Prediction Competition - January 2023

[Tony Otim]

Jan 18, 2023 11:35:13 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

I'm very tempted to pass on what I have learned from my dad (who lives there) about how the Independents in Biddulph operate.

Was your dad one of the candidates in Biddulph West in 2011? I did wonder when I saw the name preparing the OP...

[robbienicoll]

Jan 17, 2023 20:36:55 GMT andrewp said:

Jan 16, 2023 19:03:19 GMT robbienicoll said:

Separately please. Also remember to specify the winners if opting for a split ticket win.

IF we think the 2 Independents will come first and second and get elected, do we need to pick a poll topper then?  and would we still get wrong winner faults if we eg state Eardley as winner, and McLoughlin comes first and Eardley second?

I do personally wonder if is fairer/ easier to treat them as a team. But maybe it isn’t.

They are Defitnely standing as a team with joint leaflets etc.

The default rule is that Independents and No Description candidates are treated as individuals. This is only the case for those two descriptions - eg. if two Community Independent candidates stood for a double election I would accept them as a joint ticket. I appreciate in this circumstance it isn't very helpful when there is collaboration but I can foresee issues determining what would count as working together and those issues outweigh the benefits in my opinion. Therefore the ruling stands that both Independents should be treated separately.

Poll topper faults are only applicable in Scottish contests where the specification is for the winner on first preferences and after transfers. In FPTP the poll topper is automatically the winner and this would be the case for the first two winners in a double election, so in short no there are no additional faults for getting the winners the wrong way round. And for yellowperil's question, no need to specify the order of party candidates (or exactly who wins) since they are operating on an explicitly joint party ticket.

Example entry: Ind (Eardley) 30, Ind (McLoughlin) 29, Lab 20, Con 15, Green 6 (2x Ind win)

If both Inds win, zero faults. If one wins and a party wins the other, 5 faults for getting one wrong. If neither win, 10 faults for getting both wrong. Obviously in addition to whatever faults are applied for the prediction overall. Apologies for the length of the explanation, I'd said previously I'd look to organising a thread on rules which I will prioritise over the next fortnight.

[Richard Cromwell]

Biddulph West, Staffordshire Moorlands

LAB	51%
CON	20%
GRN	13%
Neil Eardley	9%
Alistair Mcloughlin	7%

Biddulph North, Staffordshire

LAB	52%
CON	40%
IND	8%

Bedwell, Stevenage

LAB	69%
CON	22%
LDEM	9%

[kevinf]

Staffs CC Biddulph North
Ind 34, Lab 33.5, Con 32.5
Staffs Moorlands, Biddulph West
Ind Eardley 30, Ind McLaughlin 29, Lab 25, Con 11, Green 6
Stevenage
Lab 60, Con 25, LibDem 15

(though I’m not sure this system in Biddulph West works…)

[iainbhx]

Jan 18, 2023 11:35:13 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

I'm very tempted to pass on what I have learned from my dad (who lives there) about how the Independents in Biddulph operate.

One of my co-workers lives in Biddulph and hasn't got a good word to say about the Indos. She's voting Labour for the first time in her life tomorrow.

[peterl]

Staffs CC Biddulph North Lab 36, Ind 34, Con 30
Staffs Moorlands, Biddulph West Ind Eardley 28, Lab 27, Ind McLaughlin 25, Con 15, Green 5 (Eardley and 1 Lab elected)
StevenageLab 67, Con 22, LibDem 11

[manchesterman]

Biddulph North
Ind 38, Lab 31, Con 31

Biddulph West
Eardley 28, McLaughlin 28, Lab 22, Con 15, Green 7

Bedwell, Stevenage
Lab 58, Con 28, LD 14

[Robert Waller]

Staffs: Hart 48; Lab 30; Con 22

Staff Moorlands: McLoughlin 31; Labour 22; Eardley 30; Con 12; Grn 5 (2 Independents elected) (I'm not absolutely sure about the system in this case; I am presuming the Labour share refers either to top candidate‘s share of two votes or average of the two candidates) (later; edited after advice in thread below!)

Stevenage: Lab 66; Con 20; LD 14

[andrewp]

Staffordshire. Biddulph North. Hart 41, Lab 38, Con 21

Staffordshire Moorlands. Eardley 31, McLoughlin 30, Lab 24, Con 11, Green 4 ( I too am not absolutely sure about the system here, but I predict the 2 x Ind will be elected)

Stevenage. Lab 64, Con 22, LD 14

[Tony Otim]

Jan 18, 2023 21:56:16 GMT Robert Waller said:

Staffs: Hart 48; Lab 30; Con 22

Staff Moorlands: McLoughlin 24; Labour 30; Eardley 26; Con 12; Grn 8 (2 Independents elected) (I'm not absolutely sure about the system in this case; I am presuming the Labour share refers either to top candidate‘s share of two votes or average of the two candidates)

Stevenage: Lab 66; Con 20; LD 14

Umm... you have Labour coming top but 2 independents elected... whatever the system, I don't think that's possible

[Robert Waller]

Jan 18, 2023 22:48:53 GMT Tony Otim said:

Jan 18, 2023 21:56:16 GMT Robert Waller said:

Staffs: Hart 48; Lab 30; Con 22

Staff Moorlands: McLoughlin 24; Labour 30; Eardley 26; Con 12; Grn 8 (2 Independents elected) (I'm not absolutely sure about the system in this case; I am presuming the Labour share refers either to top candidate‘s share of two votes or average of the two candidates)

Stevenage: Lab 66; Con 20; LD 14

Umm... you have Labour coming top but 2 independents elected... whatever the system, I don't think that's possible

What I am trying to predict is that the Independents get about 50%, Labour 30% etc.
eg Eardley 1020, McLoughlin 980, Labour 600, Labour 600 etc.
Electors have 2 votes each.
We are not supposed to distinguish between the Labour candidates, but we are between the Independents. So what should my prediction percentages be in this case?

