Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Repeal Amendment Proposal

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Just to make this clear, this isn't a Labour thing, this is something I'm doing solo, but I'd like everyone in the House to just have input on the idea.

    Essentially, why do we keep MHoC bills going for such a long time? Currently, we're bound by MHoC Bills going back all the way to early 2011. This seems ridiculous, for the simple reason that most of us weren't active in early 2011. Having these bills passed often shuts off valid discussion that new people could be having.

    Say that the MHoC ruled that the sky was green in 2011, but RL rules say that the sky is red. Say lots of people in 2012 are angry the sky is red, and think it ought to be declared green. We can't have that discussion, because in the MHoC, the sky is already green. This shuts off a lot of valid discussion from the MHoC, because we're bound by what our predecessors did 2 years ago. It hurts activity by reducing the range of issues we can discuss.

    I think it would be much better if bills were repealed automatically after a certain length of time. Now, first of all, I thought just making it an exact term. That is, 2 years after every bill is passed in the MHoC, it is automatically repealed. That would be this:

    After every 4 terms, all Bills, Motions, Petitions and Referendums to date are repealed.

    But that might not work, because say a party is in government, and midway through the government (if they win two consecutive terms), everything is repealed. That doesn't make sense. So, I thought the best thing would be a slightly more intelligent proposal that catches those subtleties; which is:

    If the current Government contains none of the Parties to be found in the previous Government, all Bills, Motions, Petitions and Referendums to this date are repealed.

    (just as a reference, the longest continuous period with one party in office was November 2008-May 2011, with the Conservative-Socialist***, Conservative-Liberal Democrat, Liberal Democrat-Conservative, Conservative-Libertarian-UKIP, Conservative-Libertarian coalitions)

    Firstly, what do people think of repealing old MHoC bills?
    Secondly, which of the proposals above would people prefer?

    ***What the hell?
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There was a Great Repeal Act previously, March 2011, which repealed all legislation before the 12th Parliament.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Isn't this why the "Great Repeal Act" was passed?
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I totally agree on this idea - I think, TopHat, this is in light of our recent PM discussion about one of my Bills that I'm currently drafting/working on.

    I think Bills should be repealed soon.
    • Thread Starter
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What I'm saying though is that the Great Repeal Act currently has to be done AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN every time someone decides there is too much preceding stuff. Why not just have an automatic, non-partisan clause in the constitution which does it for you?
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I would like to mention that IRL Westminster can repeal legislation from previous terms.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think this is necessary - I'm a relative newcomer and haven't had any issues checking the HoC Law article. Given the volume of bills passed over the years I was actually quite surprised at how small it is - I guess precisely because of the Great Repeal Act. If we start arbitrarily repealing stuff then we just make things like budgets more difficult - it also sort of takes away from any "prestige" one might feel from putting effort into a bill and seeing it pass, while making the MHoC much more inauthentic. I don't see the benefit.

    Besides, an ammendment like this seems too radical even if the concept behind it was valid.

    (Original post by RoryS)
    I totally agree on this idea - I think, TopHat, this is in light of our recent PM discussion about one of my Bills that I'm currently drafting/working on.

    I think Bills should be repealed soon.
    You've not long been a member and should perhaps sit back and see if things become easier. You can't expect everything to make sense at first; to change things so aggressively seems naive. Just use the resources to get a handle on the place, it's not particularly difficult if you hang around a bit.
    • 79 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think this is a good idea at all.

    If you want to change something than amend it - thus reopening the discussion. Having a set of HOC laws to look through and build on is part of the point really. The converse point to make is that why should people put a lot of work into a bill that may not last half a year? All that will happen is there will be an influx of re-submissions each term and rightly so.
    • 79 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    What I'm saying though is that the Great Repeal Act currently has to be done AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN every time someone decides there is too much preceding stuff. Why not just have an automatic, non-partisan clause in the constitution which does it for you?
    Every 2 years/4 terms. It is completely reasonable to expect people to look through that amount of legislation to be honest.
    • Thread Starter
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    I don't think this is necessary - I'm a relative newcomer and haven't had any issues checking the HoC Law article. Given the volume of bills passed over the years I was actually quite surprised at how small it is - I guess precisely because of the Great Repeal Act.
    Exactly. But imagine instead, if there had been no Great Repeal Act. You'd have been faced with this:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/HOC_Hansard

    which is a much bigger and scarier beast. It's clear the Great Repeal Act was a very good thing. It's also clear that one day, it will be necessary to do ANOTHER Great Repeal Act. Given that is the case, why not acknowledge this should go beyond partisan matters, and set out clear rules that say when it is necessary to clear the books.

