Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

V334 - Prisoner Franchise Bill Watch

  • View Poll Results: The question is: Should ths bill be passed into Law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    52.27%
    On the contrary, No
    38.64%
    Abstain
    9.09%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    Prisoner Franchise BillAn Act to extend the franchise to the prison population.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

    1 Extension of the Franchise
    (1) The Representation of the People (Prisoner Votes) Act 2010 is hereby repealed.
    (2) Prisoners shall have the ability to vote in general elections, and where relevant local elections, local and national referenda, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly elections and any relevant by-elections.
    (3) Prisoners shall be eligible to enrol on the Electoral Register based upon their last registered address before incarceration.
    (4) Prisoner votes shall be made through the postal voting system.

    2 Campaign Material
    (1) Party political broadcasts shall be shown in prisons.

    3 Short Title
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Prisoner Franchise Act 2010.

    ChangesAdjusted to specify that votes are by postal voting, this avoids the problem of a vote possibly being known by having different boxes for constituencies. It also avoids the problem of people who don't have a proxy to vote for them.

    Then I've added a little section about party political broadcasts, so that prisoners have the chance to make an informed decision. Naturally, with prisoners on the electoral register, it is up to individual candidates to send out campaign material to prisoners if they so wish - but the information will be there.

    One more line for the vote, repealing B333, which would be made redundant by this if it were to pass.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ****. I just realised I forgot that line on devolution.

    Apologies to the house.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As Teas bill just got passed this it'll be a trifle confusing if this passes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    As Teas bill just got passed this it'll be a trifle confusing if this passes.
    1.1 should clear up that confusion...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A superior bill has done this in a better way. no.
    Offline

    2
    Currently, I am not too sure. I always thought that the role of state imprisonment was also the retraction of certain privileges given by the state.
    And these include, broadly speaking, the restriction of negative liberty. "A free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do" - But the reinstatement of certain negative liberties defeats the point of prison, surely.

    I still need to think about this. I may abstain. I may not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    A superior bill has done this in a better way. no.
    It does something different...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    It does something different...
    Yes. And I prefer the other thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    1.1 should clear up that confusion...
    I wasn't saying it would be confusing in terms of legislation.

    I was meaning that it would be a bad sign for the house if MPs views changed within a few days.

    Or it's just a sign that people are abstaining on bills when really they should be voting no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    I wasn't saying it would be confusing in terms of legislation.

    I was meaning that it would be a bad sign for the house if MPs views changed within a few days.

    Or it's just a sign that people are abstaining on bills when really they should be voting no.
    Either that, or MPs support giving the vote to prisoners. As such, they voted for the limited version of that since it was a step towards it and then vote for this. Or indeed, they would abstain on the step towards it.

    I don't see the inconsistency here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Either that, or MPs support giving the vote to prisoners. As such, they voted for the limited version of that since it was a step towards it and then vote for this. Or indeed, they would abstain on the step towards it.

    I don't see the inconsistency here.
    I just got the impression that those who liked your bill voted no on teas bill because they knew that yours would soon becoming to vote. :dontknow:

    Not starting an argument in here :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've actually been persuaded by this so it's an aye from me :yy:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    I just got the impression that those who liked your bill voted no on teas bill because they knew that yours would soon becoming to vote. :dontknow:
    Perhaps (indeed I did), but there were certainly a few Ayes and abstentions too, and considering the final result was close, that could easily be enough fo there not to be an inconsistency.

    EDIt: Just from these two posts (of people who seem to support full representation for prisoners), here and here, it would have been enough to swing it to 17-17 and the Bill would have failed.

    Not starting an argument in here :p:
    Of course, apologies if that came across in the wrong way. :p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    I wasn't saying it would be confusing in terms of legislation.

    I was meaning that it would be a bad sign for the house if MPs views changed within a few days.

    Or it's just a sign that people are abstaining on bills when really they should be voting no.
    I have voted Aye on both bills, given a two vote swing would've lost the other bill it is possible people have done as I did.

    While I supported the other bills granting the prisoners the vote and as such supported it, it's my opinion it didn't go far enough so I support this one as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aye as I think everyone should have the ability to vote. I do disagree with the way this was put forward though.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    Absolutely no. I preferred Tea's Bill. I, like Cardozo, disagree with the way this was put forward.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Aye. Fully aye. I feel that the right to vote is something nobody has the power to take away. To anyone voting against this, do you think taking away that fundamental right is a punishment or a deterrent? If not why is it ok to take away that right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    :yy:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Something rather worrying about this bill has just struck me. It's only just occurred to me, so I apologise for not raising it in the bill discussion. As far as I can tell, this bill doesn't differentiate between British citizens and non-British citizens. As such, this bill pretty much gives foreign prisoners the right to vote in British elections, provided they had a pre-conviction address in the UK. Surely that can't be right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaran-j)
    Something rather worrying about this bill has just struck me. It's only just occurred to me, so I apologise for not raising it in the bill discussion. As far as I can tell, this bill doesn't differentiate between British citizens and non-British citizens. As such, this bill pretty much gives foreign prisoners the right to vote in British elections, provided they had a pre-conviction address in the UK. Surely that can't be right?
    Why? We extend the vote to those non citizens who live in the country and aren't prisoners, why not those who are prisoners?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 3, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.