Local Council by-elections 31st March 2022

[andrewp]

[Chris from Brum]

Mar 31, 2022 22:21:21 GMT andrewp said:

Mar 31, 2022 22:18:22 GMT Fergus U said:

Do we have vote numbers for Melton?

Con 396
LD 183
Lab 165

Have you got the Lab and LD numbers the right way round?

[andrewp]

Mar 31, 2022 22:22:46 GMT Chris from Brum said:

Mar 31, 2022 22:21:21 GMT andrewp said:

Con 396
LD 183
Lab 165

Have you got the Lab and LD numbers the right way round?

Good point. Yes according to this on the council website

www.melton.gov.uk/media/smopqu22/sysonby-ward-by-election-march-2022-declaration-of-result.pdf

[J.G.Harston]

Mayfield Ward, Scarborough Council
NOCK Con 268 46%
DENNETT Lab 142 24%
WILD Ind 122 21%
DERRICK Yorks 53 9%
CON HOLD

Turnout 585 votes plus 2 spoiled ballots, 16.15%

I was surprised how close Linda Wild got to beating Gerald Dennett the Labour candidate, she was ahead of him in two boxes.

(Edit: added the turnout)

[ColinJ]

Mar 31, 2022 22:24:25 GMT andrewp said:

Mar 31, 2022 22:22:46 GMT Chris from Brum said:

Have you got the Lab and LD numbers the right way round?

Good point. Yes according to this on the council website

www.melton.gov.uk/media/smopqu22/sysonby-ward-by-election-march-2022-declaration-of-result.pdf

Very poor 17.8% t'out.

[jamesdoyle]

Mar 31, 2022 22:24:25 GMT andrewp said:

Mar 31, 2022 22:22:46 GMT Chris from Brum said:

Have you got the Lab and LD numbers the right way round?

Good point. Yes according to this on the council website

www.melton.gov.uk/media/smopqu22/sysonby-ward-by-election-march-2022-declaration-of-result.pdf

Britain Elects must have switched them around accidentally, I suppose

[andrewp]

Doncaster is a Labour hold.

[andrewp]

Doncaster, Wheatley Hills and Intake

Labour 827
Conservative 419
Yorkshire Party 356
Green 135
Lib Dem 60

[markgoodair]

Doncaster, Wheatley Hills and Intake

Labour 46.0%
Conservative 23.3%
Yorkshire Party 19.8%
Green 7.5%
Lib Dem 3.3%

[middleenglander]

Doncaster: Wheatley Hills & Intake - Labour hold

Party	2022 votes	2022 share	since 2021 "top"	since 2021 "average"	since 2017 "top"	since 2017 "average"
Labour	827	46.0%	+6.1%	+4.9%	+3.2%	+5.4%
Conservative	419	23.3%	-2.2%	+0.6%	+2.6%	+1.8%
Yorkshire	356	19.8%	+1.9%	+0.6%	+3.4%	+2.7%
Green	135	7.5%	-2.8%	-2.5%	from nowhere	from nowhere
Liberal Democrat	60	3.3%	-3.0%	-3.5%	from nowhere	from nowhere
UKIP					-20.0%	-20.8%
Total votes	1,797		52%	53%	41%	42%

Swing:  Conservative to Labour 4¼% / 2½% since May and ¼% / 1¾% since 2017

Council now:  40 Labour plus elected Mayor, 11 Conservative, 3 Mexborough First, 1 Edlington & Warmsworth First

Melton: Melton Sysonby - Conservative hold

Party	2022 votes	2022 share	since 2019 "top"	since 2019 "average"	since 2017 B	since 2015 "top"	since 2015 "average"
Conservative	396	53.2%	+8.3%	+11.7%	-15.5%	+20.8%	+22.9%
Liberal Democrat	183	24.6%	from nowhere	-from nowhere	from nowhere	from nowhere	from nowhere
Labour	165	22.2%	-3.5%	-5.1%	-9.1%	+0.9%	+0.2%
Green			-29.3%	-31.1%
Independent						-26.8%	-27.7%
UKIP						-19.4%	-20.0%
Total votes	744		51%	54%	64%	22%	23%

