|
|
Post by kevinf on Dec 15, 2023 16:15:18 GMT
Batman does your latest post mean that we are we now at the pantomime season? Oh no, it doesn’t! |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Dec 15, 2023 19:38:21 GMT
I was out most of the day at the bookshop in Arundel sorting out account handovers and password sharing, so didn't get to this till now
GWBWI
LD, +283
Grn +7
Lab -21
Con -261
LDms consistently scoring positively everywhere, with the best scores obviously in North Kesteven and Rugby. Terrible again for the Cons, mostly driven by a -155 in North Kesteven, the single worst score in GWBWI ever I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Dec 15, 2023 20:42:11 GMT
I was out most of the day at the bookshop in Arundel sorting out account handovers and password sharing, so didn't get to this till now GWBWI LD, +283 Grn +7 Lab -21 Con -261 LDms consistently scoring positively everywhere, with the best scores obviously in North Kesteven and Rugby. Terrible again for the Cons, mostly driven by a -155 in North Kesteven, the single worst score in GWBWI ever I think. Presumably this is because NK was uncontested last time? Does GWBWI treat uncontested the same as 100%? |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Dec 16, 2023 8:46:02 GMT
I was out most of the day at the bookshop in Arundel sorting out account handovers and password sharing, so didn't get to this till now GWBWI LD, +283 Grn +7 Lab -21 Con -261 LDms consistently scoring positively everywhere, with the best scores obviously in North Kesteven and Rugby. Terrible again for the Cons, mostly driven by a -155 in North Kesteven, the single worst score in GWBWI ever I think. Presumably this is because NK was uncontested last time? Does GWBWI treat uncontested the same as 100%? I use up to four cycles of past results , so it includes the previous contracted and uncontested elections as well. But yes, uncontested elections are counted as 100% for the winners |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 16, 2023 9:05:58 GMT
I suppose that's fair enough. After all, if nobody else can be arsed to stand, that isn't the fault of the party which does
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 16, 2023 11:49:17 GMT
Though it is still worth remembering that "uncontested" doesn't *always* mean "unchallengably safe", even if it quite often does.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Dec 16, 2023 13:22:29 GMT
Yes, of course that's not an unreasonable way to treat it, and I don't have an obviously better idea. But I suppose an uncontested election getting a party 100% by default is somehow different (and less of a strong performance) to a contested election in which a party received 100.
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,664 
|
Post by pl on Dec 16, 2023 14:23:26 GMT
Though it is still worth remembering that "uncontested" doesn't *always* mean "unchallengably safe", even if it quite often does. Indeed. Holding uncontested seats normally means the party's candidate recruitment infrastructure is far stronger than that of other parties. However, it doesn't mean their campaigning infrastructure is strong. The two can quite frequently be inversely proportional to each other.... |
|
