timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 11, 2022 13:11:55 GMT
From Andrew’s Preview, the Independent for Herefordshire are a coalition of various Independents, including It’s Our County who only joined the grouping late last year, plus the Greens. True Independents appear to be the rest who haven’t joined the governing IFH group; the outgoing councillor had endorsed the runner up, despite not having the It’s Our County description, whilst the True Independents had endorsed the winner. I note that the winner in Bromyard is a former mayor of the town and is President of the chamber of commerce. Had I had time to find that out before making my prediction, I think I may well have thought she would be favourite. To paraphrase, instead of going to Specsavers, you should have waited for Andrew’s Preview before making your prediction, as he mentioned both of those roles. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 11, 2022 13:14:57 GMT
Puzzled about howe we end up with a minus figure when our majorities in the two Hitchin seats were so greatly improved. I appreciated that we dropped out of the Rutland contest, but I'd really love to know how your algorithm (and I'm assuming you have one to determine the numbers) works it out. Yes, there is an algorithm - that was the point, to have a measure of performance that wasn't based on subjective criteria. I did post in detail about how it worked when I started this. When the new election year starts in May, I shall revisit some of this, refine it, and post a full explanation. Basically, this week, the LibDem absence in Rutland gives a reasonably big negative value purely on vote share dropping. Herefordshire obviously has no score because there was no candidate this time or last time. In the Hertfordshire results, the scoring of the increases in vote share is discounted because of the previous history of holding the seats: I use a weighted index of past history, holding a seat scores less the more 'solid' its history; conversely, losing a seat gets a higher negative score if it has been 'solid' in the past. The history weighting is based on the past four cycles (where available). I do think this needs modifying slightly, both to take account of seats where there isn't four cycles of data (due to boundary changes), and to recognise that even when the seat is absolutely solid (the defending party has held every seat over four cycles), there is still some value to holding the seat and/or increasing vote share. So I do agree with you to some extent that the increase in vote share should be given a bit more credit. It's still a work in progress, and I do welcome these points. Are you aware that absolutely everybody in the entire universe (except you) thinks that your GWBWI is just a load of nonsensical codswallop and gibberish that has no meaning or significance, and that everyone laughs hysterically whenever you produce your nonsensical numbers? |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 11, 2022 13:17:23 GMT
Yes, there is an algorithm - that was the point, to have a measure of performance that wasn't based on subjective criteria. I did post in detail about how it worked when I started this. When the new election year starts in May, I shall revisit some of this, refine it, and post a full explanation. Basically, this week, the LibDem absence in Rutland gives a reasonably big negative value purely on vote share dropping. Herefordshire obviously has no score because there was no candidate this time or last time. In the Hertfordshire results, the scoring of the increases in vote share is discounted because of the previous history of holding the seats: I use a weighted index of past history, holding a seat scores less the more 'solid' its history; conversely, losing a seat gets a higher negative score if it has been 'solid' in the past. The history weighting is based on the past four cycles (where available). I do think this needs modifying slightly, both to take account of seats where there isn't four cycles of data (due to boundary changes), and to recognise that even when the seat is absolutely solid (the defending party has held every seat over four cycles), there is still some value to holding the seat and/or increasing vote share. So I do agree with you to some extent that the increase in vote share should be given a bit more credit. It's still a work in progress, and I do welcome these points. Are you aware that absolutely everybody in the entire universe (except you) thinks that your GWBWI is just a load of nonsensical codswallop and gibberish that has no meaning or significance, and that everyone laughs hysterically whenever you produce your nonsensical numbers? Since when were you made Board God? You sure as heck don’t speak for me on this, or anything else that immediately springs to mind, so I’d be awfully grateful if you put your ego back in its box and didn’t purport to. TIA. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,813
|
Post by iang on Mar 11, 2022 13:26:15 GMT
Agreed. It obviously isn't perfect as James acknowledges, but it's a useful way to try and measure relative success or failure on a weekly basis, and on a more long term basis. I think it's interesting and useful
