Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 10,105
Member is Online
|
Post by Tony Otim on Dec 22, 2021 12:33:01 GMT
CHARNWOOD DC; Loughborough Shelthorpe (Double vacancy : Lab died and Lab resigned)
Candidates:
BAKER, Rachel (Green)
FANTAISIE, Manu (Liberal Democrat)
FORDE, Faye (Green)
GRAY, Anne (Labour)
GRAY, Beverley Jane (Labour)
GUERRERO, Alex (Liberal Democrat)
HAYES, David Charles (Independent)
STEWART, Christopher Gerard (Conservative)
2019: Lab 771, 669; Con 520, 419; Grn 329; UKIP 304; LD 217; Brit Dem 121
Aug 17by: Lab 595; Con 591; LD 93; UKIP 29
2015: Con 1653, 1208; Lab 1454, 1294; Grn 560
2011: Lab 1078, 998; Con 870, 832
2007: Lab 870, 850; Con 596, 561; BNP 517, 485
Oct 06by: Lab 643; BNP 478; Con 386; LD 155
2003: Lab 508, 501; Con 404, 386.
Noteworthy that the Conservatives are only fielding 1 here, but also that the Independent was the Conservative elected in 2015 (he didn’t re-stand in 2019). Rachel Baker and Alex Guerrero stood for their respective parties in 2019 with Guerrero also having stood in the last by-election and contested Loughborough South (which contains part of this ward) in May 2021.
Current Council: Con 37; Lab 10; Ind 2; Grn 1; 2 vacancies
EAST LINDSEY DC; Chapel St Leonards (Con Resigned)
Candidates:
EVANS, Stephen Anthony (Conservative)
FENTON, David Philip (Independent)
May 21by: Con 795; Lab 206; Skegness Urban District Society 121; Ind 58
2019: Con 537, 506; Lab 412, 350
2015: Con 843, 778; Lab 770, 525; Ind 668
Current Council: Con 29; Ind 8; Lab 6; SUDS (Skegness Urban District Society) 6; District Independent/Lib Dem 2 (1 Ind, 1 LD); Non-affiliated Ind 1; New East Lindsey Ind Grp 1; 2 vacancies
EAST LOTHIAN UA; Preston, Seton & Gosford (Lab died)
Candidates:
MILLER, Calum (Independent)
MORSE, Ben (Liberal Democrat)
OVENS, Andy (Conservative)
PORTEOUS, Tim (Green)
WILSON, Janis (SNP)
YORKSTON, Colin (Labour)
2017: Lab 1801, 932, 429; SNP 1197, 844; Con 1784; Grn 230; LD 180
The ward was unchanged by boundary changes in 2017.
2012: Lab 2312, 922; SNP 1104, 829; Con 500; LD 215; UKIP 83
2007: Lab 2205; 927; SNP 1906; Con 1040; LD 909; Ind 244.
Janis Wilson was the unsuccessful SNP candidate in 2017. The deceased Councillor, Willie Innes, had comfortably topped the poll and easily outperformed running mates in every election under STV.