    If we start arbitrarily repealing stuff then we just make things like budgets more difficult - it also sort of takes away from any "prestige" one might feel from putting effort into a bill and seeing it pass, while making the MHoC much more inauthentic. I don't see the benefit.
    That's the point, though. Currently, the system IS arbitrary. At the moment, someone just says "eh, there's too much stuff", and then we ditch things. There's no particularly exact point in time, it just sort of happens. What this proposal is trying to do is make it so the system isn't arbitrary.

    I also feel it doesn't take much away from the prestige. The prestige is what Hansard is for.

    Finally, I think it actually makes the MHoC MORE authentic. Currently, over time, the MHoC slowly diverges from the real HoC. On certain issues, they can become unrecognisable. Like I said in the example, if you get really worked up about something in RL laws and want to discuss it, then get to the MHoC and find out it has already been done, that's not very authentic and it has cut off your discussion.

    Besides, an ammendment like this seems too radical even if the concept behind it was valid.

    I don't think this is radical at all. I just want to codify something like the Great Repeal Act, so it happens automatically and isn't something subject to an arbitrary decision. There's a precedent here, and a precedent which was very healthy for the House.
    • Thread Starter
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I don't think this is a good idea at all.

    If you want to change something than amend it - thus reopening the discussion. Having a set of HOC laws to look through and build on is part of the point really. The converse point to make is that why should people put a lot of work into a bill that may not last half a year? All that will happen is there will be an influx of re-submissions each term and rightly so.
    You can't do that if you agree with the MHoC version and disagree with the RL version. Say I feel very strongly that the railways should be nationalised, and want to talk about it. If, 2 years ago, the MHoC did nationalise them, I suddenly can't! You can only use amendments if you disagree with the TSR ruling.

    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Every 2 years/4 terms. It is completely reasonable to expect people to look through that amount of legislation to be honest.
    But what I'm proposing, in most circumstances, would kick in only every 2 years. I spent some time considering it.

    If this proposed amendment had been in place from the very start, there would have been total repeals on the following occasions:

    After the 1st Parliament (after 6 months)
    After the 3rd Parliament (after 1 year)
    After the 7th Parliament (after 2 years)
    After the 12th Parliament (after 2.5 years)
    After the 14th Parliament (after 1 year)

    I agree it's completely reasonable to expect people to look through about two year's legislation. But on average, this would only kick in every 1.4 years, and looking at the trend for the last 3, even less than that.



    This would not be something that happens often. It's simply codifying the Great Repeal Act.

    If you would prefer, we COULD do it on a 2 yearly basis, and that was why I asked two questions in the OP. Fixed limits are also something I considered.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I don't think this is a good idea at all.

    If you want to change something than amend it - thus reopening the discussion. Having a set of HOC laws to look through and build on is part of the point really. The converse point to make is that why should people put a lot of work into a bill that may not last half a year? All that will happen is there will be an influx of re-submissions each term and rightly so.
    These "Labour" people complaining that there's so much TSR law they can't think about new stuff should take a look at TSR law. How much is influenced by right-thought? How much is reflective not of Labour values but of the Lib Dems, of the Libertarians (particularly), and of your fetish for grannies? We don't need a repeal, we need a revision of TSR law to reflect social democracy which the electorate clearly clamour for. This idea is a reflexion of laziness, nothing more.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Labour's hidden Agenda is revealed, they want to renationalise the Railways
    • 79 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    These "Labour" people complaining that there's so much TSR law they can't think about new stuff should take a look at TSR law. How much is influenced by right-thought? How much is reflective not of Labour values but of the Lib Dems, of the Libertarians (particularly), and of your fetish for grannies? We don't need a repeal, we need a revision of TSR law to reflect social democracy which the electorate clearly clamour for. This idea is a reflexion of laziness, nothing more.
    I agree, part of the point of the house is approaching issues from different angles.

    I don't have a fetish for grannies I was just trying to make a dent in providing for various social needs including the creation of jobs for unskilled workers (though skill is a bonus) and a widely accessible means by which offenders can give back to their communities. I would have thought you would support these aims

    For the record I think that bill was repealed too
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Exactly. But imagine instead, if there had been no Great Repeal Act. You'd have been faced with this:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/HOC_Hansard

    which is a much bigger and scarier beast. It's clear the Great Repeal Act was a very good thing. It's also clear that one day, it will be necessary to do ANOTHER Great Repeal Act. Given that is the case, why not acknowledge this should go beyond partisan matters, and set out clear rules that say when it is necessary to clear the books.
    Most of the acts in the HoC Law document are rehashings of those that went before. I reckon only a fraction of bills get enacted which similarly cuts the total number in the Hansard (which, I grant you, is ostensibly enormous).

