Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Proposal to create a MHoL watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Not this again. Sorry but why does the MHoC need an MHoL? And given how low turnout was at the GE are you certain that there would actually be non-MHoCers who would vote in MHoL elections? And where are these 40 extra people who are going to serve in the MHoL?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We are dicking around half baked with only half a parliament.

    The election poll will not be stupidly hidden in a MHoC sub-basement, but instead posted on the main politics forum.

    And for everyone who didn't understand a word of what I wrote earlier there will only be 22 active members, which will be people from MHoC (preferably MPs who will be both houses at once.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    But What would a MHOL Actually Do rather than add another level of unnesscery bureaucracy?
    It's symbolic, the lords don't actually do anything much anyway.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    No.

    Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

    We have a good system as it is, and any further expansion should be of the Commons.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    This is probably the 5th or 6th time this has been presented as an option in some form and the only one that I have ever really supported was a HOL that essentially acted as a hall of fame for past members to recognise their achievements and add to members' knowledge about the history of the house. I think that would be a nice idea and would require only really a sticky thread by the Speaker and some rules governing how the house could nominate and vote on who should be added. Ultimately this is entirely unnecessary and would add little to the game itself, but I would still support it as a nice way to remember some of my generation, and the generations that preceded me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst i get the intention, I can't see this as adding much to the house. One problem that would arise is people who would otherwise have become an MP opting out and standing for election for the MHoL. I have a feeling that we'd then be left with quite a few MP vacancies, and thus not enough bills being created or debate taking place.

    BTW, those that are shooting this down because it's been proposed before - I've been around here for 8/9 years and there are others who've been around for the same and longer. We could shoot 90% of proposals down because we've seen it before but we don't because it adds nothing. So stop please.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    We are dicking around half baked with only half a parliament.

    The election poll will not be stupidly hidden in a MHoC sub-basement, but instead posted on the main politics forum.

    And for everyone who didn't understand a word of what I wrote earlier there will only be 22 active members, which will be people from MHoC (preferably MPs who will be both houses at once.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In terms of posting outside the MHoC, the problem this causes is that people vote without full understanding of the context, and it's all good and well saying that you can have a post explaining it all, but it doesn't work like that - most of TSR really don't give a crap about the MHoC, which is totally fair enough, and putting this outside the MHoC forum, I personally think, is a terrible idea.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    We are dicking around half baked with only half a parliament.

    The election poll will not be stupidly hidden in a MHoC sub-basement, but instead posted on the main politics forum.

    And for everyone who didn't understand a word of what I wrote earlier there will only be 22 active members, which will be people from MHoC (preferably MPs who will be both houses at once.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Firstly, as the oldies posting above will tell you, the MHoC has been fine without an MHoL for the last 10 years. We are most certainly not 'dicking around half-baked with only half a parliament'. The MHoC doesn't reflect Parliament and despite the name it's not supposed to unless necessary. It's its own thing.

    As mobbsy said above, the problem with turnout was not the location of the poll. It's that 95% of TSRians couldn't give two ****s about the MHoC. Given that an elected HoL doesn't even exist in real life(for now.....), even more aren't going to give two ****s about the MHoL.

    My mistake, I read this while knackered so I must have misunderstood your numbering. Nevertheless, I'm sorry but having 22 MPs voting again on something 50 MPs have already voted on is a ridiculous idea :lol: The purpose of the MHoL would presumably be to provide a higher level of scrutiny to the MHoC's legislation like the rl HoL does (or is supposed to) - why couldn't these 22 special MPs provide this higher level of scrutiny/whatever other benefits an MHoL is supposed to bring in MHoC debates?

    Lastly - mate, as I recall you've been here two weeks, or is it three. Trust me, you don't know this place or how it works yet. I don't fully, and I've been here four months. Did no-one ever tell you that you don't just come into a place and start trying to change it?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I Can See the intention of creating a MHOL But I suppose we can put down a proposal if we haven't tried it yet ?

    like already said why should 22 MPs vote on a bill that 50mps already voted on ?

    If a sensible and more detailed proposal was put forward I would see about supporting it
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    I Can See the intention of creating a MHOL But I suppose we can put down a proposal if we haven't tried it yet ?

    like already said why should 22 MPs vote on a bill that 50mps already voted on ?

    If a sensible and more detailed proposal was put forward I would see about supporting it
    I tried it last term and it's been tried PLENTY of times before

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I tried it last term and it's been tried PLENTY of times before

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    i think we should have one, even if it has to tiny and useless (because of above comments) symbolicly having a complete parliament is better than just the commons.
    And also its a great excuse to create lots of stuff on how to reform the RL lords.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    i think we should have one, even if it has to tiny and useless (because of above comments) symbolicly having a complete parliament is better than just the commons.
    And also its a great excuse to create lots of stuff on how to reform the RL lords.
    Should we appoint a queen to for 'realism' if so I nominate Airmed as queen
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Should we appoint a queen to for 'realism' if so I nominate Airmed as queen
    You could argue our Monarch isn't part of the political system.

    The lords certainly are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Should we appoint a queen to for 'realism' if so I nominate Airmed as queen
    @queen-bee is more appropriate.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    You could argue our Monarch isn't part of the political system.

    The lords certainly are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    He is now arguing for a tiny lords which does nothing just for realism. The queen does more then the lords for realism as no one really knows what the lords do often.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Should we appoint a queen to for 'realism' if so I nominate Airmed as queen
    I think we should we stick with HM Elizabeth II, since we already have her on our bills etc.
    The queen doesn't directly do anything political anyway, since the royal prerogative is exercised by the ministers. (I assume we have enough ministers)

    it occurred to me we could always relabel the EU as the MHoL...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Having looked at the proposals it's worse than I thought

    Too many seats
    Not enough people
    Not enough interest
    Too frequent elections

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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.

Updated: November 2, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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

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