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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And what stops the day after the department being reestablished and the bill having effectively done nothing? Ah, yes. What happens if the government refuses to act, much like the previous TSR government did on its Foreign Aid spend?
    Well I'm not sure if government departments have to be legislated into being or not?
    I'm not saying I agree just that a RL Tory MP tried something very similar.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nice and easy.

    Nope.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Because they can become legislation, though I would find it hard to deem this bill to apply to TSR. In the absence of any legislation fixing this sort of thing the government has free reign, if legislation is in place then the government must operate within its bounds.

    My answer to both of your points however is that the House will decide the merit of this bill.
    I previously said the Speaker is mostly a clerk but I didn't mean he doesn't need to use his brain. For starters, we do not have the Department for Energy and Climate Change, and budgets are announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may be wrong but I believe that this bill is unconstitutional and should have been a rejected submission. Either way, it attempts to alter something that does not exist.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I previously said the Speaker is mostly a clerk but I didn't mean he doesn't need to use his brain. For starters, we do not have the Department for Energy and Climate Change, and budgets are announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may be wrong but I believe that this bill is unconstitutional and should have been a rejected submission.
    Hence the "I would find it hard to deem this bill to apply to TSR". The same way that things like the Electoral Reform Act that Labour passed (and I authored) that set a 600-member House of Commons elected via AMS does not apply to TSR.

    On the topic of Budgets, however, they are of course only enacted when passed into law via a bill or series of bills, hence anyone else proposing a bill and getting it passed has no less legitimacy than the Government in this respect.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Tbf I didn't know DCMS and Home do the same thing...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The Government has no exclusivity over any legislative area. It may be bound to allocate its budget in a particular way by legislation, and any Government decision may be overruled by Parliament. Life_peer's objection is accordingly misplaced.

    However, this is a terrible idea. Not only does this attempt to simplify things which cannot be simplified, and would therefore end up causing a hell of a lot of confusion, binding the government to allocate its budget in a particular way is not a good idea. The reason we have executive power is that some decisions need to be taken too quickly to be carried out through primary legislation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Hence the "I would find it hard to deem this bill to apply to TSR". The same way that things like the Electoral Reform Act that Labour passed (and I authored) that set a 600-member House of Commons elected via AMS does not apply to TSR.

    On the topic of Budgets, however, they are of course only enacted when passed into law via a bill or series of bills, hence anyone else proposing a bill and getting it passed has no less legitimacy than the Government in this respect.
    What is the point of having such a bill then? Is this one going to yield any meaningful debate or effect? Like JD said, if I try to legislate on some other non-existent departments, are you going to allow that as well? Or perhaps set regulations for traveling above the speed of light to other galaxies? It's nonsense.

    As for the second paragraph, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the parliamentary procedure for supply estimates which at the very least implies that all budget-related matters are presented to the Parliament by the Chancellor and HM Treasury.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    What is the point of having such a bill then? Is this one going to yield any meaningful debate or effect? Like JD said, if I try to legislate on some other non-existent departments, are you going to allow that as well? Or perhaps set regulations for traveling above the speed of light to other galaxies? It's nonsense.

    As for the second paragraph, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the parliamentary procedure for supply estimates which at the very least implies that all budget-related matters are presented to the Parliament by the Chancellor and HM Treasury.
    It is possible to have a debate about RL departments. It is not for me to rule on whether I expect that debate to be hugely meaningful or not before posting the bill.

    The MHoC works in different ways to RL, as you well know.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Probably the best way to look at the whole departments thing within the MHoC is for them not to exist at all, in the same way that they don't in the Welsh devolved setup, with everything just coming out under the heading of "Welsh Government".

    The effect is that rather than having to have a Secretary of State per department (and then a Shadow Secretary of State per department as well) both government and opposition are free to assign titles to specific areas of their competence as they wish, and government and opposition need not do this in the same way (as indeed they have not in Wales).

    Of course I'm not going to tell governments under which heading they should submit statements, but it's something to bear in mind.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The Government has no exclusivity over any legislative area. It may be bound to allocate its budget in a particular way by legislation, and any Government decision may be overruled by Parliament. Life_peer's objection is accordingly misplaced.
    Can you provide a reference to a law that permits non-government members to submit supply and appropriation bills? I believe they can't and if not by legislation, then at least by a constitutional convention which is practically a rule.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Can you provide a reference to a law that permits non-government members to submit supply and appropriation bills? I believe they can't and if not by legislation, then at least by a constitutional convention which is practically a rule.
    Parliamentary sovereignty dictates that this is the case (it is Parliament, not the Government, which is sovereign). It would be unusual but not unconstitutional for a non-government proposer to create such a Bill IRL - but this is because the government pretty much always has a majority and so such a Bill would almost certainly fail.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It is possible to have a debate about RL departments. It is not for me to rule on whether I expect that debate to be hugely meaningful or not before posting the bill.

    The MHoC works in different ways to RL, as you well know.
    There is a difference between debating RL departments and trying to legislate on RL departments (which is impossible and therefore meaningless) while ignoring MHoC departments. If anything, this should have been a motion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Parliamentary sovereignty dictates that this is the case (it is Parliament, not the Government, which is sovereign). It would be unusual but not unconstitutional for a non-government proposer to create such a Bill IRL - but this is because the government pretty much always has a majority and so such a Bill would almost certainly fail.
    That's just your opinion opposite to mine, though. The same principle should negate the Salisbury Convention, yet there it is.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    That's just your opinion opposite to mine, though. The same principle should negate the Salisbury Convention, yet there it is.
    The Salisbury Convention is an exception to the rule. There is no established convention on this point - and indeed, I strongly doubt there ever will be.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The Salisbury Convention is an exception to the rule. There is no established convention on this point - and indeed, I strongly doubt there ever will be.
    How can you be sure that you know all conventions? They tend to be informal…
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    How can you be sure that you know all conventions? They tend to be informal…
    Because a convention like this would be hugely controversial and would be mentioned in every lecture on parliamentary sovereignty ever.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Huh? I believe this is up to the Government…
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    This should be up to the Government. Nay
    I do not believe this is a legislative matter. Governments decide where responsibilities lie.


    'No'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No idea what has been said on page two but last I checked it is up to the PM to decide what departments they have, and what they wish to merge or separate, so nay
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Well, looking at the bill itself, there are some issues. Firstly, with this fixed budget assigned to each department, you haven't added any provisions for the government to change it, making it highly impractical. This alone pokes massive holes in this bill.

    Secondly, I doubt the merging of big departments would be anything close to easy. If this 'bill' is supposed to be related to RL, then, certain issues need to be raised, for example, the headquarters, employee size, or internal management system etc. Obviously I have very little knowledge on this topic, though I can recognize that this legislation doesn't give me any detailed explanation on how this is going to be implemented.

    However, I seriously doubt that legislation this vague, with no costing, can or should pass through this house.

    Nay.

    (Also the formatting and grammar could be better.)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. One of the reasons is that merging International Development with the FCO I think would mean that the aid budget could be more easily cut or used for what I would see as the wrong purposes.
 
 
 
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: June 24, 2016
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.