[andrewp]

Jan 18, 2023 22:54:02 GMT Robert Waller said:

Jan 18, 2023 22:48:53 GMT Tony Otim said:

Umm... you have Labour coming top but 2 independents elected... whatever the system, I don't think that's possible

What I am trying to predict is that the Independents get about 50%, Labour 30% etc.
eg Eardley 1020, McLoughlin 980, Labour 600, Labour 600 etc.
Electors have 2 votes each.
We are not supposed to distinguish between the Labour candidates, but we are between the Independents. So what should my prediction percentages be in this case?

As I understand, you would base your percentages then on Eardley 1020, McLoughlin 980, Labour 600, Con eg 300, Green eg 100. Which on those numbers would be Eardley 34, McLoughlin 33, Lab 20, Con 10. Green 3

[Robert Waller]

Thank you. I have edited my prediction accordingly. I hope I have now done it as intended!

[rightleaning]

Staffordshire. Biddulph North. Lab 42, Hart 38, Con 20

Staffordshire Moorlands. Eardley 29, McLoughlin 29, Lab 25, Con 14, Green 3 - 2 x Ind will be elected

Stevenage. Lab 67, Con 21, LD 12

[iainbhx]

Staffordshire CC, Biddulph N: Lab 40, Ind Hart 38, Con 22

Staffordshire Moorlands DC, Biddulph W: Eardley 28, Lab 27, McLoughlin 26, Con 15, Grn 4 - Ind Eardley & 1 Lab Elected

Stevenage DC, Bedwell: Lab 66, Con 23, LDm 11

[No Offence Alan]

Oh shit! It's Thursday morning and that's the day I go in to work in the office. So, very quickly ..
Staffs CC Biddulph North
Ind 40, Lab 35, Con 25
Staffs Moorlands, Biddulph West
Ind Eardley 34, Ind McLaughlin 28, Lab 26, Con 8, Green 4
Stevenage
Lab 62, Con 24, LibDem 14

[yellowperil]

Staffordshire, Biddulph North: Con 30, Lab 34, Ind 36
Stevenage, Bedwell: Con 25, Lab 60, LD 15

now for the tricky one- I'm going to clarify  my intention my specifying the individual Labour scores _ I know that is not a requirement, so I hope I'm not penalised for getting that bit wrong!
Staffordshire Moorlands, Biddulph West: Con 12, Lab (Proudlove26+Smith22), av score 24, GP 3, Ind Eardley 30, Ind McLoughlin 29.
Inds elected x2

[andrewp]

Jan 19, 2023 7:13:53 GMT yellowperil said:

Staffordshire, Biddulph North: Con 30, Lab 34, Ind 36
Stevenage, Bedwell: Con 25, Lab 60, LD 15

now for the tricky one- I'm going to clarify  my intention my specifying the individual Labour scores _ I know that is not a requirement, so I hope I'm not penalised for getting that bit wrong!
Staffordshire Moorlands, Biddulph West: Con 12, Lab (Proudlove26+Smith22), av score 24, GP 3, Ind Eardley 30, Ind McLoughlin 29.
Inds elected x2

Not that it matters and I hesitate before opening this debate again, but I am intrigued as to whether we will be basing prediction results on the top Labour candidate score or an average of the Labour candidates, I had assumed the former but perhaps that was an assumption?

[robbienicoll]

Jan 19, 2023 8:17:49 GMT andrewp said:

Jan 19, 2023 7:13:53 GMT yellowperil said:

Staffordshire, Biddulph North: Con 30, Lab 34, Ind 36
Stevenage, Bedwell: Con 25, Lab 60, LD 15

now for the tricky one- I'm going to clarify  my intention my specifying the individual Labour scores _ I know that is not a requirement, so I hope I'm not penalised for getting that bit wrong!
Staffordshire Moorlands, Biddulph West: Con 12, Lab (Proudlove26+Smith22), av score 24, GP 3, Ind Eardley 30, Ind McLoughlin 29.
Inds elected x2

Not that it matters and I hesitate before opening this debate again, but I am intrigued as to whether we will be basing prediction results on the top Labour candidate score or an average of the Labour candidates, I had assumed the former but perhaps that was an assumption?

It's top vote, so I'll be taking the 26 as the intended Labour prediction here (no wrong marks for adding extra info). Thanks to everyone for their patience, appreciate this has been a tricky one to navigate. 

[yellowperil]

Jan 19, 2023 8:54:04 GMT robbienicoll said:

Jan 19, 2023 8:17:49 GMT andrewp said:

Not that it matters and I hesitate before opening this debate again, but I am intrigued as to whether we will be basing prediction results on the top Labour candidate score or an average of the Labour candidates, I had assumed the former but perhaps that was an assumption?

It's top vote, so I'll be taking the 26 as the intended Labour prediction here (no wrong marks for adding extra info). Thanks to everyone for their patience, appreciate this has been a tricky one to navigate. 

It is an interesting one, and I decided the best thing was to spell out exactly  what I intended. It does mean that taking the top score for Labour the total will not add up to 100, which surely will always be the case unless you assume  both Labour candidates get the same vote, or unless you simply ignore the second Labour candidate ( the tail-end Charlie in my example!) and work the percentages as though he didn't exist.

On another issue on this particularly awkward/interesting by-election, I was wondering exactly what happened to the second Conservative? Was the withdrawal in time to remove the name from the ballot paper? Presumably even if it was, some Conservative literature may have gone out with his name on it. It would be interesting to know whether there is an unusual large number of spoils - not that that will affect the prediction game.