Prisoner Voting 2

Having just seen the actual motion from the back-benchers on prisoner voting for the debate on Thursday – it’s negative. Basically it calls for the status quo – ie prisoners to continue to be denied the vote.

So I won’t be able to vote for prisoners to have the vote on Thursday as that is not on offer – and will abstain. However, my opinion remains as per my previous post – and I will have to wait a further opportunity to vote for a lawful outcome.

0 thoughts on “Prisoner Voting 2

  1. So nothing to do with Number 10 announcing yesterday that “ALL” Ministers, including you, will be abstaining?

  2. So, even though you have the chance to vote against prisoners being denied the vote, you are going to abstain.

    How do you get up in the morning? Surely, the options available – get up, stay in bed, linger half-in and half out – are too difficult to juggle?

    I’ll repeat in words of very few syllables – you have the chance to vote against the status quo, which you oppose. So what is stopping you? “Why not just say: I’m a Minister and I have outsourced my opinion to the Whips?”

  3. I defend the coalition all the time, but this is too much. I can’t believe you’d be so spineless.

  4. You do realise that if we ignore the European Court judgements we line ourselves up with Belarus, the only non member of the Council of Europe in Europe. Are we ready to recieve lectures on human rights abuses in the UK from other governments ? eg Russia, Moldova Ukraine etc

    Chris of Crouch End.

  5. Just to remind everyone that Cambridge has announced tuition fees of £9000 per year and the rest will follow suit. Would our MP care to comment?

  6. Lynne, you really are embarrassing yourself again. Do you honestly think your constituents are so stupid that we will believe you? You CAN vote for prisoners to have the vote BY voting against maintaining the status quo. Except you won’t, because you’ve decided to do what you’re told by Mr Cameron. Just like over tuition fees. You aren’t fooling anybody. And you don’t seem to realise yet the corrosive cost of your hypocrisy – everyone you meet now knows that they can’t believe a word you say. You seem to think that is a price worth paying for staying in office but, as time goes on, you may find you are sadly disappointed.

  7. Lynne

    When, if at all, do you take into consideration the wishes of your constituents?

    At the moment you look as though you’re just playing political games at the behest of HRH Cameron.

    Very disappointing – in what circumstances do your constituents actually count these days?

  8. You could have retained some credibility by simply stating that since the government’s position is to abstain, and since you’re a member of the government, you will be abstaining. As for yesterday’s post, you could simply admit that you’d made a mistake by thinking you could vote against the motion while remaining a member of the government.

    Instead, you’ve posted this nonsense in which you take your readers for idiots.

  9. “Spineless” is Lynne’s defining characteristic.

    And has anyone seen Nick Clegg recently. He helped the most right wing government in living memory to power and after breaking promises and destroying his party he seems to have scuttled off under a stone.

  10. Simon says “you’ve posted this nonsense in which you take your readers for idiots.” This seems to be a defining trait of the coalition. Remember, they said we didn’t understand what was on offer with the tuition fees (at times it appeared that the person who least understood was Vince), Cameron said we need to have a “serious discussion” about the NHS, as if it is something never before taken seriously and who do we discuss with when our own MP hides behind a wall of silence – the ministerial position. And Caroline Spellman assures us that we don’t understand what is on offer regarding the Forests and yet she can’t confirm whether or not she has received a single letter of support in favour of what is being done.

    Meanwhile the bankers are crying because they have been denied a fraction of the amount they will be awarding themselves next week. Maybe this is understandable – last year financiers contributed more than 50% to Consevrative funds.

    And just to add, not only have Cambridge said they will charge the full £9000 tuition fees, Oxford too have followed suit … but how crazy is it, boasting these proud centres of learning whilst elsewhere throughout England libraries are being closed at an alarming rate; the actions of this coalition government speak volumes and they’ve only just started. Perhaps at some point a few LibDem ministers will jump ship but if they then say that the only reason for joing the government was an attempt to soften Conservative policy, and that they didn’t always go along with what was done regarding tuition fees, the NHS, the selling of Forests or even denying prisoners’ votes it will be them who are seen to be the real idots.

  11. Erm… but if the motion is for prisoners to continue to be denied the vote, surely a vote against that means they SHOULD have the vote?

  12. They say there could be millions to pay in compensation if prisoners are denied the right to vote. But if ex-cons start suing just because they were denied the right to vote, just think how much worse it is for law-abiding citizens to vote for a politician who does the opposite of what they pledged at election time.

    At least the prisoners aren’t tricked into wasting their vote. The rest of us, who voted, are the ones who should be entitled to compensation.

  13. It has been noted that Prisoners serving their senteces today, may claim damages as a result of their disenfranchisement.

    What about Prisoners serving a custodial sentence during the NEXT election? Surely, they will also have a legitimate claim?

    Ths isn’t an issue of £50-100 million pounds NOW.

    It is the issue of an INCALCULABLE sum of money, over any given number of years as long as the public ‘zeitgeist’ for thoughtless vengenace, has been afforded an inexplicable legitimacy.

    Pretend to be ‘nauseated’ (Cameron) by the idea – if you must, to secure your own re-election. But don’t let’s go crazy…

    Morality? You might as well let them vote.
    Financially? You HAVE to let them vote…!

  14. She’s pretends to be interested in telling what she sees as the truth, she ends up toeing the party line.

  15. I am against prisoners getting the vote- why should they-they have not shown their commitment to society.

    The EU position is one we should challenge. I am sorry you take the opposite view-