Prediction Competition - September 2023

[Robert Waller]

Not sure why even a pedant should object to what I wrote!
Nothing there conflicts with what yellow peril has just said, which is entirely my interpretation too.
‘Month lead’ is meant to be a contraction of ‘lead for the month so far’ , which is exactly what he has got.
My reference to rightleaning’s performance shows that I too think of the two days as constituting one week in terms of this competition.

As for the lack of nerve re Worfield, well it would be a bold entrant who wouldn’t say … I’ve sone that too!

[manchesterman]

Just a pedantic Point of Order please robbienicoll but the faults relating to the Reform votes in Brooklands seem to have been calculated on the basis of Reform getting 12.6% of the vote, not 8.9%

Unless I'm missing some "technicality" of which I'm unaware in the scoring procedures? In terms of the overall result it affects nothing, as everyone was calculated on that basis, but just wanted to make sure that it was simply an honest error and not a quirky rule!

[robbienicoll]

Sept 8, 2023 13:38:42 GMT manchesterman said:

Just a pedantic Point of Order please robbienicoll but the faults relating to the Reform votes in Brooklands seem to have been calculated on the basis of Reform getting 12.6% of the vote, not 8.9%

Unless I'm missing some "technicality" of which I'm unaware in the scoring procedures? In terms of the overall result it affects nothing, as everyone was calculated on that basis, but just wanted to make sure that it was simply an honest error and not a quirky rule!

Yes an honest error when copying the code across, more haste less speed etc etc. Thank you for the spot!

[Toylyyev]

Sept 8, 2023 15:26:50 GMT robbienicoll said:

Sept 8, 2023 13:38:42 GMT manchesterman said:

Just a pedantic Point of Order please robbienicoll but the faults relating to the Reform votes in Brooklands seem to have been calculated on the basis of Reform getting 12.6% of the vote, not 8.9%

Unless I'm missing some "technicality" of which I'm unaware in the scoring procedures? In terms of the overall result it affects nothing, as everyone was calculated on that basis, but just wanted to make sure that it was simply an honest error and not a quirky rule!

Yes an honest error when copying the code across, more haste less speed etc etc. Thank you for the spot!

My first attempt at adding faults to everybody states that the Brooklands ones weren't added to the sums either so far.

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Sept 9, 2023 5:55:12 GMT Toylyyev said:

Sept 8, 2023 15:26:50 GMT robbienicoll said:

Yes an honest error when copying the code across, more haste less speed etc etc. Thank you for the spot!

My first attempt at adding faults to everybody states that the Brooklands ones weren't added to the sums either so far.

robbienicoll

[robbienicoll]

Sept 9, 2023 5:55:12 GMT Toylyyev said:

Sept 8, 2023 15:26:50 GMT robbienicoll said:

Yes an honest error when copying the code across, more haste less speed etc etc. Thank you for the spot!

My first attempt at adding faults to everybody states that the Brooklands ones weren't added to the sums either so far.

Hoping that this means no more mistakes for the rest of the month! Now amended, thank you.

[johnloony]

BARKING & DAGENHAM: Lab 900 Grn 300 Con 200 LD 100
CHORLEY: Con 700 Lab 700 LD 200 (Lab win)
LANCASHIRE: Lab 1500 Con 1300 LD 300
LINCOLNSHIRE: Lab 1200 Con 350 LD 150 Ref 50 TUSC 30
LIVERPOOL: Lab 400 LCI 300 LD 140 Ind 60 Con 40
SWALE DC: SwInd 500 Lab 400 Con 300 LD 100

BARKING & DAGENHAM: Lab 60 Grn 20 Con 13 LD 7
CHORLEY: Con 44 Lab 44 LD 12 (Lab win)
LANCASHIRE: Lab 48 Con 43 LD 9
LINCOLNSHIRE: Lab 66 Con 20 LD 9 Ref 3 TUSC 2
LIVERPOOL: Lab 43 LCI 32 LD 15 Ind 6 Con 4
SWALE DC: SwInd 38 Lab 31 Con 24 LD 7

[Tony Otim]

Barking & Dagenham: Lab 57.7; Con 24.7; Grn 10.3; LD 7.3
Chorley: Con 46.9; Lab 43.3; LD 9.8
Lancs: Lab 48.1; Con 43.9; LD 8.0
Lincs: Lab 73.0; Con 17.1; LD 6.5; RefUK 2.4; TUSC 1.0
Liverpool: Lab 40.1; LCI 25.1; Maguire 23.2; LD 7.3; Con 4.3
SWALE: SI 41.7; Con 34.9; Lab 16.9; LD 6.5

[peterl]

Barking & Dagenham: Lab 65, Con 20, Grn 9; LD 6
Chorley: Lab 48, Con 46, LD 6
Lancs: Lab 50; Con 43; LD 7
Lincs: Lab 67; Con 20; LD 8; RefUK 4; TUSC 1
Liverpool: Lab 44; LCI 22, Maguire 18; LD 10; Con 6
Swale: SI 42; Con 32; Lab 18; LD 8

[yellowperil]

Sept 8, 2023 10:11:40 GMT Robert Waller said:

Not sure why even a pedant should object to what I wrote!
Nothing there conflicts with what yellow peril has just said, which is entirely my interpretation too.
‘Month lead’ is meant to be a contraction of ‘lead for the month so far’ , which is exactly what he has got.
My reference to rightleaning’s performance shows that I too think of the two days as constituting one week in terms of this competition.