Current Council: Lab 8; Con 7; SNP 6; 1 vacancy
SELBY DC; Byram & Brotherton (Con elected as Yorkshire Party vacancy)
Candidates:
ASHTON, Georgina (Conservative)
BURTON, Matthew Keir (Labour)
WATERS, Cherry Elizabeth (Green)
2019: Yorkshire Party 320; Con 245; Lab 142
Jul 16by: Con 251; Lab 224; Yorkshire 1st 91
2015: Lab 648; Con 480; UKIP 345
Current Council: Con 18; Lab 8; Selby Independents & Yorkshire Party Group 4 (3 elected as Ind, 1 as Yorkshire Party); 1 vacancy
It is noteworthy that of the 4 Yorkshire Party councillors elected in 2019, only 1 remains in this district and the Yorkshire Party are not contesting this seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 22, 2021 19:14:55 GMT
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 10,105
Member is Online
|
Post by Tony Otim on Dec 22, 2021 21:02:15 GMT
The absence of a Labour candidate here is almost as noteworthy as the absence of a Conservative in Charnwood and the Yorkshire Party not defending in Selby. It's a week where who's not standing is almost as interesting who is... |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Dec 23, 2021 8:57:14 GMT
the deceased Councillor, Willie Innes, had comfortably topped the poll and easily outperformed running mates in every election under STV. the relevant question is how well did his surpluses transfer to his running mates? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 23, 2021 10:41:30 GMT
the deceased Councillor, Willie Innes, had comfortably topped the poll and easily outperformed running mates in every election under STV. the relevant question is how well did his surpluses transfer to his running mates? About 85% of his surplus went to his running mates in 2017 and about 80% in 2012. And he's always been the first Labour candidate alphabetically. |
|
|
|
Post by phil156 on Jan 17, 2022 11:53:20 GMT
They all counting on Thursday except East Lothian which is Friday morning
|
|
shadsy
Non-Aligned
Smarkets' Head of Politics
Posts: 83 
|
Post by shadsy on Jan 17, 2022 12:07:36 GMT
|
|
andrew111
Lib Dem
Posts: 6,064
Member is Online
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 17, 2022 13:00:34 GMT
the relevant question is how well did his surpluses transfer to his running mates? About 85% of his surplus went to his running mates in 2017 and about 80% in 2012. And he's always been the first Labour candidate alphabetically. In 2017, the Tories were still on the immediate GE-called high, and Labour still low, so Labour should win. One assumes that if the SNP are behind the Tories, more transfers will go Lab than Con? |
|
andrew111
Lib Dem
Posts: 6,064
Member is Online
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 17, 2022 13:02:09 GMT
About 85% of his surplus went to his running mates in 2017 and about 80% in 2012. And he's always been the first Labour candidate alphabetically. In 2017, the Tories were still on the immediate GE-called high, and Labour still low, so Labour should win. One assumes that if the SNP are behind the Tories, more transfers will go Lab than Con? Edit: although adding up all the first pref. votes, Lab are well ahead and Tories third. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 17, 2022 22:22:46 GMT
|
|
andrew111
Lib Dem
Posts: 6,064
Member is Online
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 17, 2022 22:32:38 GMT
That could be interesting! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 17, 2022 22:49:38 GMT
Wonder which candidate they missed off.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jan 17, 2022 23:12:27 GMT
Wonder which candidate they missed off. At a complete guess, perhaps one of the Grays? Same name, same party. But I suppose it's probably something boring like the first or last candidate.
Edit: It was Stewart
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jan 18, 2022 12:21:02 GMT
Importance Index Corrected figures | | Con | Lab | LDm | Grn | SNP | | Charnwood (Loughborough Shelthorpe) | 24 | 50 | 12 | 16 | | | Charnwood (Loughborough Shelthorpe) | 22 | 50 | 12 | 16 | | | East Lindsey (Chapel St Leonards) | 100 | 42 | | | | | East Lothian (Preston, Seton & Gosford) | 39 | 50 | 12 | 12 | 31 | | Selby (Byram & Brotherton) | 44 | 37 | | 14 | |
Originally posted figures | | Con | Lab | LDm | Grn | SNP | | Charnwood (Loughborough Shelthorpe) | 24 | 26 | 12 | 16 | | | Charnwood (Loughborough Shelthorpe) | 22 | 26 | 12 | 16 | | | East Lindsey (Chapel St Leonards) | 100 | 25 | | | | | East Lothian (Preston, Seton & Gosford) | 39 | 25 | 12 | 12 | 31 | | Selby (Byram & Brotherton) | 44 | 26 | | 14 | |
|
|
andrew111
Lib Dem
Posts: 6,064
Member is Online
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 18, 2022 16:04:15 GMT
Importance Index | | Con | Lab | LDm | Grn | SNP | | Charnwood (Loughborough Shelthorpe) | 24 | 26 | 12 | 16 | | | Charnwood (Loughborough Shelthorpe) | 22 | 26 | 12 | 16 | | | East Lindsey (Chapel St Leonards) | 100 | 25 | | | | | East Lothian (Preston, Seton & Gosford) | 39 | 25 | 12 | 12 | 31 | | Selby (Byram & Brotherton) | 44 | 26 | | 14 | |
