Cambridge General Election Hustings events

I’ll aim to keep this page up to date with details of General Election hustings events in Cambridge. If you have any corrections, or details of one that isn’t listed here, please contact me on phil@philrodgers.co.uk. I’ll add links to any recordings that become available.

  • FeCRA Virtual Hustings: Available on YouTube here.
  • Mon 8 May, 8pm: Arts and Culture in Cambridge: The Election Debate. Junction 2, Clifton Way. Coverage: Cambridge News live blog; Antony Carpen’s video; Richard Taylor’s video; Cambridge 105 interview.
  • Tue 9 May, 5pm: Europe Day Hustings: General Elections & Brexit. LG19, Law Faculty, Sidgwick Site. More details here.
  • Wed 10 May, lunch: Hustings for Hills Road Sixth Form students, details here.
  • Tue 16 May, 7:30pm: Jubilee Centre, Eden Baptist Church, 1 Fitzroy Street. More details from @JubileeCentre. Coverage: Richard Taylor’s video.
  • Wed 17 May, 7:45pm: Human Rights, Equality and Refugees hustings, Emmanuel United Reformed Church, Trumpington Street. More details from @CamRefugees.
  • Tue 23 May, 10:30am: Disability hustings at Papworth Trust. Details from @PapworthPolicy. – Postponed following the Manchester attack.
  • Tue 23 May, 6pm: BBC/Cambridge News hustings, Churchill College – invited audience only, but details of how you can apply for an invitation are here. –Postponed to 1 June following the Manchester attack.
  • Wed 24 May, 8pm: Cambridge Cycling Campaign hustings, Friends Meeting House, Jesus Lane. More details here. – Cancelled following the Manchester attack.
  • Thu 25 May, 7:30pm: Cambridge Questions Election Special, hosted by Cambridge 105’s Julian Clover. Portland Arms. Tickets are free; you can get one here.
  • Tue 30 May, 10:15am: Cambridge Network hustings, William Gates Building, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue. Free to attend, but register here. – Claire Ruskin of Cambridge Network tells me they are now diverting their audience to the other hustings as there are rather too many now clashing following the postponements.
  • Sun 28 May, 12 noon: Broadcast of Cambridge Questions Election Special on Cambridge 105 (recorded on 25 May). Repeated on Monday 29 May at 6pm
  • Tue 30 May, 7:30pm: Cambridgeshire NUT Education Election Question Time, NCI Sports and Social Club, 1 Holland Street. Details here.
  • Wed 31 May, 5:30pm: Anglia Ruskin and Cambridge University Students’ Unions hustings event, Lab 002, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road. Tickets are free; you can get one here.
  • Wed 31 May: Live debate featuring senior figures from seven parties on BBC One, broadcast from Cambridge. Details to follow.
  • Thu 1 June, 12:00-2pm: Cambridge Assessment hustings, Howard Theatre, Downing College. Free but book here. Also live online.
  • Thu 1 June, 6pm: BBC/Cambridge News hustings, Churchill College – invitation only.
  • Sat 3 June, 6:30pm: Cambridge University Television: Cambridge Debates GE17, Trinity Hall and live-streamed on Facebook. Details here; book free tickets here.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What do the local election results say about the contest for Cambridge MP?

I am currently sitting in the Guildhall waiting for the conclusion of the mayoral election count, so here’s a very preliminary look at the local election results for Cambridge, which were declared earlier today. Labour won seven seats to five for the Lib Dems:

  • Abbey: Labour held off a strong Lib Dem challenge to win with a majority of 75
  • Arbury: A relatively comfortable 412-vote win for Labour ahead of the Lib Dems
  • Castle: Independent John Hipkin lost out in a tight three-way race, finishing 27 votes behind Labour but 14 ahead of the Lib Dems
  • Cherry Hinton: A comfortable win for Labour in their safest seat
  • Chesterton: Lib Dem Ian Manning scored a solid win, 308 votes ahead of Labour
  • King’s Hedges: An improved Lib Dem performance, but Labour held them off by 191 votes
  • Market: A fairly comfortable win for Lib Dem Nichola Harrison by 287 votes
  • Newnham: Lib Dem Lucy Nethsingha won 51% of the vote and a 548-vote majority over Labour
  • Petersfield: Another seat where Labour won ahead of an improved Lib Dem vote, with a margin of 249
  • Queen Ediths: A very solid win for Lib Dem Amanda Taylor, 716 votes ahead of Labour despite boundary changes
  • Romsey: Similarly to Petersfield, Labour won by 274 votes from the Lib Dems
  • Trumpington: A Lib Dem victory by 269 votes from Labour, with the Conservatives third once again.

