In article , 
JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > pah@invalid.invalid (Paul Hyett) wrote:
> 
> >> How come nobody is posting about them??
> 
> > Would you like to hear about the Lib Dem triumph in Cambridge? 11 
> > seats won out of 14 for the first time ever (by any party). Even 
> > though Labour were extremely unpopular,losing a seat each to us 
> > and the Greens, the Tories managed to be even less popular and 
> > won nothing. despite getting more votes across the City (not 
> > across the constituency) than Labour. :-))
> 
> This would be the Cambridge which is a gerrymandered island in the 
> midst of a sea of normality.
> 
> Students should not be allowed to vote in university towns unless 
> they happen to have lived there before commencing their studies. 
> They should vote (by post if necessary) wherever their normal 
> family homes are/were. This student effect in places like Cambridge 
> is an unintended consequence of the reduction in the age of 
> majority and should have been addressed long ago. It is 
> anti-democratic.
> 
> That is not going to be a popular thing to say to a LibDem (that 
> party being one that benefits from contrived and artificial 
> concentration of its otherwise geographically diffuse electoral 
> support), but it is the right thing to say. The people of Cambridge 
> (the real people of Cambridge, that is) deserve better than they 
> currently get. If they would elect a LibDem council without the 
> student effect, fair enough. But even you don't think they would do 
> that, as your response to this will indicate.

Typical bollocks, even from you! Look at the results in Oxford.

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

On 8 June, 01:24, rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> Typical bollocks, even from you! Look at the results in Oxford.

How's the campaign against ambulances going? Any thoughts about
extending it to fire engines and midwives on call?

Ian

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
>> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>>> Would you like to hear about the Lib Dem triumph in Cambridge? 11 
>>> seats won out of 14 for the first time ever (by any party). Even 
>>> though Labour were extremely unpopular,losing a seat each to us 
>>> and the Greens, the Tories managed to be even less popular and 
>>> won nothing. despite getting more votes across the City (not 
>>> across the constituency) than Labour. :-))

>> This would be the Cambridge which is a gerrymandered island in the 
>> midst of a sea of normality.
>> Students should not be allowed to vote in university towns unless 
>> they happen to have lived there before commencing their studies. 
>> They should vote (by post if necessary) wherever their normal 
>> family homes are/were. This student effect in places like Cambridge 
>> is an unintended consequence of the reduction in the age of 
>> majority and should have been addressed long ago. It is 
>> anti-democratic.
>> That is not going to be a popular thing to say to a LibDem (that 
>> party being one that benefits from contrived and artificial 
>> concentration of its otherwise geographically diffuse electoral 
>> support), but it is the right thing to say. The people of Cambridge 
>> (the real people of Cambridge, that is) deserve better than they 
>> currently get. If they would elect a LibDem council without the 
>> student effect, fair enough. But even you don't think they would do 
>> that, as your response to this will indicate.

> Typical bollocks, even from you! Look at the results in Oxford.

The actual results (as I strongly indicated above) are not the main issue. 
Although I don't expect you to fully understand it, the issue is one of 
*principle* (not that it is important to some).

If the real residents would vote LibDem anyway, that's their choice and it's 
fair enough. And it *should* be their choice - not yours. But they probably 
wouldn't vote LibDem, as your paranoid reaction shows clearly, and as 
previous posts from you on this topic also indicated.

Are you any relation to the late President Marcos?

On 8 June, 08:29, JNugent  wrote:

> Are you any relation to the late President Marcos?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4448433/Councillor-blocked-ambulance-carrying-injured-man-as-it-broke-driving-by-laws.html

Ian

ubergeekian@googlemail.com wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>> Are you any relation to the late President Marcos?

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4448433/Councillor-blocked-ambulance-carrying-injured-man-as-it-broke-driving-by-laws.html

Yes - I've seen that before.

But that particular "Mr Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City Council [and] 
had failed to comply with the code of conduct and brought his office into 
disrepute" must be a different "Mr Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City 
Council" from the one we know.

After all, no-one who had done anything so anti-social as to deliberately 
block the way of an emergency ambulance trying to reach an injured man could 
*possibly* be so brass-necked as to lecture the rest of us here.

Could they?

Or is blocking emergency ambulances official LibDim policy nowadays?