Ask the Speaker II

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Really I was just going to tell them (privately) to not bother joining the user group. Otherwise it's just a bit of effort for exactly the same result. Can't we just say they dropped from their seats and then were appointed to fill the new seats.
    At very least the defecting MPs will have to leave the usergroup for 24 hours. (I mean they can reapply immediately but their applications will only be accepted the following day).

    I know it's annoying, but such is the GD which I have to work with.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    At very least the defecting MPs will have to leave the usergroup for 24 hours. (I mean they can reapply immediately but their applications will only be accepted the following day).

    I know it's annoying, but such is the GD which I have to work with.
    Surely the whole point of a non-binding GD is that when it's just a tedious technicality you can ignore it.

    But if we have to wait for 24 hours for no reason then so be it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, I can't quite get my head around that amendment - seriously, that's a bit of a mess to say the least.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Wow, I can't quite get my head around that amendment - seriously, that's a bit of a mess to say the least.
    It's my fault, one of the socialist seats was highlighted for removal in the first voting review so I swapped myself into it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker,

    Your current and previous acts of submitting more than one non-government bill a day, including but not limited to B1008 and B1009, B1006 and B1007, and B999 and B1000, are in violation of clause 4.1.1 of the Guidance Document.

    Will you pledge to not violate the will of Parliament, who have set out guidelines for you to follow in the Guidance Document?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Your current and previous acts of submitting more than one non-government bill a day, including but not limited to B1008 and B1009, B1006 and B1007, and B999 and B1000, are in violation of clause 4.1.1 of the Guidance Document.

    Will you pledge to not violate the will of Parliament, who have set out guidelines for you to follow in the Guidance Document?
    Surely that's per party? If such a clause does exist, I will present an amendment to repeal it. We need to encoruage more legislation to be produced, not less.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Your current and previous acts of submitting more than one non-government bill a day, including but not limited to B1008 and B1009, B1006 and B1007, and B999 and B1000, are in violation of clause 4.1.1 of the Guidance Document.

    Will you pledge to not violate the will of Parliament, who have set out guidelines for you to follow in the Guidance Document?
    The GD is non-binding (my biggest issue with it) everybody puts things in there expecting them to be followed but they aren't because they aren't binding.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Surely that's per party? If such a clause does exist, I will present an amendment to repeal it. We need to encoruage more legislation to be produced, not less.
    Nope, one Gov one non Gov of each type, and it's not like there is so much stuff it causes a backlog

    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Your current and previous acts of submitting more than one non-government bill a day, including but not limited to B1008 and B1009, B1006 and B1007, and B999 and B1000, are in violation of clause 4.1.1 of the Guidance Document.

    Will you pledge to not violate the will of Parliament, who have set out guidelines for you to follow in the Guidance Document?
    Not the first time it's been said

    (Original post by Aph)
    The GD is non-binding (my biggest issue with it) everybody puts things in there expecting them to be followed but they aren't because they aren't binding.
    It's still common sense to follow it when things are quiet, or even to go so far as one item a day overall if there is no queue otherwise

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Surely that's per party? If such a clause does exist, I will present an amendment to repeal it. We need to encoruage more legislation to be produced, not less.
    To be honest, isn't it better we spread out Bills though... Otherwise we might end up with 3 bills submitted on one night, which are debated for one night, and then nothing for a few days before another Bill is submitted... Because let's be honest, the vast majority of debate on each Bill is done on the first night, and perhaps the next day, so in terms of activity, it'd be better to spread them out more (max 1 gov, 1 non-gov bill per day), so that we have debate or a larger number of days, rather than surges of debate twice a week...
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Nope, one Gov one non Gov of each type, and it's not like there is so much stuff it causes a backlog



    Not the first time it's been said



    It's still common sense to follow it when things are quiet, or even to go so far as one item a day overall if there is no queue otherwise

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes I agree, although common sense isn't that common and often doesn't make much sense... I still think that's the GD shoudl be binding.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Surely the whole point of a non-binding GD is that when it's just a tedious technicality you can ignore it.

