The “Barred from Voting” campaign deserves some credit for illustrating their cause with perhaps the most exotic and least likely to elicit a sympathetic response, sector of the vast population of disenfranchised. They solely represent the 83,000 prison population in the British Isles.

I take no issue with John Hirst on this particular point, he has doggedly and successfully pursued his quarry – the British Government – through every court in the land, and on to Strasbourg, resulting in the Hirst v UK (No2) decision which may yet see the Government paying out millions of pounds to British prisoners in compensation for not implementing the ECtHR ruling that the government was in violation of Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to vote.

Prisoners incontrovertibly have an interest in who precisely is making the legislation that governs their stay at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, and I see no merit in the argument that part of their punishment should be further removing them from engagement in civic society. No legislation without representation may well be their motto. That prisoners might not be best disposed towards the government responsible for the laws which currently see them incarcerated may account for the strange reluctance of this ‘Equality for all’ Government to implement the ECtHR recommendations.

I am slightly bemused that ‘Barred from Voting’ should have taken up such a narrow remit. As Jess the Dog pointed out, most would agree that those who risk their lives to defend democracy should be the first in line to participate in it – and he gives a thorough airing to the problems faced by our armed forces in taking their place in the democratic process. More than worth reading. ‘No regimentation with representation’ does not seem to appeal to the Harmanisation of Equality Laws – do they fear a backlash at the ballot box if too many of the armed forces are able to access their vote?

In addition, there are some 5 and a half million Britons living abroad. Their reasons for doing so are varied, and range from the archetypal ‘the UK is finished’ to ‘following husband, wife, or job’. Statistically, half of that 5.5 million will be women, who even in these ‘enlightened days’ (shurly sum mishtake. Ed) are more likely to be following a partner than leading the move overseas.

If you are a British citizen living overseas you are entitled to vote in UK Parliamentary general elections and European elections for up to 15 years after moving abroad. It depends on whether you declare yourself to be ‘ordinarily resident’ – and thus likely to return – in the UK or not.

I couldn’t, in all honesty, reply to the electoral officer that my husband envisaged returning to the UK; he has lived and worked on the high seas since the age of 16, and the longest he has ever settled in one place was 15 years in France. Although a British citizen, he has more connections with, and understanding of, the French system, than anywhere else in the world. It follows, since I know a good thing when I see (or marry) one, that if he doesn’t return, neither am I likely to. Thus I was disenfranchised at a stroke of the electoral officer’s pen.

It does not follow, however, that I have lost my interest in the UK, or its political system. Nor that I no longer have an obligation to pay tax in the UK – tax is taken at source. Taxation without representation for me. No franchise without divorce – a curious side effect of Ms Harman’s interest in increasing the influence of women in the UK democracy.

Nu-labour bulldozed the issue of postal voting through parliament, claiming to be concerned about the low turnout in elections. They brought in a system which has been marked by controversy and corruption, which would, it was said at the time, ‘disgrace a banana republic’.

Between the armed forces, the partners of those overseas, and the prisoners, there are many millions of votes that would like to be cast, Nu-Labour don’t seem to want them. They are, however, responding enthusiastically to calls to encourage those with learning disabilities to vote. No prizes for guessing why.

1
Biffo February 8, 2010 at 14:29

Ms Raccoon, none of my business really but could you not change your place of domicile & then pay French tax rather than English – assuming it’s less of course? My son lives in an EU country & pays tax there – not a penny to Britain – though he did go there via Canada which may make a difference.

2
Anna Raccoon February 8, 2010 at 14:36

Biffo,

Unfortuantely some Government pensions are taxed at source and there is no way of arranging them otherwise, regardless of where your place of domicile is. I suppose it means the government pay out less initiaaly since they reserve that part which they consider to be their right!

I also have to do a French tax return for that income which is not the pesky Government pension, and pay French tax on that.

3
Saul February 8, 2010 at 14:38

The UK has tax treaties with most EU countries. It may be possible(depending on the rate you pay) to get a rebate.

4
Anna Raccoon February 8, 2010 at 14:44

Indeed Saul, what I pay to the British government is deducted from what I pay to the French government – but then because I am in receipt of a pension taxed in the UK, I also get to pay an additional health charge in France…..
You can play the same game with a coin I believe, just toss it up in the air…

5
Saul February 8, 2010 at 14:48

If you are paying tax in France then you may qualify for benefits from them. Pension, health etc.

6
Saul February 8, 2010 at 14:50

I presume you have an E101 form.