Swing:  not meaningful

Council mow: 20 Conservative, 4 Independent Group, 3 Independent elected as Conservative, 1 Green

Scarborough: Mayfield - Conservative hold

Party	2022 votes	2022 share	since 2019 "top"	since 2019 "average"		since 2015 "top" *	since 2015 "average" *
Conservative	268	45.8%	-1.5%	+0.7%		+7.4%	+9.1%
Labour	142	24.3%	-6.7%	-7.8%		-12.1%	-13.1%
Independent	122	20.9%	from nowhere	from nowhere		from nowhere	from nowhere
Yorkshire	53	9.1%	from nowhere	from nowhere		from nowhere	from nowhere
UKIP			-21.7%	-22.9%		-25.3%	-26.0%
Total votes	585		54%	57%		22%	23%

Swing:  Labour to Conservative 2½% / 4¼% since 2019 and, if meaningful, 9¾% / 11% since 2015

Council now:  13 Labour, 10 Conservative, 6 no affiliation elected as Conservative, 6 Independent, 5 Yorkshire Coast Independent, 4 Cluster of Independent, 2 Green

[andrewp]

That feels like a bit of a not much change week.

Labour probably a bit disappointed with Whitby, but a good result in Doncaster given the circumstances.
The Tories- a good result in Melton, the other 2 Ok.

[ricmk]

Apr 1, 2022 12:35:28 GMT andrewp said:

That feels like a bit of a not much change week.

Labour probably a bit disappointed with Whitby, but a good result in Doncaster given the circumstances.
The Tories- a good result in Melton, the other 2 Ok.

Yeah, 3 safe seats, held safely.

I thought Labour did well in Doncaster given the reason for the by-election and the crowded field.

Not a lot else to say.

[mattbewilson]

I agree about Doncaster, bit of a shame about Whitby; looks like an area that Labour could have made some progress in

[jamesdoyle]

Pete and John will be delighted to know I won't be posting the GWBWI today, because I'm going to have to dash home from work, grab some food, and then I'm heading off to Portsmouth to see The Lion in Winter at the Square Tower. They'll be disappointed to know I'll post the (doubtless dull) scores tomorrow.

[minionofmidas]

I dunno, maybe if the scores permanently remain as dull as last weeks, homicidal urges regarding the messenger may die down in that corner. And potentially arise in others.

[J.G.Harston]

Apr 1, 2022 13:42:38 GMT mattbewilson said:

I agree about Doncaster, bit of a shame about Whitby; looks like an area that Labour could have made some progress in

Especially as the Labour candidate was the former councillor. But then, so was the Conservative candidate (for the neighbouring ward).

[jamesdoyle]

GWBWI

LDm +35
Con -1
Lab -57
Grn -92

This might cause some head scratching, which I think would be entirely reasonable: why do the LibDems get such a (relatively) good score, the Greens such a poor one, and why do two Con holds end up as a (marginally) negative score?

The first two are connected, so I'll take them together. Part of the GWBW score is calculated from the change in vote share. This is normally fine, but in Melton this week we had a good example of what can happen when a party fields candidates only sporadically. The Greens are particularly prone to this. In Melton, the Greens stood last time amd got a very decent vote share. So not standing this time meant a significant negative score - essentially the entirety of their negative score above. But looking at this history, last time was the _only_ time they've stood in this ward in getting on for 20 years. So a one-off good result has meant they are heavily penalised. Gut feeling tells me this is wrong.
The LibDems are the mirror image - they stood for the first time in ages, if not ever, and did pretty well - not least because, presumably, they picked up a big chunk of 2019's Green vote. So going from nothing to 24% of the vote gave them all their positive score for the week. Again, this is overstated (to me - I expect to you too?).