Labour and the Lib Dems were neck-and-neck in the vote across the city, with the Lib Dems winning 13,572 to Labour’s 13,542, just 30 ahead.

So what does this mean for the Cambridge result in the General Election in five weeks? There are a couple of reasons why we can’t extrapolate directly. Firstly, the Cambridge local election results include Queen Edith’s, which isn’t part of the Cambridge Parliamentary constituency. The Lib Dems won a majority of 716 votes in Queen Edith’s, and although boundary changes cloud the picture a little, this means Labour won more local election votes in the Cambridge Parliamentary constituency overall. On the other hand, Labour tend to do slightly better in local elections compared to General Elections, though this factor is far from constant. The bottom line is that the contest for Cambridge MP looks very close, with only a few votes likely to separate Daniel Zeichner and Julian Huppert on June 8th.

Update: Across Cambridge (including Queen Edith’s), Rod Cantrill got 13,273 first-round votes in the mayoral election, 1,051 votes ahead of Kevin Price, who got 12,222. Allowing for the Queen Edith’s effect, this also points to a very close race between Labour and the Lib Dems in the Cambridge constituency.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

My predictions for the 2017 Cambridge local election results

This year I’m going to be one of the Lib Dem counting agents at the election count, whose duty it is to scrutinise the process, so blogging and tweeting will have to wait until after the results are declared. The count takes place in two phases – the verification stage, which checks that the right number of ballot papers are in each ballot box, followed by “counting into favour”, i.e. separating the ballot papers to see how many votes each candidate has got. Normally these phases take place one after another, straight after the polls have closed, with the results usually being declared in the small hours of Friday. By closely observing the verification stage, party workers can get a pretty good idea of how the vote has gone in each polling station area, and will know which seats are going to be close and thus need special scrutiny during the counting into favour stage.

Things are a little different this year, partly because both the council and mayoral elections are being held on the same day. The verification stage will take place straight after the polls close as usual, but the ballot papers will then be locked away for the remainder of the night until Friday morning. Counting into favour for the County Council seats will begin at 9am, so we should get these results declared by mid-to-late-morning; counting into favour for the Mayoral election will begin at 12:30pm. Unless one candidate gets more than 50% of the first choice votes (which is unlikely), there will be two stages to the mayoral count. The two candidates with most first choice votes go through to a second round; all the other candidates are eliminated, and second choice votes from those ballot papers are then added to the first choice votes for the surviving two candidates. The whole thing has to be coordinated across several different counting centres across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, so it all takes some time – I’m expecting the mayoral result to be declared some time in the late afternoon.

Because of the verification stage, party workers will have a pretty good idea overnight of what results are going to be declared on Friday. However, the law requires that the secrecy of the count must be maintained, and I won’t be sharing any information about how things have gone until the results are declared.

For the last few years I’ve published predictions for the local council results beforehand, but this year I’m not going to until 10pm on Thursday – just after the polls close but before the count starts. Look out for them on Twitter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What do the new boundaries mean for Cambridge’s local elections?

As Cambridge goes to the polls on Thursday in the local and mayoral elections, we’ll get some indication of how political opinion is moving in the city ahead of June’s General Election. The last General Election, in 2015, was held on the same day as the local elections, and there was a marked difference in voting patterns. Here’s a comparison of how the Cambridge constituency voted for its MP (darker colours) and local councillors (lighter colours):

As you can see, while Daniel Zeichner won his seat from Julian Huppert with a knife-edge 1% margin, Labour council candidates outpolled their Lib Dem rivals more comfortably, with an 8% lead. The other notable feature was that Green MP candidate Rupert Read scored less than half the vote share of his council colleagues.