7
Anna Raccoon February 8, 2010 at 15:17

Yup, and I get health benefit from them, but there is an additional charge towards the health service deficit which is paid by anyone in receipt of, etc, etc, To qualify for a pension you have to have worked here, rather than have an income here.
I only got health benefit when my state pension became payable, until then I paid a very healthy amount each year to the French government for my health cover. Plus the additional charge!
Without a state pension and if you have lived here for less than five years, you are not entitled to even enter the French health service unless you are working here – I only just scraped in by the skin of my teeth. Early retirees have to pay an exhorbitant amount to private health insurance schemes.
Even French citizens can’t get ‘dole’ money unless they have worked and paid into the system for I think it is either three or five years. I am told that what passes for social security here is truly hard to get for anyone.
Hence Sangatte. The French are quite prepared to give them all asylum here – they don’t want it!

8
Anon 00:32 February 8, 2010 at 16:13

“to encourage those with learning disabilities to vote”

I think they have voted in the past 3 general elections. Some of them occupy the Labour front benches too.

I’ll get my coat ……

9
anon February 8, 2010 at 18:04

“I am told that what passes for social security here is truly hard to get for anyone. Hence Sangatte. The French are quite prepared to give them all asylum here – they don’t want it!”

I can honestly say that I’ve never even heard the slightest hint of this in the blogosphere, let alone the MSM (for all their faux coverage of the subject).

No doubt this is, at least in part, down to the limited range of my travels, but thanks a bunch Mrs/Miss R.

10
The Slogger February 8, 2010 at 19:06

I’m afraid I’ll have to strike a note of strong opposition re this one. We all have our views and angles, and this is mine: there never has been (and I hope never will be) any such thing as a ‘universal suffrage’. The only two criteria worth applying to the ‘right’ to vote are competence and citizenship. Both strike me as entirely practical and fair.
As to competence, we do not give the vote to the insane, mentally incompetent and socially immature. The current Government are keen to give the vote to 16 year-olds, but my own view is that age is a guide and no more. I’d give the vote to some eight year-olds, and take it off a lot of bankers I’ve met. (Ask 25 year olds whether they’d give the vote to 16 year-olds, and you’d be surprised how few would).
Regarding citizenship, ghastly foreign persons should of course not be allowed to vote, but I remain a fan of the Roman concept of earned citizenship. Although this is not legal now, I would remove all rights of citizenship from those incarcerated for breaking the law. Will Self (whom I admire immensely) would give all criminals the vote….which suggests to me he doesn’t understand the right to vote as something one should earn.
This issue has caused more thrown crockery and lost friendships for me over the years than all others put together. I still don’t really know why: everyone with a brain agrees we need criteria, so all we’re doing is arguing about where the lines are drawn.
My lines are very clear: if people take sod-all interest in their community affairs, or behave dysfunctionally in that community, or take their clothes off in inappropriate situations before weeing into the nearest policeman’s helmet….perhaps you catch my drift.
Why does anyone have the RIGHT to vote? If people don’t use their vote, it seems to me they are making a perfectly rational decision – especially in the current lunatic asylum some of us have to share. The ‘right’ to vote is neither binding nor universal: it is something to be earned or eschewed, as individuals see fit.
So there.

11
Autonomous Mind February 8, 2010 at 21:14

Speaking as someone who aggressively advocates protection of the rights of the individual, I disagree with the campaign to give prison inmates the vote. I have set out my reasoning in my blog post on the subject, but the thrust is this is not a human rights issue – to me this is the latest example of entitlements being re-designated as rights. I would welcome the thoughts of others on the matter.

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/prisoner-vote-ban-is-not-a-human-rights-issue/

12
T. P. Fuller February 8, 2010 at 22:14

@The Slogger and Mr Mind

I concur. A crime is an antisocial act. By committing one a criminal rejects the society in which he lives. Whether he is imprisoned for punishment or rehabilitation, he has forfeited the right the participate in the development of that society until he has done his time (“paid his debt to society”).

Just a quick ad hominem here. Hirst is a convicted axe-murderer and I have never come across any evidence of contrition. Though I am no shrink, his attention-seeking behaviour goes to confirm that there is something seriously wrong with him. I wonder if he is using this issue as his own personal vehicle.

P.S. Anna – I envy you, living in la belle France!

Anna: I believe you will find that John Hurst was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. Of no comfort to his victim of course, but it does mean that he is an axe killer not an axe murderer. I did once go to the trouble of reading the case, and note that after the event he took himself voluntarily to the police station to report the crime. Such actions have been held to represent contrition. He has satisfied the parole board in this respect.
As a lawyer myself, I have enormous respect for John’s achievements since then, despite disagreeing with him violently on several subjects!

13
wrinkled weasel February 8, 2010 at 22:35

That scrofulous mountebank, T P Fuller has floated to the top of the pond again. However, I have to agree with him. Hirst waived his “yuman rights” when he smashed his landlady’s head in. Never mind Hirst, anybody who signs on the dole should not be allowed to vote.

14
C February 9, 2010 at 00:11

Prisoners should be allowed to vote if they are likely to be freed during the next parliament.

15
jailhouselawyer February 10, 2010 at 01:43

Anna: A good post and thanks for your support.