Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Ask the Speaker II Watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    So you are totally ignoring the rules and how it's been done in the past then?
    WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE WHEN PARLIAMENT HAS EXPIRED. at that point we all cease to be MPs because our electoral mandate has ended.
    Parliament is only dissolved on the 26th which means that items can be sent to division until 23:59 on the 29th (anything past that has no time for division and is therefore withdrawn).

    (Original post by toronto353)
    It still remains the Government's decision until 26th October, so at this moment in time, you're merely speculating.
    We could go on the 25th just to annoy him.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Parliament is only dissolved on the 26th which means that items can be sent to division until 23:59 on the 29th (anything past that has no time for division and is therefore withdrawn).



    We could go on the 25th just to annoy him.
    But when parliament is disowned we cease to be MPs because of that disillusion.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But when parliament is disowned we cease to be MPs because of that disillusion.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We only cease to be MP's once any outstanding business is dealt with and the timetable for that allows it to enter division. Only the election process begins on the day parliament is dissolved, that's how it has always been. If you can submit a bill before 23:58 on the 26th then technically speaking your bill is regarded as outstanding business.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Right, scrap everything; we're going to do all that's in our power to annoy Aph. :laugh:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We could go on the 25th just to annoy him.
    I second this.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Can I ask your reasoning behind this decision? My understanding would be that seats which are lost during a vote have their votes stand provided they voted before the event which caused the seat to be lost was published, and according to my records, this was the case here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Can I ask your reasoning behind this decision? My understanding would be that seats which are lost during a vote have their votes stand provided they voted before the event which caused the seat to be lost was published, and according to my records, this was the case here.
    And that's the decision made last time round, he's breaking HIS OWN precedent

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Can I ask your reasoning behind this decision? My understanding would be that seats which are lost during a vote have their votes stand provided they voted before the event which caused the seat to be lost was published, and according to my records, this was the case here.
    I don't remember setting a precedent on this for this reason:
    – When I remove someone from a seat and start a by-election, I clear their name and party colour from the voting record spreadsheet.
    – I also when doing a review create a new column for the next month's completed votes.
    – Votes from seats that have been maintained will count towards the next month's percentage, but there is no percentage for votes in the emptied seat to count towards.
    It's for that reason that whilst I don't remember having removed votes before (though I imagine this is due to a seat with poor turnout continuing not to vote upon items still open) I don't remember letting any stand either.

    I also believe I've been fairly clear that priority will be given to the permanent holder of the seat at the close of voting when deciding whether to remove votes and whose to remove.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I don't remember setting a precedent on this for this reason:
    – When I remove someone from a seat and start a by-election, I clear their name and party colour from the voting record spreadsheet.
    – I also when doing a review create a new column for the next month's completed votes.
    – Votes from seats that have been maintained will count towards the next month's percentage, but there is no percentage for votes in the emptied seat to count towards.
    It's for that reason that whilst I don't remember having removed votes before (though I imagine this is due to a seat with poor turnout continuing not to vote upon items still open) I don't remember letting any stand either.

    I also believe I've been fairly clear that priority will be given to the permanent holder of the seat at the close of voting when deciding whether to remove votes and whose to remove.
    Hm, okay. I think your decision is wrong, but it doesn't really matter. However, there are a couple more votes which TBM voted on in that seat before the voting review was published, but on which voting closed after the voting review (I think - VM408 and V1062). What's the distinction if you don't mind me asking?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Hm, okay. I think your decision is wrong, but it doesn't really matter. However, there are a couple more votes which TBM voted on in that seat before the voting review was published, but on which voting closed after the voting review (I think - VM408 and V1062). What's the distinction if you don't mind me asking?
    I'm pretty sure I removed the votes on those two as well.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Hm, okay. I think your decision is wrong, but it doesn't really matter. However, there are a couple more votes which TBM voted on in that seat before the voting review was published, but on which voting closed after the voting review (I think - VM408 and V1062). What's the distinction if you don't mind me asking?
    When Andy lost his seat you kept his votes, so you have done it before

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker,

    Would you please update the Hansard?

    Thanks!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Mr Speaker,

    Would you please update the Hansard?

    Thanks!
    I'm going to bring them all up to date at the end of term now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker, with LTG finally having shown up in the government sub, can you confirm whether he joined the Liberals before or after the dual membership amendment, and if after who approved their application?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Mr Speaker, with LTG finally having shown his ugly face in the government sub, can you confirm whether he joined the Liberals before or after the dual membership amendment, and if after who approved their application?

    I'm pretty confident it was a fair while before.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Mr Speaker, with LTG finally having shown his ugly face in the government sub, can you confirm whether he joined the Liberals before or after the dual membership amendment, and if after who approved their application?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It was before.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Saracen's Fez Why was a petition accepted to go to vote when it's clearly been formatted, and titled as a Bill?
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Saracen's Fez Why was a petition accepted to go to vote when it's clearly been formatted, and titled as a Bill?
    There's no defined format for petitions and he had no seconder, hence Fez ruled a few days ago that it was to be treated as a petition.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Saracen's Fez Why was a petition accepted to go to vote when it's clearly been formatted, and titled as a Bill?
    It appeared to have been done through the petition tool and was titled as a petition, so I am allowing the House to vote on the concept as a petition.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    There's no defined format for petitions and he had no seconder, hence Fez ruled a few days ago that it was to be treated as a petition.
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It appeared to have been done through the petition tool and was titled as a petition, so I am allowing the House to vote on the concept as a petition.
    Ok, thanks both.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about Results Day?

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.