This year the Cambridge local election results will be announced after 9am on Friday 5th of May, rather than overnight. As the results come in, we’ll have some idea of how the parties have fared relative to 2015. If Labour manage a bigger margin of victory in the local elections, then it’ll be good news for Daniel Zeichner, but if the Lib Dems close the gap, then Julian Huppert will be more hopeful of recapturing the Cambridge seat. But because of the difference in performance between the local and general elections, it’s quite possible that Labour could lose the Parliamentary contest while winning locally at Council level.

As well as the impending General Election, another factor making this year’s local elections harder to predict than usual is the boundary changes. As I’ve discussed in a previous article, most of Cambridge’s County Council seats have new boundaries this year, making it harder than usual to predict the likely winners. To try to throw some light on the situation, I’ve put together projections for each new seat, estimating the votes cast in each of the new boundaries for the last five local elections.

It’s impossible to know exactly how many votes were cast within the new boundaries at previous elections, but we can make an educated guess. We know how much of each old seat is included in each new seat, so by taking appropriate proportions of previous election results, we can estimate the votes cast at previous elections within the new boundaries. For example, the new Queen Edith’s seat consists of 87% of the old Queen Edith’s seat, 26% of the old Coleridge seat, and 7% of the old Cherry Hinton seat. So if you add up the previous election results in those seats in those proportions, you get an estimate of how people living within Queen Edith’s new boundaries voted at previous elections. This method isn’t perfect, of course – party support isn’t uniformly distributed across seats, and people don’t just vote for the party label – but it does give us some idea of the baseline that the parties are starting from in each of the new seats. If you’re interested in the exact ingredients of each seat, refer to Colin Rosenstiel’s tables here – electoral divisions (EDs) are the new seat boundaries for this year’s County Council elections; wards are the old boundaries, which will still be used for City Council elections.

Let’s look at the projections for each of the new seats. As ever, remember that I’m a Lib Dem member, so adjust your confirmation bias accordingly.

abb1216p

Unlike all the other County Council seats in Cambridge, Abbey’s boundaries are unchanged, so this graph simply shows the previous local election results. As you can see, Labour have enjoyed a commanding lead over other parties in recent years.

arb1216p

The new Arbury seat consists of 86% of the old Arbury seat, 11% of old West Chesterton, 10% of old Castle, and just 4% of old King’s Hedges – so this graph shows the previous results for all those seats added up in those proportions. This heady mix still gives Labour a pretty comfortable lead over the Lib Dems, though less so in 2015, the last General Election year.

cas1261p

With Castle, the projection method does break down a bit, though it still gives an interesting illustration of the electoral situation this year. The new Castle seat is made up of just 57% of the old Castle, plus 20% of old West Chesterton, and 14% of old Arbury. The Castle Independents, huband-and-wife team John Hipkin and Marie-Louise Holland, have won Castle on the old boundaries in four of the last five years – the exception being 2015, when they did not stand. However, with a big chunk of the old Castle gone from the new seat, and parts of two other seats mixed in, the projection shows a knife-edge Lib Dem/Labour contest in recent years, with Labour ahead last year, and the Independent vote some way behind. However, this is somewhat misleading, because there were no Independent candidates in either Arbury or West Chesterton in recent years, and if there had been they would certainly not have got zero votes. This factor artificially lowers the projected Independent share of the vote – indeed, I think John Hipkin is still front-runner even on the new boundaries. But it does illustrate the challenge that the Castle Independents face in persuading the “new” Castle voters to support them – and we certainly can’t rule out a surprise result in Castle this year.

che1216p

The new Cherry Hinton seat is made up of 93% of the old Cherry Hinton, plus 39% of the now-dismembered Coleridge seat. This doesn’t do very much to change its electoral makeup, which in recent years has been dominated by Labour.

chs1216p

The new Chesterton seat promises one of the most intriguing contests this year, with well-known Lib Dem councillor Ian Manning facing a strong challenge from Labour newcomer Kelley Green, who has proved herself to be a formidable campaigner. The new seat is made up of 68% of the old East Chesterton, plus 60% of the old West Chesterton. The projected results show a close contest between the two main Cambridge parties. Labour will take heart from the 2016 projection, which put them 8% ahead on the new boundaries, while Lib Dems will note that in 2013, the last time Ian Manning stood for the County Council, they had a 5% advantage.