    But if we have to wait for 24 hours for no reason then so be it.
    That's more than a technicality, that's the premise of the entire amendment. I feel my interpretation as it is is a kind of stretching of that amendment as far as it will go, so I suggest you look at repeal if you want it to be stretched any further.

    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Your current and previous acts of submitting more than one non-government bill a day, including but not limited to B1008 and B1009, B1006 and B1007, and B999 and B1000, are in violation of clause 4.1.1 of the Guidance Document.

    Will you pledge to not violate the will of Parliament, who have set out guidelines for you to follow in the Guidance Document?
    My justification for that is to allow parties to have their bills posted as soon as possible. Whilst government bills will get priority in the queue, I am quite content to bend the rule to allow two non-government bills where no government items are forthcoming. Given the small number of government items in comparison with non-government items it just happens that that rule has been bent on several occasions this term.

    My advice to people who are unhappy with this arrangement for not saving bills up for fallow days is to write more bills so that there are far fewer fallow days!
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    That's more than a technicality, that's the premise of the entire amendment. I feel my interpretation as it is is a kind of stretching of that amendment as far as it will go, so I suggest you look at repeal if you want it to be stretched any further.



    My justification for that is to allow parties to have their bills posted as soon as possible. Whilst government bills will get priority in the queue, I am quite content to bend the rule to allow two non-government bills where no government items are forthcoming. Given the small number of government items in comparison with non-government items it just happens that that rule has been bent on several occasions this term.

    My advice to people who are unhappy with this arrangement for not saving bills up for fallow days is to write more bills so that there are far fewer fallow days!
    Shots fired at the 'Government'
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Though I understand the Speaker is busy with all the various Hansards could he get the elections wiki updated as well.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki...,_Governments)

    My previous offer of lending a helping hand stands - but obviously I won't abuse my powers by changing something like myself without permission.
    I've updated the Governments at the bottom (added in the current one) and then it's up to Saracen's Fez or whoever (assuming you might finish it as you've started it) to do the By-election
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I've updated the Governments at the bottom (added in the current one) and then it's up to Saracen's Fez or whoever (assuming you might finish it as you've started it) to do the By-election
    Losing the Nat Libs doesn't count as a 2nd government. This has happened before and a second box wasn't created, nor should it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Losing the Nat Libs doesn't count as a 2nd government. This has happened before and a second box wasn't created, nor should it.
    Ah okay. I'll make that change again. Are they just not on there at all, or are they on it for the whole parliament? We should differentiate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Ah okay. I'll make that change again. Are they just not on there at all, or are they on it for the whole parliament? We should differentiate.
    They're there for the whole Parliament because that is the government which was formed which is continuing. If you hold that the government has instead been dissolved and new one has been formed then I'd have to agree with TDA that the Opposition parties must also be given an opportunity to form a government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    They're there for the whole Parliament because that is the government which was formed which is continuing. If you hold that the government has instead been dissolved and new one has been formed then I'd have to agree with TDA that the Opposition parties must also be given an opportunity to form a government.
    I agree with this. The government formed was Con-Lib-NL, and it was a (forced) withdrawal that caused the situation to change, so no need to display a new government having formed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Could you please start making the updates in the evening rather than at 4pm? I think it's far too soon.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Any news on the vote verification? Also, there are too many bills and amendments open for debate at the moment, and I simply do not have the time to even open some of them, as there are too many at once. I think this system is actually reducing debate instead of increasing it. We need go back to sensible numbers of bills a day instead of the swarm of bills we are currently getting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Any news on the vote verification? Also, there are too many bills and amendments open for debate at the moment, and I simply do not have the time to even open some of them, as there are too many at once. I think this system is actually reducing debate instead of increasing it. We need go back to sensible numbers of bills a day instead of the swarm of bills we are currently getting.
    I've still not had a reply to either PM I sent to members of the CT.
 
 
 
Write a reply… 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. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 4, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Wake up and smell the...

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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