Surely East Lothian is more important for Lab than Con? Cons start from third place and have very little chance and you have set them up! |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jan 18, 2022 16:39:32 GMT
Importance Index | | Con | Lab | LDm | Grn | SNP | | Charnwood (Loughborough Shelthorpe) | 24 | 26 | 12 | 16 | | | Charnwood (Loughborough Shelthorpe) | 22 | 26 | 12 | 16 | | | East Lindsey (Chapel St Leonards) | 100 | 25 | | | | | East Lothian (Preston, Seton & Gosford) | 39 | 25 | 12 | 12 | 31 | | Selby (Byram & Brotherton) | 44 | 26 | | 14 | |
Surely East Lothian is more important for Lab than Con? Cons start from third place and have very little chance and you have set them up! Yes, good point. I'll have to go back and look at the calculations. My model takes account, in multiple-seat elections, of the variance in each party's vote, and that may have caused some weirdness here with the extreme range for Labour, against a single Tory candidate. Tbf, I am feeling a bit that there should be an entirely different model for STV elections, but I'm not sure I can be bothered when there are so few to be considered. If I can find a workable hybrid, I will! ETA: Nope, it's not that! I've had a chance to have a quick look, and I somehow introduced an error into the calculation of some figures at the start of January. Will correct it later. |
|
andrew111
Lib Dem
Posts: 6,064
Member is Online
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 18, 2022 17:19:34 GMT
Surely East Lothian is more important for Lab than Con? Cons start from third place and have very little chance and you have set them up! Yes, good point. I'll have to go back and look at the calculations. My model takes account, in multiple-seat elections, of the variance in each party's vote, and that may have caused some weirdness here with the extreme range for Labour, against a single Tory candidate. Tbf, I am feeling a bit that there should be an entirely different model for STV elections, but I'm not sure I can be bothered when there are so few to be considered. If I can find a workable hybrid, I will! ETA: Nope, it's not that! I've had a chance to have a quick look, and I somehow introduced an error into the calculation of some figures at the start of January. Will correct it later. Well, we do know what to do with STV elections, you add up the first preferences for all the candidates for each party, and that is the vote for each party. It is actually much simpler than multiseat FPTP elections, where there is no "right" way to do it (top vote vs average vote). This is because in STV each person only has one vote (the clue being in the S) |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jan 18, 2022 18:10:46 GMT
Yes, good point. I'll have to go back and look at the calculations. My model takes account, in multiple-seat elections, of the variance in each party's vote, and that may have caused some weirdness here with the extreme range for Labour, against a single Tory candidate. Tbf, I am feeling a bit that there should be an entirely different model for STV elections, but I'm not sure I can be bothered when there are so few to be considered. If I can find a workable hybrid, I will! ETA: Nope, it's not that! I've had a chance to have a quick look, and I somehow introduced an error into the calculation of some figures at the start of January. Will correct it later. Well, we do know what to do with STV elections, you add up the first preferences for all the candidates for each party, and that is the vote for each party. It is actually much simpler than multiseat FPTP elections, where there is no "right" way to do it (top vote vs average vote). This is because in STV each person only has one vote (the clue being in the S) there is a problem lurking in by-elections to seats won by other than the largest party though... |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jan 18, 2022 18:13:17 GMT
Anyways I don't see how a party can score above 0 on seats they don't contest. Even where a case can be made that they should have.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jan 18, 2022 18:50:59 GMT
Anyways I don't see how a party can score above 0 on seats they don't contest. Even where a case can be made that they should have. I'll say this (yet) again: the Importance Index is not an end-product; it is a by-product from an intermediate stage of calculating the good week/bad week index. The Importance Index includes as a factor how many seats a party has on a council and how close it is to have control of the council. If a party was a seat away from taking control of a council, how important would it be to them to win a by election for a vacant seat? And if they failed to stand a candidate, your view is that suddenly that by-election is unimportant to them? |
|
