Ask the Speaker II

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    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items can be sent to division until 23:59 on the 29th (anything past that has no time for division and is therefore withdrawn).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.
    Offline

    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items can be sent to division until 23:59 on the 29th (anything past that has no time for division and is therefore withdrawn).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
    Offline

    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:
    Online

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

    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.
    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
    • Thread Starter
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    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?
    • Thread Starter
    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?
    I'm pretty sure I removed the votes on those two as well.
    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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker,

    Would you please update the Hansard?

    Thanks!
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    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.
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    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

    2
    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.
    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?
    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?
    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.
    • 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?
    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.
    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.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 10, 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
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Study resources

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.