[DayneD89]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
I wanted to see if members still wanted to keep the position which it appears they do, and also discuss what we would like the MUN Rep to do, of which there is still little consensus. So I guess we will be running an election, but first I'd like to change the rules surrounding how the rep is elected. At present, each party puts forward a candidate for the position, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense if the rep is to represent the whole HoC. It's a point I raised here back in June, and it's something I'd like to see changed before we run this election.

Well there were several reasons why it was done like that, but fair enough I guess.

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by DayneD89)
Well there were several reasons why it was done like that, but fair enough I guess.

I would be interested in the reasons why. From how the discussion went in that thread, it would appear there weren't any, though I do have a feeling you may have spoken about this somewhere before, even if I can't remember where or what you said!

[DayneD89]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
I would be interested in the reasons why. From how the discussion went in that thread, it would appear there weren't any, though I do have a feeling you may have spoken about this somewhere before, even if I can't remember where or what you said!

Well unless you want motions every day the rep is going to have to use their own judgement on a lot of at least the smaller issues. As such bias is inevitable. Obviously the rep does need to represent the whole house, which is why motions should be used and why the housd has to elect them and has the power to remove them. The other reason was just to add a different element to the house and do things a little differently. That said I'm not too worried about it and don't care that much if it's changed tbh.

[Afcwimbledon2]

I'd be quite happy to keep the Representative Position - and would be very tempted to do it.

I think that we need to use the MUN Rep as somebody who can liaise between over countrys on foreign policy etc and also decide our opinion on resolution with consultation from the rest of the house.

The MUN Rep should perhaps get the Speaker to PM Mps about happening inside the MUN too?

[DayneD89]

(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
I'd be quite happy to keep the Representative Position - and would be very tempted to do it.

I think that we need to use the MUN Rep as somebody who can liaise between over countrys on foreign policy etc and also decide our opinion on resolution with consultation from the rest of the house.

The MUN Rep should perhaps get the Speaker to PM Mps about happening inside the MUN too?

The MUN rep interacts with the HoC mainly through motions. If I became the rep Id try and get a resolution through, which would require a motion. We don't want the MUN to (for want of a better word) overtake the HoC though. We should interact, but remain seperate. I don't want people who only enjoy the HoC to be at a disadvantage. If something major was happening (or a smaller thing if there was nothing else going on) I would get a motion going to decide our course of action.

Remember that in many ways this is the early days of the introduction of international relations to the HoC, so our international policy isn't yet really formalised. As such the opinion of the rep is most important now, and the position is much more open to abuse now than it will be later. If made the rep I would try to have frequent (prehaps weekly) motions to help formalise our 'countries' policy and to prevent future abuse of the system. I would also promise not to take any major action without a vote telling me to. This prevents me abusing the system.

I would make a thread where people can ask me questions, as well as where I would post any news. Keeping the House informed again prevents me abusing the position. I would also consider asking for an article in every edition of the HoC paper where I would inform the House of any goings on.

All of this is to keep the House informed while, hopefuly, not intruding on the normal operation of the House too much. Of course it would be a work in progress. All would be subject to change. This is what I mean by us not needing to decide now what the role does exactly. I would rather test these different ideas and see what works and what does not. Obviously I would be open to sugestions and I can imagine a few constitutional amendments will be needed to fully test the role, but we also need to be careful about the level of intrusion.

[Metrobeans]

Seeing as everyone is happy for the position to remain, I am now accepting manifestos (250 word max) for MUN Rep. Anyone can run and you don't have to be nominated by a party. The deadline will be 12:00pm on the 26th September.

[DayneD89]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
Seeing as everyone is happy for the position to remain, I am now accepting manifestos (250 word max) for MUN Rep. Anyone can run and you don't have to be nominated by a party. The deadline will be 12:00pm on the 26th September.

Surely it would be better to hold of the election untill an amendment can be passed, rather than doing it this way? Again, I'm not overly fussed, but that way would be more democratic. I will second such an amendment if you would like to do it that way.

[Metrobeans]

I'll be honest - I'm pretty sick of amendments and I imagine much of the House is too! The only thing different is that anyone can run as opposed to one candidate per party.

[DayneD89]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
I'll be honest - I'm pretty sick of amendments and I imagine much of the House is too! The only thing different is that anyone can run as opposed to one candidate per party.

As I say, I'm not too worried, but nor am I too happy about this being done undemocraticaly. Your call I guess, but don't expect me to be too pleased.

Anyway, I'll get a manifesto done then. What is to be the timetable for the election as I'm going away for a week soon.

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by DayneD89)
As I say, I'm not too worried, but nor am I too happy about this being done undemocraticaly. Your call I guess, but don't expect me to be too pleased.

Anyway, I'll get a manifesto done then. What is to be the timetable for the election as I'm going away for a week soon.

According to the Guidance Document,

Sunday evening (26th) The speaker posts the manifestos in a new thread in the division lobby with a private poll for 4 days.

Wednesday Evening (30th) The new MUN rep for the HoC is announced.

I do think it's more democratic to allow anyone who wants to stand to do so, rather than limiting it to one candidate per party. I have no problem with anyone who wants to table an amendment on how the rep is elected and if people wanted to put one forward I'd suspend this, but I reckon people would rather see a rep elected than go through more amendments.

[DayneD89]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
According to the Guidance Document,

Sunday evening (26th) The speaker posts the manifestos in a new thread in the division lobby with a private poll for 4 days.

Wednesday Evening (30th) The new MUN rep for the HoC is announced.

I do think it's more democratic to allow anyone who wants to stand to do so, rather than limiting it to one candidate per party. I have no problem with anyone who wants to table an amendment on how the rep is elected and if people wanted to put one forward I'd suspend this, but I reckon people would rather see a rep elected than go through more amendments.

As I said, your call. I see no reason to not suspend this while we pass an amendment, and I'm not too pleased about it being done this way, but I'm not trying to start a debate over this, we simply dissagree over the method to use to impliment a fairly minor change. You're speaker and it's your call.

I shall be away from the 29th to the 5th, so if I win I will have to start then. Or possibly on the 6th, depending when I get back.

Best of luck to anyone running