http://www.cambridgefirst.co.uk/home/e-edition

Thanks for letting us know about that; the comment is on Huppert’s reference to the seven hills of Cambridge:

Mine isn’t the only name Cambridge First got wrong in their new edition, as I paged through to page 10 to see what David was referring to I spotted an article in which they’d called the new Mayor, Cllr Bruce, Cllr Smith:

The 3rd June 2010 edition of Cambridge First is available for download as a 13MB PDF. The Cambridge First website also carries some of the paper’s content and there is a link to a Flash based online viewer for, which free registration is required to access.

When I was at University I lived in Coventry for just one year of a four year degree and voted in my local ward. I don’t remember knowing too much about the local issues.

But having said all that, there are undoubtedly some students who are better informed than “local” people. There are also students who spend many years living here, versus “young professionals” who start a new job in Cambridge and then leave within a couple of years. Which group are more committed to the City?

Perhaps the real “democratic problem” with students is that there is nothing to stop them registering and voting in both their “home” and University constituencies. Obviously people shouldn’t be voting twice in different areas of the country.

I would however like to respond to Frugal Dougal’s comment.

As he might already know, most students live in three wards (Market, Castle and Newnham) which together return nine city councillors. Given that the Lib Dems hold 29 seats out of 42 on the council compared to Labour’s nine it should be obvious that the Lib Dems’ electoral success in Cambridge relies on more than just the students! And Lib Dem support in those three wards is very strong among non-students as well.

I do sometimes wonder why students are seen as some kind of democratic problem. Why should we have to have segregated constituencies when no one else does?

These are all areas which I think it is best to keep the state out of. I want a small state which does things like maintain roads and run hospitals and for it to leave people with as much of their own money and time as possible to use as they see fit; people can then make their own choices about what makes them, and others happy.

I think it’s time to bring in dedicated constituencies for universities in specific regions, so that their students stop skewing electoral results, as in Cambridge.

If you’re right (I expect you are) and people are voting for parties, and not for individuals then I think that’s a major problem. In Cambridge, a constituency of around 100,000 people only a couple of hundred took part in Huppert’s election and only fifty or so attended the Conservative open caucus. Political parties no longer have the grass roots base they used to; I think their time has passed.

I think it would be good if people took more interest in the individuals and looked past the parties - this is particularly important in the local election where the parties struggle to get people to stand and there is very little vetting at all.

Anyone telling a Lib Dem Canvasser they’re thinking of voting Lib Dem risks being asked to stand (or even appointed to the Lords).

My comment that none of the Lib Dem Candidates were credible was made on the basis of the various candidate’s performance as councillors. I was unimpressed by what I had seen of Huppert’s performance as a county councillor; particularly his reluctance to take part in police priority setting, and even appearing to deny having a role in setting police priorities during a public meeting.

Huppert appears to have taken on his role first as candidate, and now as MP, with commendable enthusiasm. I’m still surprised at the Lib Dem’s choice.

I’ve described various state incentives to encourage lower carbon dioxide emissions as “artificial” to stress that they are something created by the state - trading carbon credits is not an inherent feature of the economy and the free market.

I’m not suggesting they’re not legitimate levers to create and use to effect democratic policies. What I am doing is cautioning that we need to be very careful when meddling with the free market - especially in ways which can end up making us in the UK poorer, and disadvantaging us compared to countries we compete with.

Huppert has essentially said GDP is not a good measure of well-being and happiness. I’ve got no quibble with that, or going, as he did, a step further and suggesting that we need a statistic to measuring well being and happiness which should inform policy making.

I agree with all that Huppert has actually said in relation to GDP. The reason I am worried by the inclusion of this section in Huppert’s speech comes from what has been said during the campaign in Cambridge - primarily initially by the Green Candidate Tony Juniper - then echoed and supported by Julian Huppert. Ideas such as that we should create non-jobs, unnecessary jobs just to give people employment in the food and energy sectors.

As long as we are not an isolationist country and are engaged in trading with other countries in the world then generating wealth is important so we can buy the things we want and need, things like food, fuel, and drugs. (If we did take the isolationist route - as the Greens propose - then those essentials would become more expensive, just as they would if we didn’t generate wealth as a nation.)

I think the best candidate I found was in a presentation compiled by Richard Layard, in which he commented on research by R.Inglehart and H-D. Klingemann saying:

history also shows – that, above $15,000 per head, higher average income is no guarantee of greater happiness.

That study looks at whole countries and compares their GDP to welbeing levels - and doesn’t look at individuals.

There is another regularly cited idea that once all your “needs” (as defined by Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs) are satisfied then extra income doesn’t make you any happier.

http://www.julianhuppert.org.uk/content/huppert-makes-his-maiden-speech

That slightly, and inconsequently, differs from both what he actually said and the Hansard excerpt reproduced above.

“the fact that so many constituencies send lawyers to represent them in Parliament reflects badly on what we see as the role of our representatives.”

I can agree with that only if by “we” you mean “those of us who select Parliamentary candidates”. I’m sure that the uppermost concern in most people’s minds when they vote for a particular candidate is the party to which he or she belongs, rather than any facts about the candidate as a person. Certainly such facts may swing elections in the odd well-publicised case involving corruption or suchlike, but I’ve never known anybody to say that they were voting for such-and-such on the basis of their profession or even personality.

I think it’s much more likely that lawyers (a) have a special interest in politics because a large amount of it is law-making, and (b) have the practical skills (especially of advocacy) to impress the committees which select candidates. Considering advocacy in particular, it would be interesting to know how many politicians were formerly barristers compared to the number who were formerly solicitors.

Are we to take it that you have now revised your opinion that Julian Huppert is not a credible candidate for Cambridge MP?

Can you explain what is meant in your comments by “artificial incentives” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as distinct from just ‘incentives’?

I too thought £7,000 sounded low. Julian sounded like he was referring to a specific study which said that was the level. Would love to see what it was. It sounds like enough money for basic needs, except as Richard says, housing. Have to see the study, to see how it measured, say, use of housing benefit or below market cost social housing.

Finally, on GDP, I agree with Julian, and not with Richard. I particularly like his point that making and cleaning up an oil spill increases GDP. A quick Google News search shows that GDP is constantly referred to in articles. The articles tend to imply so deeply that it isn’t explicit that an increase in GDP is good, decrease is bad.

I’d like to see other measures reported properly - and to do that they need to be as simple, as headline and as well known. And for that, in marketing terms, I suspect some sort of aggregated “Gross National Happiness” measure is needed, even though such an aggregation would have to be subjective in its construction.

I expect that Mr Huppert had in mind Cromwell’s religious aims, i.e. the conversion of the British to evangelical Puritanism.

I just want to say thanks for providing information like this to Cambridge residents - it’s really great to see Cambridge being represented directly in parliament, and as you say I think this was a pretty good speech too. Thanks.