Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    A decent idea but I don't agree with including the monarchy in the title since it's not related in any way.
    It's to reflect real life tradition.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    It's to reflect real life tradition.
    Then I definitely don't agree with it on principle.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Aye

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I would rather make it so that a bit down the line it happens so that the members can have more input, so give a few weeks to give the government sub access and time for internal talk over it rather than doing it as part of the coalition negotiations

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    As everybody currently in government knows, the coalition agreement for this parliament included a lot of policy, but rather vague. I personally believe that the government should be given time to determine some detail to the policies and establish priorities, this is simply not possible if it has to be done via the coalition agreements. The quality of the Queens Speech would be much better if government is given some time to establish a solid position, and we all know that the Queen's Speech is not on the first day after the election IRL. I see it as reasonable to give the government up to 4 weeks (as a suggestion, depends how good the CT is at giving permissions) to get access to the government sub, establish position, and agree on a Queen's (King's) Speech. Therefore, I urge all members to support this amendment in theory, but not in its current implementation so as to allow the government to put forwards a better statement.

    Although, the problem here comes in with the binding nature of the section being amended, for instance, what happens if the QS is poor, or even non-existent (in the case of the amendment to the amendment being supported)? To draw in to other debate, this is something that should be in the GD and highly endorsed, but not binding. The biggest flaw is that the winning coalition could always have either a blank speech or basically just say "we will try to do some stuff". Further, an issue with the proposal as a whole is just because a government says they will do something doesn't mean they will even try, arguably the last government is a prime example of this (and the rainbow coalition before them).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    A decent idea but I don't agree with including the monarchy in the title since it's not related in any way.
    I agreed with most of what you said when the amendment was first raised, however the reason I am okay with it is that this is simply transferring a real life practice, the queen's speech, into the MHoC, because we see it as adding to the House, not burdening it with more restrictive tradition and constitution. Should/when we get rid of the Monarchy I imagine this would become a President's speech, or whatever title we give to our elected head of state.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    I agreed with most of what you said when the amendment was first raised, however the reason I am okay with it is that this is simply transferring a real life practice, the queen's speech, into the MHoC, because we see it as adding to the House, not burdening it with more restrictive tradition and constitution. Should/when we get rid of the Monarchy I imagine this would become a President's speech, or whatever title we give to our elected head of state.
    Empress?

    Anyway, I think it's an abstain from me. JD makes a valid point about letting the government have time to come up with a quality speech. Also Queens don't sit well with me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airmed)
    Empress?

    Anyway, I think it's an abstain from me. JD makes a valid point about letting the government have time to come up with a quality speech. Also Queens don't sit well with me.
    Should the Lady want

    I think the reply to JD's point is the idea is any potential Governments will have the entire coalition negotiation period to write the speech, I don't think we are expecting the tempest, just 600 words, at most, outlining the general policy direction agreed by the new Government.

    I have no issue agreeing to a second reading allowing the Queen's Speech to be put up within say five days of Parliament forming, I do think four weeks is stretching it however, as at that point I'm unsure how practical such a speech would be when the Government would have had a month to publish as many bills and SoIs as they like.

    Agreed on Queen's not sitting well with me either however.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Should the Lady want

    I think the reply to JD's point is the idea is any potential Governments will have the entire coalition negotiation period to write the speech, I don't think we are expecting the tempest, just 600 words, at most, outlining the general policy direction agreed by the new Government.

    I have no issue agreeing to a second reading allowing the Queen's Speech to be put up within say five days of Parliament forming, I do think four weeks is stretching it however, as at that point I'm unsure how practical such a speech would be when the Government would have had a month to publish as many bills and SoIs as they like.

    Agreed on Queen's not sitting well with me either however.
    4 weeks is pushing it, but 5 days once the government has access to the gov subforum seems reasonable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airmed)
    4 weeks is pushing it, but 5 days once the government has access to the gov subforum seems reasonable.
    Saracen's Fez give as this is your amendment what do you think of this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As everybody currently in government knows, the coalition agreement for this parliament included a lot of policy, but rather vague. I personally believe that the government should be given time to determine some detail to the policies and establish priorities, this is simply not possible if it has to be done via the coalition agreements. The quality of the Queens Speech would be much better if government is given some time to establish a solid position, and we all know that the Queen's Speech is not on the first day after the election IRL. I see it as reasonable to give the government up to 4 weeks (as a suggestion, depends how good the CT is at giving permissions) to get access to the government sub, establish position, and agree on a Queen's (King's) Speech. Therefore, I urge all members to support this amendment in theory, but not in its current implementation so as to allow the government to put forwards a better statement.
    If we're going to give four weeks to write it, then we needn't bother. My intention with this is for governments to put forward their joint position immediately so that it can be reacted to. We don't need or want loads of detail, that will come in the individual items, we want an idea straight away of the rough position that has been negotiated by the government, and their immediate priorities for the beginning of term. This has always been information that has been decided during negotiation week whenever I have taken part in it.