This issue - one-off results significantly skewing scores - is something I'm working on for the 2022-3 version! I expect that reworking this area might mean that parties that stand sporadically (Greens, and to an extent the LiBDems) should see a dampening effect (in both directions) on their score swings.

For the Cons, the issue is that I discount holds and vote share changes in seats that have been solidly held in the history given; obviously Melton Sysonby was a very solid seat for the Cons, and Mayfield was solid - but on a very short record.

Again, this is something I've been looking at. Firstly, my current algorithm basically looks at how solid a seat is over the record available, so Mayfield is counted as being as solid as Sysonby. Which my gut tells me is overstating it. And secondly, for seats as safe as Sysonby, essentially the algorithm discounts the defending party's performance to zero. Again, my gut tells me that there should still be some value, albeit a small one, in getting a decent result, or an increase in vote share, in safe seats. So this is something else for the 2022-3 GWBWI. This should work in favour of parties defending more seats, so Con and to an extent Lab should benefit from this.

ETA :
1) Although I don't expect a response, if anyone's got any thoughts on those comments, I'd welcome them, for or against!
2) My delay in posting was, as I said yesterday, because I was going to Portsmouth to see a play. Well, it was very much worth it - The Lion In Winter was one of the best things I've ever seen on a stage. It was a studio production, in the round, in a tiny space (Khunanup and cogload (I think?) will know the Square Tower), so there was nowhere to hide flaws in performances - but that was fine, bcause there weren't any). It was directed and acted superbly. I'm stilll buzzing about it.

[Pete Whitehead]

What an extarodinarily longwinded way of saying "I've examined the stuff I pulled out of my arse and discovered that it's shit"

[gwynthegriff]

Apr 2, 2022 11:10:22 GMT jamesdoyle said:

GWBWI

LDm +35
Con -1
Lab -57
Grn -92

This might cause some head scratching, which I think would be entirely reasonable: why do the LibDems get such a (relatively) good score, the Greens such a poor one, and why do two Con holds end up as a (marginally) negative score?

The first two are connected, so I'll take them together. Part of the GWBW score is calculated from the change in vote share. This is normally fine, but in Melton this week we had a good example of what can happen when a party fields candidates only sporadically. The Greens are particularly prone to this. In Melton, the Greens stood last time amd got a very decent vote share. So not standing this time meant a significant negative score - essentially the entirety of their negative score above. But looking at this history, last time was the _only_ time they've stood in this ward in getting on for 20 years. So a one-off good result has meant they are heavily penalised. Gut feeling tells me this is wrong.
The LibDems are the mirror image - they stood for the first time in ages, if not ever, and did pretty well - not least because, presumably, they picked up a big chunk of 2019's Green vote. So going from nothing to 24% of the vote gave them all their positive score for the week. Again, this is overstated (to me - I expect to you too?).

This issue - one-off results significantly skewing scores - is something I'm working on for the 2022-3 version! I expect that reworking this area might mean that parties that stand sporadically (Greens, and to an extent the LiBDems) should see a dampening effect (in both directions) on their score swings.

For the Cons, the issue is that I discount holds and vote share changes in seats that have been solidly held in the history given; obviously Melton Sysonby was a very solid seat for the Cons, and Mayfield was solid - but on a very short record.

Again, this is something I've been looking at. Firstly, my current algorithm basically looks at how solid a seat is over the record available, so Mayfield is counted as being as solid as Sysonby. Which my gut tells me is overstating it. And secondly, for seats as safe as Sysonby, essentially the algorithm discounts the defending party's performance to zero. Again, my gut tells me that there should still be some value, albeit a small one, in getting a decent result, or an increase in vote share, in safe seats. So this is something else for the 2022-3 GWBWI. This should work in favour of parties defending more seats, so Con and to an extent Lab should benefit from this.

