A161 – End-Of-Term By-Elections Amendment

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'll have to check some stuff first, but a better idea may just to make it that any seats "lost" in the last review impact the next election so they start with an extra seat when it comes to calculating the seat distribution, need to check though how that will hit the distribution though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Saracen's Fez


    I don't think you answered Nigel's question. Where does it say that the house cannot overturn a decision by the speaker? I can't find anything in the constitution.

    Although I'm not taking a sidie on this I'm just curious.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    Saracen's Fez


    I don't think you answered Nigel's question. Where does it say that the house cannot overturn a decision by the speaker? I can't find anything in the constitution.

    Although I'm not taking a sidie on this I'm just curious.
    The House cannot overturn a Speaker's decision by amendment. What an amendment does is amend the Constitution or GD for next time. It is perfectly possible to include something that would kick into effect next term or with regard to the GE, but it is not possible to include footnote instructions for the Speaker that are not to be added to the GD or Constitution – because that isn't amending.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The House cannot overturn a Speaker's decision by amendment. What an amendment does is amend the Constitution or GD for next time. It is perfectly possible to include something that would kick into effect next term or with regard to the GE, but it is not possible to include footnote instructions for the Speaker that are not to be added to the GD or Constitution – because that isn't amending.
    Has anyone actually stood or will you admit that you were completely wrong when there are no candidates?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Has anyone actually stood or will you admit that you were completely wrong when there are no candidates?
    I have not yet received any submissions.

    I think we can all, me included, agree that this is not ideal, however we will probably struggle to agree on what should be done instead. As a result I have chosen to follow the instructions set out in the GD rather than inventing my own procedure to follow.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I have not yet received any submissions.

    I think we can all, me included, agree that this is not ideal, however we will probably struggle to agree on what should be done instead. As a result I have chosen to follow the instructions set out in the GD rather than inventing my own procedure to follow.
    TBH no one would have complained if you did the normal thing of no review. You definitely made a very unpopular decision.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I have not yet received any submissions.

    I think we can all, me included, agree that this is not ideal, however we will probably struggle to agree on what should be done instead. As a result I have chosen to follow the instructions set out in the GD rather than inventing my own procedure to follow.
    So what is the procedure if no one decides to stand then?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    So what is the procedure if no one decides to stand then?
    The seats remain unfilled.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    TBH no one would have complained if you did the normal thing of no review. You definitely made a very unpopular decision.
    I think it is unfair to attack the Speaker for following the GD. I realise that it is close to the GE but even so, I think his stance on the issue should be respected.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The House cannot overturn a Speaker's decision by amendment. What an amendment does is amend the Constitution or GD for next time. It is perfectly possible to include something that would kick into effect next term or with regard to the GE, but it is not possible to include footnote instructions for the Speaker that are not to be added to the GD or Constitution – because that isn't amending.
    But surely, because the Constitution is binding on the Speaker, an amendment to the Constitution which passed and reversed an earlier Speaker decision expressly should have that effect?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    But surely, because the Constitution is binding on the Speaker, an amendment to the Constitution which passed and reversed an earlier Speaker decision expressly should have that effect?
    Ah, but the reversal is not a part of the amended text

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ah, but the reversal is not a part of the amended text

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nor is it an amendment to the constitution. I just like arguing.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    But surely, because the Constitution is binding on the Speaker, an amendment to the Constitution which passed and reversed an earlier Speaker decision expressly should have that effect?
    I don't see how the Constitution can bind the past – such an amendment could only apply to future occurrences.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I don't see how the Constitution can bind the past – such an amendment could only apply to future occurrences.
    The UK constitutional position is basically that retroactive legislation (and indeed, therefore, constitutional amendment) is valid provided it clearly specifies its retroactivity, and there's a strong, but not conclusive interpretive presumption to the contrary.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No because of the start date.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The UK constitutional position is basically that retroactive legislation (and indeed, therefore, constitutional amendment) is valid provided it clearly specifies its retroactivity, and there's a strong, but not conclusive interpretive presumption to the contrary.
    However the MHoC Constitution specifies quite clearly (9.1) that "Amendments amend the constitution or guiding document". I consider that to mean that that is all that the formal, binding text of an amendment can include. Indeed the binding-by-association bit of the GD includes "2) To change the Constitution you will need to highlight what you want to be changed using its numerical system", which again appears to me to suggest that there can be nothing more to an amendment (or at least its binding text) than "remove x" and "add y" plus some numbered clauses, and this there is no means to specify retroactivity or otherwise. The common sense position as I see it is therefore to apply it on the next relevant occasion, rather than interrupt or change a process underway with a timetable already published.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    However the MHoC Constitution specifies quite clearly (9.1) that "Amendments amend the constitution or guiding document". I consider that to mean that that is all that the formal, binding text of an amendment can include. Indeed the binding-by-association bit of the GD includes "2) To change the Constitution you will need to highlight what you want to be changed using its numerical system", which again appears to me to suggest that there can be nothing more to an amendment (or at least its binding text) than "remove x" and "add y" plus some numbered clauses, and this there is no means to specify retroactivity or otherwise. The common sense position as I see it is therefore to apply it on the next relevant occasion, rather than interrupt or change a process underway with a timetable already published.
    Again, I disagree, but tbh I don't care enough to argue more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    **sorry, catching up as my proxy didn't vote for me**

    Nay
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This amendment is in cessation.
 
 
 
Updated: October 24, 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
Would you rather have...?

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.