    That's the point, though. Currently, the system IS arbitrary. At the moment, someone just says "eh, there's too much stuff", and then we ditch things. There's no particularly exact point in time, it just sort of happens. What this proposal is trying to do is make it so the system isn't arbitrary.
    Well last time that happened I can see that the Division Lobby was almost evenly split, so a good chunk of members then didn't want it to pass. Is your argument that because the "current system" - or rather, the flawed mechanisms used in past terms - is arbitrary, this proposal shouldn't be objected to on the grounds that it is too?

    I also feel it doesn't take much away from the prestige. The prestige is what Hansard is for.
    No, the prestige is being able to refer back to your Acts and take them into account when it comes to other legislation - think of how difficult the budget would be if past measures couldn't be built on. For instance, the ground rent tax introduced last year - should that be gotten rid of? It would expire under your measures sometime next year, somewhat begging the question "why bother passing it?" I also don't really see the reasoning here. It's not like MHoC law is more complex than that passing through real parliament, completely the opposite in actual fact.

    Finally, I think it actually makes the MHoC MORE authentic. Currently, over time, the MHoC slowly diverges from the real HoC. On certain issues, they can become unrecognisable. Like I said in the example, if you get really worked up about something in RL laws and want to discuss it, then get to the MHoC and find out it has already been done, that's not very authentic and it has cut off your discussion.
    The MHoC shouldn't be joined at the hip with events in Parliament - it's a simulation: different parties, completely different policies.

    I don't think this is radical at all. I just want to codify something like the Great Repeal Act, so it happens automatically and isn't something subject to an arbitrary decision. There's a precedent here, and a precedent which was very healthy for the House.
    It's a scorched earth, no-holds-barred, brutalist approach to a non-existent problem - it'd hamper the experience here only to make it marginally more simple for the benefit of simpler, often newer, members.
    • 79 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    You can't do that if you agree with the MHoC version and disagree with the RL version. Say I feel very strongly that the railways should be nationalised, and want to talk about it. If, 2 years ago, the MHoC did nationalise them, I suddenly can't! You can only use amendments if you disagree with the TSR ruling.



    But what I'm proposing, in most circumstances, would kick in only every 2 years. I spent some time considering it.

    If this proposed amendment had been in place from the very start, there would have been total repeals on the following occasions:

    After the 1st Parliament (after 6 months)
    After the 3rd Parliament (after 1 year)
    After the 7th Parliament (after 2 years)
    After the 12th Parliament (after 2.5 years)
    After the 14th Parliament (after 1 year)

    I agree it's completely reasonable to expect people to look through about two year's legislation. But on average, this would only kick in every 1.4 years, and looking at the trend for the last 3, even less than that.



    This would not be something that happens often. It's simply codifying the Great Repeal Act.

    If you would prefer, we COULD do it on a 2 yearly basis, and that was why I asked two questions in the OP. Fixed limits are also something I considered.
    That's not true. You present an amendment building upon or altering the original bill thus presenting the topic for debate and that debate will, I assure you, become about the merits of the original bill itself.

    I don't think this is needed at all as I see no reason why the active members of the house at X time can't make the reasoned judgment to repeal or not repeal as much or as little as they like. If there is support for this however I would certainly want the time period to be greater.
    • 20 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Bills would just keep getting resubmitted
    • 21 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    Labour's hidden Agenda is revealed, they want to renationalise the Railways
    That isn't a secret and you also harp on about it to you know :rolleyes:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Bills would just keep getting resubmitted
    ... by the Lib Dems. As evidenced by the recent rehash of the anti turning orange bill.
    • Thread Starter
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Bills would just keep getting resubmitted
    That's not a bad thing, though! Think about it. I wasn't here one year ago. If a bill passed one year ago, I wasn't involved in the discussion. This is a game, whether the bill is being submitted or not is entirely immaterial. What matters is the discussion. If a bill, after a gap of 2 years, is being resubmitted, why is that a bad thing? After 2 years, at least 80% of the House will be new people, and that's probably an underestimate (I did a rough summary by quickly looking at the MPs list). That means, for 80% of those people, that discussion will be entirely new.

    I'm not saying "repeal everything every week!", I'm saying, after a single party's dominant era has reached an end, we give everything a quick scrub.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 1, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

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