As for the lack of nerve re Worfield, well it would be a bold entrant who wouldn’t say … I’ve sone that too!

sorry I think I have only just picked up this comment. My original pedant comment was not aimed at you, Robert (would I dare?!) but at some earlier discussion which had implied that the Wednesday / Thursday elections constituted two separate weeks.  Apologies if it read otherwise.

[batman]

BARKING & DAGENHAM, Mayesbrook : Lab 65 C 24 Green 7 LD 4

CHORLEY, Croston, Mawdesley & Euxton S. : C 49 Lab 43 LD 8

LANCASHIRE, Chorley Rural W. : Lab 46 C 45 LD 9

LINCOLNSHIRE, Carholme : Lab 66 C 22 LD 6 RefUK 4 TUSC 2

LIVERPOOL, Fazackerley E. : Lab 54 LCI 24 LD 11 Ind 8 C 3

SWALE, Minster Cliffs : Ind 42 C 36 Lab 18 LD 4

[Richard Cromwell]

Carholme, Lincolnshire

LAB	75%
CON	16%
LDEM	6%
TUSC	2%
Reform	1%

Fazakerley East, Liverpool

LAB	59%
Community Independents	24%
LDEM	14%
CON	2%
IND	1%

Chorley Rural West, Lancashire

LAB	55%
CON	34%
LDEM	11%

Croston, Mawdesley & Euxton South, Chorley

CON	41%
LAB	34%
LDEM	25%

Minster Cliffs, Swale

Swale Independents	38%
CON	36%
LAB	22%
LDEM	4%

Mayesbrook, Barking and Dagenham

LAB	44%
CON	23%
LDEM	17%
GRN	16%

[kevinf]

Barking
Lab 48, Con 28, LD 19, Green 5
Chorley
Lab 43, Con 42, LD 15
Lancashire
Lab 46, Con 40, LD 14
Lincolnshire
Lab 50, Con 38, LD 8, Ref 3, Tusc 1
Liverpool
LCI 42 Lab 41.5, LD 7.5, Con 5, Ind 4
Swale
SI 43, Con 38.5, Lab 12.5, LD 6

[Pimpernal]

Well I am most gratified by all your confidences in our campaign in Minster Cliffs!!!!

[andrewp]

Sept 13, 2023 17:23:32 GMT Pimpernal said:

Well I am most gratified by all your confidences in our campaign in Minster Cliffs!!!!

I will be adding to that confidence! Is there any reason I shouldn’t?!

[Pimpernal]

Sept 13, 2023 17:25:16 GMT andrewp said:

Sept 13, 2023 17:23:32 GMT Pimpernal said:

Well I am most gratified by all your confidences in our campaign in Minster Cliffs!!!!

I will be adding to that confidence! Is there any reason I shouldn’t?!

My eternal pessimism when it comes to elections

[andrewp]

Barking and Dagenham. Lab 66 Con 23 LD 7 Green 4
Chorley. Con 46 Lab 45 LD 9
Lancashire Lab 53 Con 40 LD 7
Lincolnshire. Lab 70 Con 19 LD 6 RefUK 3 TUSC 2
Liverpool Lab 60 LCI 24 Ind 10 LD 4 Con 2
Swale. Swind 44 Con 26 Lab 25 LD 5

[corradino]

Barking & Dagenham, Mayesbrook: Lab 54, Con 31, LD 8, Green 7.

Chorley, Croston etc: Con 50, Lab 43, LD 7.

Lancashire , Chorley Rural West: Lab 48, Con 47, LD 5.

Lincolnshire , Carholme: Lab 61, Con 18, LD 15, Reform 4.5, TUSC 1.5

Liverpool, Fazakerley East: Lab 42, LCI 39, Con 4, LD 5, Maguire 10.

Swale, Minster Cliffs: Swale Ind 35, Con 30, Lab 25, LD 10.

[Robert Waller]

Barking and Dagenham. Lab 67 Con 24 LD 6 Green 3

Chorley. Con 47 Lab 40 LD 13

Lancashire Lab 45 Con 44 LD 11

Lincolnshire. Lab 64 Con 19 LD 11 RefUK 4 TUSC 2

Liverpool Lab 62 LCI 18 Ind 8 LD 8 Con 4

Swale. Swale Ind 39 Con 34 Lab 19 LD 8

[yellowperil]

Barking & Dagenham,Mayesbrook: Con 21, Lab 67, LD 6, GP 6.
Liverpool, Fazackerley E: Con 3,Lab 60, LD 4, LCI 27, Ind 6.
Chorley, Croston, Maudesley, etc: Con 42, Lab 47, LD 11.
Lancashire, Chorley RW: Con 41, Lab 54, LD 5.
Lincolnshire, Carholme: Con 16, Lab 69, LD 11, RUK 3, TUSC 1.
Swale, Minster Cliffs: Con 29, Lab 28, LD 6, Swind 37.