kgh1216p

The new King’s Hedges contains almost all – 96% – of the old King’s Hedges, plus 32% of the old East Chesterton and 9% of the old West Chesterton. This mixture slightly reduces the lead Labour had on the old boundaries, but not by a great deal – Labour will be hoping for a comfortable win ahead of the Liberal Democrats.

mkt1216p

Market is enlarged by the boundary changes, and includes all its previous voters plus 23% of the old Castle ward. This doesn’t change its basic makeup very much – it remains a tight Lib Dem/Labour marginal, with the Greens also potentially in contention. Although fading last year, the Greens polled strongly in 2015, narrowly winning the seat on the old boundaries, and could perhaps make a come-back this time.

new1216p

Newnham sees little change with the new boundaries, retaining all its old area and adding just 9% of the old Castle ward. It remains a reasonably close Lib Dem/Labour contest, though with the Lib Dems ahead by a small margin.

pet1216p

Petersfield is expanded significantly by the boundary changes, keeping all its previous voters and adding 34% of the old Trumpington ward, a Lib Dem stronghold. However, Labour have been doing well enough in Trumpington in recent years that this doesn’t do much to dilute their lead, and on the projection they retain a comfortable lead.

qed1216p

The Queen Edith’s projection is particularly interesting. The old Queen Edith’s  was generally a Lib Dem stronghold, with the exception of a surprise Labour win in 2012, but on the new boundaries it looks like a much closer fight. The new Queen Edith’s seat includes 87% of the old Queen Edith’s, but adds 26% of the old Coleridge seat and 7% of the former Cherry Hinton – both being strong Labour areas. This is enough to erode the Lib Dem lead and put Queen Edith’s firmly into knife-edge marginal territory. Indeed the projection shows Labour slightly ahead on last year’s votes. Much will depend on how effective the rival party campaigns have been this year.

rom1216p

The new Romsey includes all of the old Romsey’s boundary, and extends it some way to the south to include 34% of the old Coleridge ward. Coleridge has been a strong Labour area for some time, so this extends Labour’s lead in Romsey over the Lib Dems. Labour will be hoping for a comfortable win this year on the new boundaries.

tru1216p

The new Trumpington seat is somewhat smaller than before, including just 66% of the old seat, plus 13% of the old Queen Edith’s. The projection is not very different from the previous Trumpington results, with the Lib Dems having mostly comfortable leads in recent years.

Overall, then, the projections show Labour leading in nine of the new seats on last year’s votes, with the Lib Dems ahead in just three – Trumpington, Newnham, and (by a whisker) Market. However, these projections definitely need to be taken with a pinch of salt – and a whole handful in the case of Castle. Nevertheless, they do indicate that there might be one or two surprises in store when the results are announced on Friday morning.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Cambridge News mayoralty survey

Earlier this week, the Cambridge News published the results of a survey about how (and whether) people are likely to vote in the election for Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Here’s a look at what they found.

First, though, it’s worth stressing that this survey probably won’t be as accurate as a properly conducted opinion poll. The News surveyed 986 randomly selected visitors to its website, so many of the respondents will be from Cambridge and the surrounding area, and fewer from Peterborough and the north of Cambridgeshire. Also, they probably don’t reflect the demographics of the whole electorate very accurately. Opinion polling companies apply geographic and demographic weighting to try to reflect the whole of the electorate they are covering, and those following British Polling Council rules publish full data tables so you can check their sums. Even then they don’t always get it right, of course. On the other hand, the News survey is still a lot better than self-selecting online “polls”, which tell you little more than which party’s activists have most time available to click on websites. These are known as voodoo polls and should be ignored completely.

