A164 – Crisis Committee Amendment

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The precedent is debatable, but I would also remind the House that I placed the CC on report back on 3 August. Whilst it was pointed out to me that due to the section in the Constitution it was not possible for me to make the decision to close it then, activity levels have not picked up since then, we have not seen a proper crisis since August and that one appeared to be a joke crisis, and during the last repeal amendment a majority of MPs voted for repeal (though not the requisite two thirds for it to pass). For me, this is sufficient to allow the House to debate this again.
    I'm sorry but this demonstrates a strong desire to close down the CC which makes me question your neutrality as Speaker.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I'm sorry but this demonstrates a strong desire to close down the CC which makes me question your neutrality as Speaker.
    Fwiw there's nothing wrong with the Speaker giving their opinion on amendments imo.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I'm sorry but this demonstrates a strong desire to close down the CC which makes me question your neutrality as Speaker.
    The Speaker is not required to be neutral on issues of and amendments relating to House business.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The Speaker is not required to be neutral on issues of and amendments relating to House business.
    So if the amendment had been on a topic you disagreed with, you wouldn't have accepted it?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    So if the amendment had been on a topic you disagreed with, you wouldn't have accepted it?
    No, that is obviously nonsense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nah, when the next (hopefully Labour-led) government is elected I'm sure there'll do a much better job responding to crises from the CC. Those annoyed by the failures of the CC should petition their party leaders to appoint more interested representatives.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    No, that is obviously nonsense.
    Is it? I really don't think so.
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Fwiw there's nothing wrong with the Speaker giving their opinion on amendments imo.
    The issue is bending the rules for allowing such amendments to be presented.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The precedent is debatable, but I would also remind the House that I placed the CC on report back on 3 August. Whilst it was pointed out to me that due to the section in the Constitution it was not possible for me to make the decision to close it then, activity levels have not picked up since then, we have not seen a proper crisis since August and that one appeared to be a joke crisis, and during the last repeal amendment a majority of MPs voted for repeal (though not the requisite two thirds for it to pass). For me, this is sufficient to allow the House to debate this again.
    The precedent is pretty firm.
    And placing it on 'report' really doesn't mean a thing...
    also the fact that a majority voted for means nothing, does that mean that amendments can be repeated until the 'correct result' is yielded.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Is it? I really don't think so.
    I might have kept my opposition to certain proposals fairly quiet (as indeed I was doing on this one until this all blew up) but that doesn't mean I agree with every amendment proposal that has been put to this House or have been vetoing ones I disagree with.

    (Original post by Aph)
    The precedent is pretty firm.
    And placing it on 'report' really doesn't mean a thing...
    also the fact that a majority voted for means nothing, does that mean that amendments can be repeated until the 'correct result' is yielded.
    "On report" meant threatened with closure along the rules for closing a party. Unfortunately the section in the Constitution forbids regular party rules being applied to the CC.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I'd say you are breaching the entire spirit of the CC just by being a member of it.
    Boo hoo, are you seriously defending the CC when it has produced the same absurd crisis 3 times, been completely politicised by its chair, and has defied the laws of physics multiple times to make it's mad ideas work. Even those within it who are not openly hostile truly are apathetic and are there because somebody needs to be there.

    (Original post by Aph)
    But by bending a well established precedent due to your own personal feelings is beyond that line IMO. I fully support the speaker offering his views on amendment but bending the rules to let amendments that they like be debated is too far.
    So which precedent is this, the one that was dismantled a year ago with conditional resubmitting being accepted?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I might have kept my opposition to certain proposals fairly quiet (as indeed I was doing on this one until this all blew up) but that doesn't mean I agree with every amendment proposal that has been put to this House or have been vetoing ones I disagree with.



    "On report" meant threatened with closure along the rules for closing a party. Unfortunately the section in the Constitution forbids regular party rules being applied to the CC.
    I'd like to think that you haven't been so stupid as to try and veto amendments but allowing one because you agree with it isn't right.

    So basically it means that you said you didn't like them.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Boo hoo, are you seriously defending the CC when it has produced the same absurd crisis 3 times, been completely politicised by its chair, and has defied the laws of physics multiple times to make it's mad ideas work. Even those within it who are not openly hostile truly are apathetic and are there because somebody needs to be there.



    So which precedent is this, the one that was dismantled a year ago with conditional resubmitting being accepted?
    Citation?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Boo hoo, are you seriously defending the CC when it has produced the same absurd crisis 3 times, been completely politicised by its chair, and has defied the laws of physics multiple times to make it's mad ideas work. Even those within it who are not openly hostile truly are apathetic and are there because somebody needs to be there.
    I admit that the CC's output has been poor but I know that they are hoping to release several crises soon. However, your complete unwillingness to cooperate is delaying their release and causing tensions in the CC to build up.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I urge anyone who likes torn rectums to vote 'nay' on this amendment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    FWIW I fully support Saracen's Fez and believe he's doing a fantastic job as Speaker.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. I will NOT support a no confidence motion or whatever in the Speaker.
    Offline

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

    Aye!
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
Updated: October 17, 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.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?

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.