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Mar 11, 2022 13:45:50 GMT
Yes, there is an algorithm - that was the point, to have a measure of performance that wasn't based on subjective criteria. I did post in detail about how it worked when I started this. When the new election year starts in May, I shall revisit some of this, refine it, and post a full explanation. Basically, this week, the LibDem absence in Rutland gives a reasonably big negative value purely on vote share dropping. Herefordshire obviously has no score because there was no candidate this time or last time. In the Hertfordshire results, the scoring of the increases in vote share is discounted because of the previous history of holding the seats: I use a weighted index of past history, holding a seat scores less the more 'solid' its history; conversely, losing a seat gets a higher negative score if it has been 'solid' in the past. The history weighting is based on the past four cycles (where available). I do think this needs modifying slightly, both to take account of seats where there isn't four cycles of data (due to boundary changes), and to recognise that even when the seat is absolutely solid (the defending party has held every seat over four cycles), there is still some value to holding the seat and/or increasing vote share. So I do agree with you to some extent that the increase in vote share should be given a bit more credit. It's still a work in progress, and I do welcome these points. Are you aware that absolutely everybody in the entire universe (except you) thinks that your GWBWI is just a load of nonsensical codswallop and gibberish that has no meaning or significance, and that everyone laughs hysterically whenever you produce your nonsensical numbers? Nothing has any meaning. We are all waiting for Godot. In the mean time, we amuse ourselves with gibberish and fripperies. And all your sound and fury signifies - nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 11, 2022 14:01:07 GMT
Are you aware that absolutely everybody in the entire universe (except you) thinks that your GWBWI is just a load of nonsensical codswallop and gibberish that has no meaning or significance, and that everyone laughs hysterically whenever you produce your nonsensical numbers? Since when were you made Board God? You sure as heck don’t speak for me on this, or anything else that immediately springs to mind, so I’d be awfully grateful if you put your ego back in its box and didn’t purport to. TIA. I speak (as I always do, and always have done) for and on behalf of the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people. The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. |
|
|
|
Post by Rutlander on Mar 11, 2022 14:06:46 GMT
Following the Green gain in Rutland, a report - as yet unconfirmed - that existing Green councillor Miranda Jones from Uppingham has resigned (moving away). Confirmed here: You misunderstand. The resignation of Jones has been reported (by a community radio station, on Twitter) but not formally announced, either by the council or the (ex-?) councillor. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Mar 11, 2022 14:12:13 GMT
Since when were you made Board God? You sure as heck don’t speak for me on this, or anything else that immediately springs to mind, so I’d be awfully grateful if you put your ego back in its box and didn’t purport to. TIA. I speak (as I always do, and always have done) for and on behalf of the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people. The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. Nobody speaks for the vast majority of people - ordinary, normal, decent or otherwise. And even if they did then I suspect that with the exception of a tiny number of people, they have no opinion of James' metric at all. While the majority that do have a view on it thinks the measure is a useful pointer. It shows the Conservatives tanking at the moment - which in itself disproves your omniscience. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 11, 2022 14:25:13 GMT
Since when were you made Board God? You sure as heck don’t speak for me on this, or anything else that immediately springs to mind, so I’d be awfully grateful if you put your ego back in its box and didn’t purport to. TIA. I speak (as I always do, and always have done) for and on behalf of the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people. The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. In my original reply can you delete the word “ego” and replace it with “egotistical delusions of self importance that show a disturbing over estimation of your self importance, aka Putinism” please? TIAA. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Mar 11, 2022 15:11:01 GMT
Since when were you made Board God? You sure as heck don’t speak for me on this, or anything else that immediately springs to mind, so I’d be awfully grateful if you put your ego back in its box and didn’t purport to. TIA. I speak (as I always do, and always have done) for and on behalf of the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people. The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism.
