Election loophole to close for 'second-homers' in Westcountry

“It matters not what some posters say here. The act has been done and second home owners will have the ability to vote more than once taken from them. This has been a long campaign by a group of determined individuals to whom we say 'Well done'. Now we need to see higher levels of taxation applied to second 'holiday' homes and the tourist 'industry' taxed to offset the true demands it makes on our communities. That campaign is about to begin.”

“You'll find no evidence any where. This is a non-issue, which is keeping a small minority of people happy, by feeding their prejudices. If the county council has evidence, why has it not prosecuted?”

“You'll find the evidence at Cornwall Council, as they have acknowledged.”

“This is a major issue. In 2010 the Conservative, George Eustice, won his seat with a majority of just 66 votes.

Although there is no 'proof' it is fair to assume that the sort of people who can afford to buy more than one property will vote Conservative. This means that if second property owners in Cornwall register to vote in Cornwall they are likely to be Conservative voters. More likely than not these second property owners will live in areas of England which return Conservative MPs with big majorities.

The question is - how many of George Eustice's 66 majority were people living in the South East of England, who had been encouraged to register in Cornwall (where their vote could be used more effectively) by the Conservative party?

Please don't say that this is all just speculation. I am involved in local party politics and there are plenty of Conservatives who acknowledge that this happens.

It is a fair assumption that George Eustice owes his seat to people who actually live in South East England.

Kernow 2012 - you might have a point if it were possible to have a lesser weighted vote on local government issues if you didn't live in the area. If someone who lives in their second property for two weeks a year could have a voe equal to 1/26th of a full time resident then fair enough. Of course, this means they should also have a vote equal to 25/26th of a full time resident in their primary residence. It is nonsense to suggest that a person who lives in a community for a few weeks a year should have the same say as those who live there all the year round.”

“CalmerWaters, they would be being taxed in a jurisdiction in which they had no democratic rights. If local services were paid for by a purely national tax which was divided between local authorities your argument would make more sense. You seem obsessed with some abstract notion of democracy and are blind to the fact that you are advocating that some people within a community should have no say in how it is run.”

“CalmerWaters, I feel I must comment on so many things that you have said in your messages:-

CW - "Spindles12 You appear to have not yet heard of postal voting which currently enables second/third/fourth/fifth etc 'homers' to vote in as many constituencies as they like."

Of course I've heard of postal voting but it doesn't mean that I would do it and probably neither would most of the people with second homes.

Who, according to you, owns up to five homes - where's the proof?

CW- "PS You appear determined to justify your anti-social community wrecking multiple house acquisition when so many people are homeless and divert these discussions down that road. The article above is about UK voting systems and the blatant defects in UK democracy. Perhaps you can stick to the point in the future."

That's a bit over the top isn't it - "anti-social community wrecking multiple house acquisition" and mentioning homeless people. If the houses were priced at £5,000 the homeless people still couldn't even scrape up that amount of money so it doesn't matter if the properties are £5,000 or £550,000. The only way they could live in the houses is if some "anti-social" person with a bit of extra money buys one and then rents it to the homeless person which presumably would still not be acceptable to you as you seem to think that anyone with a bit of money who buys out of their area is the spawn of the devil. How are the homeless people going to get on the housing ladder then, please give your suggestions.

As for sticking to the point, YOU have mentioned several times about those nasty second home owners and it wasn't just to do with the voting system!

CW - "A significant number of people have the anti-social and conscienceless effrontery to misappropriate 1 and some as many as 5 or more residential houses for non-residential under-use"

I shall ask you again, how do you know there are as many as five, where's your proof? Anyway, if they were all holiday homes why would someone buy that many in one place?

CW -Owning more than one house is an anti-social lifestyle choice not available to more than 90% of the UK's population and should not be allowed to buy additional voting power and influence.

I think 90% is a slight exaggeration! Where did you get that figure from? PROOF PROOF PROOF I'm sure the reason people buy second homes is NOT to get an extra vote!

You've also said that it is absurd and immoral for such people to demand multiple vote franchise entitlement - who are these people who DEMAND the entitlement, where's your proof

It's a wonder you can get around with such a huge chip on your shoulder, caused by what I wonder - not enough money to buy your own place, and the voting thing,what's that all about? It's hard enough to get people to vote once let alone multiple times so why get so upset?”

“Calmer waters; as students are legally allowed to vote in two constituencies, and as I have said; "There has never, ever, been any evidence produced to show that second home owners have been voting in more than one constituency, let alone influencing outcomes," surely your energies would be better spent ranting against students than second home owners.

The main issue here is second home owners "voting twice", where is the evidence to show this has happened in any significant way?”

“Kernow2012 A multiple property owning person entitled to vote in all elections and referendums in the constituency of their primary residence alone would enjoy the same degree of representation as everyone else - no more, no less.”

“The Liberal Democrats built up their local representation by saying completely different things to different electorates.

One person one vote democracy isn't worth protecting - we have a political class that has its own agenda and pays very little attention to public opinion anyway.

I prefer the principle of the American Revolution - no taxation without representation.

I'd be happy to see the end of parties at a local level and then perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to extrapolate the results across the country and see any sinister patterns emerging.”

“Kernow2012 If a multiple property owner registers to vote in multiple constituencies across the UK and in all those constituencies votes for the same UK national political party representative are they or are they not exerting disproportionate influence on the political makeup of councils across the UK?
As you know, the UK's national political parties' local authority councillors and Westminster MPs are members of the same UK national political parties and closely intertwined. The Liberal Democrats, for example, built their Westminster MP representation largely on the springboard of their local authority majorities.
The simple principle should be this: Each voter elects their primary residence/constituency, registers to vote in only one constituency and votes there only once in all elections and referendums. Only in that way can one person one vote democracy in the UK be guaranteed.
Owning more than one house is an anti-social lifestyle choice not available to more than 90% of the UK's population and should not be allowed to buy additional voting power and influence.
It's very simple.”