to both these two if my rough calculations are right - but much depends on how much impact the candidate's very late 'deselection' will have in Kent - there seem to be bifurcating interpretations of the effect, and I must say I myself had forgotten to factor in the postal vote situation.
|
|
