Turn on thread page Beta

A133 - Petition Process Amendment 2016 watch

Announcements
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Can I request that the two of you abstain rather than vote against, if I cannot convince you?
    Can I request that you abstain rather than vote for, if I cannot convince you?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Can I request that you abstain rather than vote for, if I cannot convince you?
    Their statements are reflective of a mood which ought to lead to an abstaining vote, but I've noticed that the Tories and UKIP in particular on here will tend to vote nay when neutral, abstain when marginally positive and aye only when firmly in favour of something.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Their statements are reflective of a mood which ought to lead to an abstaining vote, but I've noticed that the Tories and UKIP in particular on here will tend to vote nay when neutral, abstain when marginally positive and aye only when firmly in favour of something.
    Erm, I was kind of joking...
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    A133 - Petition Process Amendment 2016
    Proposed by: TheDefiniteArticle (Soc)
    Seconded by: DMcGovern (Soc), cranbrook_aspie (Lab), Kay_Winters (Lab), Saracen's Fez (Lab), Andy98 (Grn), adam9317 (UKIP), Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP), PetrosAC (Lib), The Financier (Con)

    In the Guidance Document, under 'Petitions', replace "7) The Speaker will put petitions to vote in the Division Lobby after 4 days discussion." with "7) The Speaker will put petitions to vote in the Division Lobby after 4 days' discussion unless legislation (whether a Bill or Statement of Intent) which would validly enact the content of the petition has been proposed since the petition came before the House."

    Also replace "10) The Speaker will create and maintain a listing of petitions submitted to the House." with "10) The Speaker will create and maintain a list of petitions submitted to the House."

    NotesAs highlighted by the recent war petition, there is currently no process by which a redundant petition can avoid being put to vote. Part 10 is just a grammatical change - a "listing" is more commonly used to refer to a single entry within a list.


    This is the correct version. Apologies for being a bit daft.

    I don't think it's strictly necessary but clarity is always useful, so it is better than the status quo.
    I have replaced the version in the OP.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Can I request that the two of you abstain rather than vote against, if I cannot convince you?
    I will probably abstain.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Their statements are reflective of a mood which ought to lead to an abstaining vote, but I've noticed that the Tories and UKIP in particular on here will tend to vote nay when neutral, abstain when marginally positive and aye only when firmly in favour of something.
    I am still yet to be convinced as to why this amendment would be beneficial.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I am still yet to be convinced as to why this amendment would be beneficial.
    Currently there is nothing which allows petitions to be withdrawn under any circumstances. Ray used his discretion to do so, but as the GD is currently written, it could be interpreted as always requiring a vote. This clears up any confusion. It isn't a big change, but it is a useful one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Their statements are reflective of a mood which ought to lead to an abstaining vote, but I've noticed that the Tories and UKIP in particular on here will tend to vote nay when neutral, abstain when marginally positive and aye only when firmly in favour of something.
    I think abstain is a waste of a vote leading me to vote no to change I am not fully supportive of, and vote aye to change I think is needed; I cannot remember the last time I abstained on something.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I think abstain is a waste of a vote leading me to vote no to change I am not fully supportive of, and vote aye to change I think is needed; I cannot remember the last time I abstained on something.
    Why? You're denying the opportunity to make an improvement on the status quo - it's not like a particular change is going to come around often in MHoC. I don't abstain often - mostly when I genuinely don't give a damn or when I think the relevant information is not available for MHoC (e.g. military matters, which I truly don't see why MHoC members don't just ignore), but opinion-wise, I vote aye when, on balance, there are more positives than negatives created by something, and I don't really see any good reason for voting any different way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Why? You're denying the opportunity to make an improvement on the status quo - it's not like a particular change is going to come around often in MHoC. I don't abstain often - mostly when I genuinely don't give a damn or when I think the relevant information is not available for MHoC (e.g. military matters, which I truly don't see why MHoC members don't just ignore), but opinion-wise, I vote aye when, on balance, there are more positives than negatives created by something, and I don't really see any good reason for voting any different way.
    Using this amendment as an example, the amendment does not seem to create a situation superior in any measure to the current situation, making me question the point in an amendment to remove a little section of the Constitution where common sense has prevailed in the past.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Using this amendment as an example, the amendment does not seem to create a situation superior in any measure to the current situation, making me question the point in an amendment to remove a little section of the Constitution where common sense has prevailed in the past.
    Relying on common sense is a problem. People tend to lack it. Also, do you have any more examples of a petition being withdrawn?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Relying on common sense is a problem. People tend to lack it. Also, do you have any more examples of a petition being withdrawn?
    I am sure RayApparently has the sense needed to tell when a petition can be withdrawn because a bill has been presented on the issue, and I am certain MPs will not mind Ray breaking from the non-binding Guidance Document to set precedent when it is needed.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I am sure RayApparently has the sense needed to tell when a petition can be withdrawn because a bill has been presented on the issue, and I am certain MPs will not mind Ray breaking from the non-binding Guidance Document to set precedent when it is needed.
    After all, he already has

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I am sure RayApparently has the sense needed to tell when a petition can be withdrawn because a bill has been presented on the issue, and I am certain MPs will not mind Ray breaking from the non-binding Guidance Document to set precedent when it is needed.
    But at the same time, can we rely on future speakers to do that? While I believe this rule likely already exists, enshrining it within the GD would be useful. I cannot see a downside.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    But at the same time, can we rely on future speakers to do that? While I believe this rule likely already exists, enshrining it within the GD would be useful. I cannot see a downside.
    Codifying for the sake of codifying.

    Part of my intended summer constitution and GD reforms will be significantly stripping them down where there are unnecessary things, consequently expect quite a few amendments.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Codifying for the sake of codifying.

    Part of my intended summer constitution and GD reforms will be significantly stripping them down where there are unnecessary things, consequently expect quite a few amendments.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The MHoC constitution and GD at the moment are far too vague and barebones, what is needed is more clarity, not stripping back.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The MHoC constitution and GD at the moment are far too vague and barebones, what is needed is more clarity, not stripping back.
    Just because there is a lack of clarity does not mean that things should not be removed, especially redundant things. What is it with people's obsessions with complicating things more than is necessary? It should be as short and as simple as possible to actually do it's job, sometimes the best way to make something clearer is to strip it down massively

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Just because there is a lack of clarity does not mean that things should not be removed, especially redundant things. What is it with people's obsessions with complicating things more than is necessary? It should be as short and as simple as possible to actually do it's job, sometimes the best way to make something clearer is to strip it down massively

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I do not dispute this but it does not apply to the short MHoC constitution and GD. There are some redundancies which need getting rid getting rid of, I agree, but most of the two are not detailed enough.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Just because there is a lack of clarity does not mean that things should not be removed, especially redundant things. What is it with people's obsessions with complicating things more than is necessary? It should be as short and as simple as possible to actually do it's job, sometimes the best way to make something clearer is to strip it downf massively

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Some people might think it is easier for a new bill to just be made up of one sentence. However, we need to stick with this particular tradition and follow the proper method.
 
 
 
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: March 13, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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.