On to what the survey found. Here’s the headline result, giving the overall level of support for each Mayoral candidate:

cnm17s1

The News found that 30.6% of respondents said they wouldn’t be voting, though if turnout is really anywhere near 70% I will be very surprised. Amongst those voting, the three main parties are fairly close together, with Lib Dem Rod Cantrill enjoying a small lead. I can only apologise to Independent candidate Peter Dawe and English Democrat Stephen Goldspink for lumping them together under “Others”, but that is how the data was presented in the News article. Here are the numbers again, excluding those not voting:

cnm17s2

The News also gave a breakdown of the figures across different districts, at least for the leading candidates. Here are the numbers for Cambridge City:

cnm17cam

As usual Cambridge is a Labour/Lib Dem contest, with the other parties a long way back; the level of Conservative support is well below even their pitiful showing in the 2015 General Election.

cnm17sc

The picture is better for the Conservatives in South Cambs, where James Palmer leads the field by a short head from Rod Cantrill, with Kevin Price still in contention.

cnm17ec

The Conservatives have a more comfortable lead in East Cambs, with Labour a long way back – though the News admits that this is based on a small sample of respondents.

Finally, here are the issues that voters are most concerned about, according to the survey. The total is more than 100% because people could choose more than one issue.

cnm17iss

The NHS is top of the list by some way, though it isn’t a specific responsibility of the new Mayor. Indeed of these issues, only transport is an area that the Mayor is primarily responsible for. Perhaps surprisingly, housing doesn’t feature on the list, even though it’s another key part of the Mayor’s remit. Perhaps it wasn’t listed as an option on the survey.

I haven’t seen any similar survey results for Peterborough or the north of Cambridgeshire, and it’s important to remember that voting patterns there will probably be quite different to those in Cambridge and the surrounding area – so this survey on its own isn’t a reliable guide to the likely outcome of the contest. However, it does give some indication that the Lib Dems are serious contenders with Labour for a place in the top two. Rod Cantrill will be reasonably pleased with that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cambridge 105 Election Studio podcast

Earlier today Chris Rand and myself were guests on the Cambridge 105 Election Studio, on Julian Clover’s show. We were talking about the General Election contest in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, as well as the Mayoralty and the County Council elections on May 4th. You can listen to the programme here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Prospects for the 2017 General Election in Cambridge

Well, there’s a title I wasn’t expecting to be writing this morning. Following Theresa May’s surprise announcement, here’s a very quick look at the initial prospects for the Cambridge seat on June 8th. Firstly, here’s a reminder of the result in 2015:

Daniel Zeichner edged Julian Huppert out by just 599 votes in 2015, following a knife-edge campaign. Both will be re-standing this time, their third battle for the Cambridge seat in a series that currently stands at one victory each. The Green Party have also selected their candidate, Stuart Tuckwood, an NHS nurse and community activist who came third in the contest for Market ward in last year’s City Council elections. As far as I know neither the Conservatives nor UKIP have a candidate in place, though no doubt emergency selection processes are whizzing into action even as I type. However, realistically, Cambridge is going to be a two-way contest between Huppert and Zeichner.

I’ve heard a number of suggestions today that Julian can expect to regain Cambridge reasonably easily, given the closeness result last time, the current state of the Labour Party, and Cambridge’s heavy Remain vote, which aligns with Lib Dem policy. However, I really don’t think this is the case – I’m expecting another close contest. Despite Labour’s problems nationally, the Cambridge Labour Party remains a well-run and effective campaigning organisation, and has several times as many members in the city as the Lib Dems do – numbers fluctuate, but I believe it’s somewhere between three and five times as many. It’s hard to know exactly what effect the Brexit factor will have, given Daniel Zeichner’s pro-Remain stance. There’s also the consideration that, five weeks before the General Election polling day, Labour is likely to win more seats than the Lib Dems in the local elections on May 4th – this is less certain than it was yesterday, but still probable. Labour also has the benefit of incumbency, an advantage the Lib Dems have lost since 2015. On the other hand, the Labour student organisation is probably going to be a bit less of a factor than last time, as the campaign falls right in the middle of exam season, and there probably won’t be a Cambridge seat opinion poll from Lord Ashcroft showing Julian with a clear lead – or if there is, people will pay less attention to it. [Update: please bear in mind I’m a Lib Dem member]

In any case, it’s going to be a fascinating – and exhausting – seven-and-a-bit weeks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments