Commuter vote

Yeah, they don't pay its taxes.

and they do pay (quite a lot) to use the london public transport system

Wouldn't everyone then have to have two votes, one for where they live and one for where they work?

Seeing as it's almost impossible to commute into London without paying money to either the tfl or the congestion charge, it seems a mite unfair that commuters are not represented. (this is particularly galling when you see incentives to get an oyster card which are no use to you if you travel in from a non-oyster card zones) Voting probably isn't the way to go about it though. Presumably companies based in London have ways of making their employees interests clear.

Seems to me it would create an unhelpful precedent. People all over the country work outside the area where they live, most people, perhaps - if they also wanted to have a say in the local politics of the area where they work, it could get hopelessly complicated. More red tape isn't what we need.

I'd be against this on the basis that commuters that work in The City already have their wishes pretty well represented anyway and that they should contribute to the local democracy of the places they actually live, rather than treating them as a dormitory to which they have no connection. Cheers, Mark

As a political dinosaur, I don't believe there's necessarily a strong link between the interests of companies and people who work for them. The City of London is a special case as the current voting system is very different from conventional voting elsewhere in the UK. The tax thing is only part of it - obviously there are lots of people resident in London and paying council tax who don't get a vote because they're not EU or Commenwealth citizens. There would be some significant practical problems with the commuter thing: How many days per week would you have to come in to be eligible? How long would you have to be working in London for? And there's spin-off problems if you don't have voting based on a single residency. For instance, why shouldn't the rich vote in all areas where they have a significant business interests?

Test cases: I quite like Hastings. And the Lake District. And I come from Newcastle. I've an interest in what happens to these places. Why shouldn't I be able to vote in their local elections? Cheers, Mark

Also, the interests of cummuters is only a thin slice of what the London Assembly does. In theory, free market mechanisms should work. If London makes itself a less pleasant place to commute to then more companies will move outside of it. Fewer companies (and commuters) mean less revenue for London (we're like tourists) - so they should act to prevent this.

You don't have to make a contribution to the economy and community to get a vote. If you did, it wouldn't be a democracy. Who gets to judge someone's value to the community? As long as it's me, I'm happy. I'd take some convincing that there's a fairer system of determining the right to vote than whether someone is an adult citizen living somewhere. Curiously given my left-wing dinosaur inclinations, I think Dan's right re: free market mechanisms - which is an argument in favour of a sensible Mayor consulting with business and employees of businesses but not in favour of them getting a vote.

My point is: if you don't live somewhere, but you choose to go there instead of going somewhere else, even on a daily basis, you don't have the same right to decide what happens there as a person who actually lives there all the time. Not an obscure point. Not really. Plus I think 'commuters' are often given a far fairer crack of the whip in influencing decisions than other people are. I see the case that London is different from other places, though in terms of the high end commuters not so different (witness the rural village, work in the city phenomena in the North). I'm just not convinced that this should give you any right of decision making over a place that you are not yourself resident in. Cheers, Mark

I wouldn't like to say. I'm sort of conflicted. It's not hard to spend a third of your life at work, and you have about as much 'choice' where to work as you do where to live, so that argument doesn't wash. On the other hand I can't see giving commuters a vote being anything other than a practical nightmare. The answer, perhaps, is not to devolve so much power to regional assemblies when the population is so mobile.

I don't think commuters should get a vote, except for where they live. I don't agree on many levels, but the greatest arguement against is the red tape of it - and the disputes that would arise after an election. When I was in public accounting, I spent several weeks every year in the London office - would I get a vote? Citizenship aside, I wouldn't, and shouldn't get a vote. I think those who choose to work in London incur the costs of the commute so that they can earn a higher salary - my guess is that most wouldn't even be interested in voting...but then again, maybe some would.

Democracy always has to work with averages and generalisations. I think, on the whole, I agree with Jude, in principal, but the red tape and thin-end-of-the-wedge-y-ness of such a policy could be an absolute nightmare... swallowing up funds & resource which could probably be more usefully placed elsewhere. Anarchy, on the other hand, with all its pros and cons, is the pure boiling down of democracy - total responsibility for oneself and oneself alone! pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

"Anarchy, on the other hand, with all its pros and cons, is the pure boiling down of democracy - total responsibility for oneself and oneself alone!" I suggest reading some Peter Kropotkin. He was quite good. Being responsible for oneself and oneself along is not anarchy, it's extreme individualism.

"Being responsible for oneself and oneself along is not anarchy, it's extreme individualism." Hmm, yes, reading back on what I (admittedly somewhat flippantly) remarked, it does seem as if I am advocating some extreme version of Thatcherism... which is absolutely not what I intended! I suppose rather than speaking of "self-responsibility," I should have spoken of "self-reliance" - meaning that although one should obviously care about others and act responsibly with respect of one's fellow people, living creatures, environment, etc, it is nevertheless useful to move towards being as self-reliant as possible - i.e. not (as far as possible) relying on councils, electricity companies, etc, to provide us with the things we need. Which is... erm... moving towards some kind of version of anarchy?? :-/ Anyway, ta, Bukh, for presenting me with the opportunity to clarify my thoughts... & I shall check out this Peter Kropotkin fella you speak of! ;-) pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

I've just found a full on-line version of Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid"! - a work which, if I remember correctly, is mentioned frequently in Tom Hodgkinson's "How to be Free," which I have recently read and which is a most inspirational work! Thanks again for the pointer, Mr Bukh! ;)) pe ps oid Blogs! "the art of tea" "that's an odd courgette"

Come on, Jude - what you're saying is that people who earn enough to commute into London from the wider area (and who could be reasonably expected to vote Conservative as most dormitory towns are Tory-run) should get two votes but native Londoners, and students, nurses, etc who have to live in the capital should only have one. Blatant Thatcherist gerrymandering! I'm not convinced that these wonderful people add all that much - for reasons best known to itself, my employer has a huge highly-paid London presence which seems to compromise an awful lot of self-important tosspots whilst us oop t'North (and in India) do all the real work!

I go to Paris quite a lot. Can I vote for its mayor, please? My webpage is at: http://www.bookscape.co.uk