Do I translate that as it works for me, that
The vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people = me
The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. = everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Mar 11, 2022 15:17:00 GMT
Yes, there is an algorithm - that was the point, to have a measure of performance that wasn't based on subjective criteria. I did post in detail about how it worked when I started this. When the new election year starts in May, I shall revisit some of this, refine it, and post a full explanation. Basically, this week, the LibDem absence in Rutland gives a reasonably big negative value purely on vote share dropping. Herefordshire obviously has no score because there was no candidate this time or last time. In the Hertfordshire results, the scoring of the increases in vote share is discounted because of the previous history of holding the seats: I use a weighted index of past history, holding a seat scores less the more 'solid' its history; conversely, losing a seat gets a higher negative score if it has been 'solid' in the past. The history weighting is based on the past four cycles (where available). I do think this needs modifying slightly, both to take account of seats where there isn't four cycles of data (due to boundary changes), and to recognise that even when the seat is absolutely solid (the defending party has held every seat over four cycles), there is still some value to holding the seat and/or increasing vote share. So I do agree with you to some extent that the increase in vote share should be given a bit more credit. It's still a work in progress, and I do welcome these points. Are you aware that absolutely everybody in the entire universe (except you) thinks that your GWBWI is just a load of nonsensical codswallop and gibberish that has no meaning or significance, and that everyone laughs hysterically whenever you produce your nonsensical numbers? What does GWBWI stand for? I've searched and found no answer. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 11, 2022 15:27:32 GMT
Are you aware that absolutely everybody in the entire universe (except you) thinks that your GWBWI is just a load of nonsensical codswallop and gibberish that has no meaning or significance, and that everyone laughs hysterically whenever you produce your nonsensical numbers? What does GWBWI stand for? I've searched and found no answer. Good Week Bad Week Index; [mention]jamesdoyle [/mention]has designed his own, by his own admission work in progress, matrix for measuring which parties have had a good week/bad week based on the by-election results. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Mar 11, 2022 16:28:30 GMT
I speak (as I always do, and always have done) for and on behalf of the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people. The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism.
Do I translate that as it works for me, that
The vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people = me why, it's literally unanimous! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Mar 11, 2022 21:00:48 GMT
Since when were you made Board God? You sure as heck don’t speak for me on this, or anything else that immediately springs to mind, so I’d be awfully grateful if you put your ego back in its box and didn’t purport to. TIA. I speak (as I always do, and always have done) for and on behalf of the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people. The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. Trouble is that I am in touch with the overwhelming majority of decent normal ordinary people and they think the exact opposite. How fickle! Do they not know the Truth? 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 11, 2022 22:50:36 GMT
I speak (as I always do, and always have done) for and on behalf of the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people. The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. Do I translate that as it works for me, that
The vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people = me The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. = everyone else. Of course it is. That’s the whole point. Anybody who disagrees with me about anything is, by definition, an insane illogical hysterical deranged nincompoop who suffers from delusions and hallucinations. I speak for all normal people. How else are we supposed to maintain harmony and tolerance within our tolerant diverse harmonious society? Do people expect me to stand idly by and do nothing, while a tiny minority of hysterical miserable people systematically conspire to destroy civilisation? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 12, 2022 1:28:19 GMT
Do I translate that as it works for me, that
The vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people = me The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. = everyone else. Of course it is. That’s the whole point. Anybody who disagrees with me about anything is, by definition, an insane illogical hysterical deranged nincompoop who suffers from delusions and hallucinations. I speak for all normal people. How else are we supposed to maintain harmony and tolerance within our tolerant diverse harmonious society? Do people expect me to stand idly by and do nothing, while a tiny minority of hysterical miserable people systematically conspire to destroy civilisation? You're just a fictitious construct of my over-tired mind, plaguing me and constantly diverting me away from work I should be doing. You're all imaginary, I tell's ye, yer'all in my mind! |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Mar 12, 2022 4:25:06 GMT
I speak (as I always do, and always have done) for and on behalf of the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people. The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. Do I translate that as it works for me, that
The vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people = me The only people who incorrectly disagree are a tiny and insignificant minority of deranged hysterical nincompoops who have hallucinations of gibberish and ridiculousism. = everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 12, 2022 7:57:49 GMT
The man is a self-confessed lunatic. What else do you expect?
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Mar 12, 2022 8:16:02 GMT
The man is a self-confessed lunatic. What else do you expect? I would expect the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal people to have the decency to self-confess their lunacy. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Mar 12, 2022 8:24:15 GMT
Everyone is peculiar except thee and me, and even thee is not quite right.
Yorkshire Proverb
|
|