    Although, the problem here comes in with the binding nature of the section being amended, for instance, what happens if the QS is poor, or even non-existent (in the case of the amendment to the amendment being supported)? To draw in to other debate, this is something that should be in the GD and highly endorsed, but not binding. The biggest flaw is that the winning coalition could always have either a blank speech or basically just say "we will try to do some stuff". Further, an issue with the proposal as a whole is just because a government says they will do something doesn't mean they will even try, arguably the last government is a prime example of this (and the rainbow coalition before them).
    The only binding part of the amendment is to require the Speaker to post it. All other regulations concerning the Queen's Speech are in a separate non-binding section. If the Queen's Speech is poor then that reflects badly on the new government. Consider it as being like a joint manifesto: it is possible that parties will lie, change their mind mid-term (such as with a leadership change) or make a pig's ear of it (Nat Libs at this election, Greens at the last). The House can then hold any guilty coalitions to account.

    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Saracen's Fez give as this is your amendment what do you think of this?
    See my reasoning above. I am not keen to delay it for more than a couple of days after the election.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Airmed)
    4 weeks is pushing it, but 5 days once the government has access to the gov subforum seems reasonable.
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    If we're going to give four weeks to write it, then we needn't bother. My intention with this is for governments to put forward their joint position immediately so that it can be reacted to. We don't need or want loads of detail, that will come in the individual items, we want an idea straight away of the rough position that has been negotiated by the government, and their immediate priorities for the beginning of term. This has always been information that has been decided during negotiation week whenever I have taken part in it.



    The only binding part of the amendment is to require the Speaker to post it. All other regulations concerning the Queen's Speech are in a separate non-binding section. If the Queen's Speech is poor then that reflects badly on the new government. Consider it as being like a joint manifesto: it is possible that parties will lie, change their mind mid-term (such as with a leadership change) or make a pig's ear of it (Nat Libs at this election, Greens at the last). The House can then hold any guilty coalitions to account.



    See my reasoning above. I am not keen to delay it for more than a couple of days after the election.
    The point of the four weeks is go give time to get access to the sub and get it done given the CT are hardly known for being prompt. As said, doing it off the back of the coalition negotiations alone there are unlikely to be many things worth including because everything will either be too vague to be meaningful, change when the partners actually sit down and start working on things, or be general knowledge anyway. With it in it's current form it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Good idea. Would 'aye' this if I was an MP.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with JD. There's no hurry and it's needlessly difficult to do this on time without the forum for commenting and coordination available to all members of the upcoming coalition.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As everybody currently in government knows, the coalition agreement for this parliament included a lot of policy, but rather vague. I personally believe that the government should be given time to determine some detail to the policies and establish priorities, this is simply not possible if it has to be done via the coalition agreements. The quality of the Queens Speech would be much better if government is given some time to establish a solid position, and we all know that the Queen's Speech is not on the first day after the election IRL. I see it as reasonable to give the government up to 4 weeks (as a suggestion, depends how good the CT is at giving permissions) to get access to the government sub, establish position, and agree on a Queen's (King's) Speech. Therefore, I urge all members to support this amendment in theory, but not in its current implementation so as to allow the government to put forwards a better statement.

    Although, the problem here comes in with the binding nature of the section being amended, for instance, what happens if the QS is poor, or even non-existent (in the case of the amendment to the amendment being supported)? To draw in to other debate, this is something that should be in the GD and highly endorsed, but not binding. The biggest flaw is that the winning coalition could always have either a blank speech or basically just say "we will try to do some stuff". Further, an issue with the proposal as a whole is just because a government says they will do something doesn't mean they will even try, arguably the last government is a prime example of this (and the rainbow coalition before them).
    JD does raise a good point here actually, though 4 weeks is definitely a bit much.

    A week after the state opening of parliament should be enough, as it gives Government's the best part of two weeks to do it in.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    JD does raise a good point here actually, though 4 weeks is definitely a bit much.

    A week after the state opening of parliament should be enough, as it gives Government's the best part of two weeks to do it in.
    A week after subforum access is better

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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: May 10, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.