ETA :
1) Although I don't expect a response, if anyone's got any thoughts on those comments, I'd welcome them, for or against!
2) My delay in posting was, as I said yesterday, because I was going to Portsmouth to see a play. Well, it was very much worth it - The Lion In Winter was one of the best things I've ever seen on a stage. It was a studio production, in the round, in a tiny space (Khunanup and cogload (I think?) will know the Square Tower), so there was nowhere to hide flaws in performances - but that was fine, bcause there weren't any). It was directed and acted superbly. I'm stilll buzzing about it.

I don't pretend to understand your methodology, but I wonder if you could put in what might be termed a "buggeration factor" for sporadic candidature? For example, if a party stands having not stood in the previous 1/2/3 elections the uplift could be discounted by x/y/z % ?

Just a thought that might be more helpful than some other comments . . .

[jamesdoyle]

Apr 2, 2022 12:03:38 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Apr 2, 2022 11:10:22 GMT jamesdoyle said:

GWBWI

LDm +35
Con -1
Lab -57
Grn -92

This might cause some head scratching, which I think would be entirely reasonable: why do the LibDems get such a (relatively) good score, the Greens such a poor one, and why do two Con holds end up as a (marginally) negative score?

The first two are connected, so I'll take them together. Part of the GWBW score is calculated from the change in vote share. This is normally fine, but in Melton this week we had a good example of what can happen when a party fields candidates only sporadically. The Greens are particularly prone to this. In Melton, the Greens stood last time amd got a very decent vote share. So not standing this time meant a significant negative score - essentially the entirety of their negative score above. But looking at this history, last time was the _only_ time they've stood in this ward in getting on for 20 years. So a one-off good result has meant they are heavily penalised. Gut feeling tells me this is wrong.
The LibDems are the mirror image - they stood for the first time in ages, if not ever, and did pretty well - not least because, presumably, they picked up a big chunk of 2019's Green vote. So going from nothing to 24% of the vote gave them all their positive score for the week. Again, this is overstated (to me - I expect to you too?).

This issue - one-off results significantly skewing scores - is something I'm working on for the 2022-3 version! I expect that reworking this area might mean that parties that stand sporadically (Greens, and to an extent the LiBDems) should see a dampening effect (in both directions) on their score swings.

For the Cons, the issue is that I discount holds and vote share changes in seats that have been solidly held in the history given; obviously Melton Sysonby was a very solid seat for the Cons, and Mayfield was solid - but on a very short record.

Again, this is something I've been looking at. Firstly, my current algorithm basically looks at how solid a seat is over the record available, so Mayfield is counted as being as solid as Sysonby. Which my gut tells me is overstating it. And secondly, for seats as safe as Sysonby, essentially the algorithm discounts the defending party's performance to zero. Again, my gut tells me that there should still be some value, albeit a small one, in getting a decent result, or an increase in vote share, in safe seats. So this is something else for the 2022-3 GWBWI. This should work in favour of parties defending more seats, so Con and to an extent Lab should benefit from this.

ETA :
1) Although I don't expect a response, if anyone's got any thoughts on those comments, I'd welcome them, for or against!
2) My delay in posting was, as I said yesterday, because I was going to Portsmouth to see a play. Well, it was very much worth it - The Lion In Winter was one of the best things I've ever seen on a stage. It was a studio production, in the round, in a tiny space (Khunanup and cogload (I think?) will know the Square Tower), so there was nowhere to hide flaws in performances - but that was fine, bcause there weren't any). It was directed and acted superbly. I'm stilll buzzing about it.

I don't pretend to understand your methodology, but I wonder if you could put in what might be termed a "buggeration factor" for sporadic candidature? For example, if a party stands having not stood in the previous 1/2/3 elections the uplift could be discounted by x/y/z % ?

Just a thought that might be more helpful than some other comments . . .

Thanks. I'm just speccing out what I need to do, and I was thinking along those.l in new, but with no clear idea of how to reduce it to formulae yet.
And part of that speccing nis doing a write up on how it all works, so that'll get posted on here at some point, which might help with the understanding!