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

> 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.

Er, instead of writing such arrant nonsense, I suggest you look at the 
actual results in Cambridge. The Lib Dems won 11 seats out of 14 in 
Cambridge City (and 8 out of 16 in South Cambridgeshire) on Thursday. Only 
3 divisions among those have substantial numbers of students in them.

> Are you any relation to the late President Marcos?

What Tory lunacy lies behind that question?

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

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article , 
> JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Er, instead of writing such arrant nonsense, I suggest you look at the 
> actual results in Cambridge. The Lib Dems won 11 seats out of 14 in 
> Cambridge City (and 8 out of 16 in South Cambridgeshire) on Thursday. Only 
> 3 divisions among those have substantial numbers of students in them.

Absolutely and totally irrelevant (and it was covered above). But you cannot 
admit that you can see that. I understand and so does everyone else.

The student vote (at any large university) is an unwarranted intereference in 
the affairs of the true local residents.

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

> What Tory lunacy lies behind that question?

Don't be disingenuous.