You'd have to get a court to uphold that one and I'm not sure that's the best place to work it out. There is a strong case that Trump has been incompetent in over whipping up the crowds rather than scheming to take power through a mob - that he was encouraging the crowds so they would go and shout outside Congress and generate the image of politicians in Washington denying the "genuine" outcome of the election despite the people outside which would in turn stand him in good stead for a 2024 bid. It would not have been the first time results were challenged at this stage or protests made but to the best of my knowledge previous candidates kept themselves out of it. The 14th amendment would take significant time to rule on and determine if Trump actually is guilty.

The problem with the 25th is that the get out clause is effectively weighted in Trump's favour. The Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet (*) can declare the President incapable and the Veep becomes acting President. However the President can declare themselves capable to retake power. If the Veep and the majority of Cabinet continue to assert otherwise then Congress resolves the dispute but the default is the President retakes unless both houses vote otherwise by 2/3 majority. There's also a 21 day limit in there but that seems to be aiming at providing a definite time limit for a decision rather than allowing a filibuster to keep the President out of power for a few weeks.

Trump could immediately declare himself capable and get a quick vote in Congress. It is not certain a 2/3 majority of the House would vote to keep him out (whereas under impeachment only an ordinary majority is required). If that vote failed then he would have a strong chance to retake power immediately. This is the one part of the 25th amendment that has never been put to the test.

(* Congress has the power to designate some other body by law but to the best of my knowledge this hasn't happened yet. This provision would seem to be expecting Congress in a time of political peace to designate alternative bodies that can exercise the power in a time of crisis. Given nearly all national political office holders are based in Washington the power in wartime could be given to a sort of "shadow cabinet" based in say Kansas who could support a Veep kept out of the capital to declare a disability in the event that Washington is under attack or destroyed. Or it could provide for an alternative body that isn't appointed by and loyal to the President who could make a decision. But I don't think it allows for Congress in the heat of the moment to pick an alternative to the Cabinet to get the result it wants.)

Officially Brexit and the loss of MEPs means the cut in the number of elected representatives has already happened. Cutting MPs from 650 to 600 would only ever have had a tiny cost benefit and was something of a kneejerk populist move in the late 2000s. Hence that part of the policy was dropped by the 2019 manifesto.

Na h-Eileanan an Iar was not so much paired pre 1918 as split - the representation was based on the historic counties or Ross & Cromarty and Inverness-shire. Whilst not the worst example of the way the Scottish Highlands and Islands used to be represented (that must surely go to the old practice of some counties being represented only in alternating Parliaments!) it wasn't the best and the nature of MPs and representation has changed a lot since the days of "Thanks for electing me; see you in seven years!" Given the scattered and very remote nature of the islands a special exception seems reasonable.

Ynys Mon is more unusual - to the best of my recollection nobody was talking about this one in the 2000s & 2010s and it feels awfully convenient that it only comes up after the last change of party there. It has bridges to the mainland and so is more like Skye than the outer Scottish islands.

Far too much energy has been expended on this site arguing about islands over the years. The problem in the boundaries is not there; it's been the glacial pace of reform and then the stalling for political reasons. I live in West Ham which has an electorate only slightly smaller than Bristol West's and it urgently needs greater equality.

Just to clear up some confusion here, Bevin entered Churchill's wartime government in May 1940 but didn't join the War Cabinet until October that year.

Truly one of the all-time giants of Labour, Bevin deserves much greater recognition for his role in keeping the Labour Party and the trade unions on a moderate course in the interwar years when others could have dragged them into extremism. The country as a whole benefited from the triumph of moderation.

Many students secure their places after leaving school, some a few years in. Others don't go to school in a constituency they live in (I didn't for one). This would be an even more arbitrary allocation.

Incidentally your proposal would also have many postgraduate students registered in a different university seat from the one they now live in.

Also how would you even know if someone who applies living at a private address is a student or not?

Why not just accept that people who are in a place for three or four years are just as entitled to vote as the many who live in a place for a year if that? Numerous people move all the time and live in places for only a short period (here in West Ham we have a lot of churn because of this) but only one group gets targetted for special arrangements.

You might also add that the selection timing itself was awful for a university city - mid August! It just reinforced the perception that the Canterbury party is still in denial about being a university city.

It doesn't help that the University of Kent's slightly awkward term timetabling in the last decade has repeatedly meant council elections fall in vacation so councillors get into habits based on who's around on polling day. (It's also a reminder that calls for elections to be timetabled in vacations are a red herring - there will always be somewhere in term time. Indeed my last term of my MA technically ran through all July and August.)

Canterbury has been pushed leftwards by a number of factors. The barracks have closed. Political secularisation has reached cathedral cities. There's a growing lefty arts scene. High Speed 1 has cut the journey to London to less than an hour making it a desirable place to commute from. It has a highly politicised electorate who were all too aware of the local position, not least because the originally selected Lib Dem candidate stood down, almost too late to install a replacement candidate, with a highly publicised call for a tactical vote to support the pro EU MP.

How do you define "home constituency"? Many students basically leave the parental home to go to university and never fully return. Postgraduates especially have little connection.

A lot of voters, not just students, move frequently - do we disenfranchise them as well?

You mean like we already do?

But at the moment all that confirms is the applicant's existence and nothing about whether they're on any other register.

There are many people beyond students who live in more than one place and have interests in both, hence they can rightly vote for councils at both ends. Why pick on one group just because they're not voting the right way.