V150 - Unemployment Reduction Bill 2009 Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (23)
48.94%
On the contrary, No (24)
51.06%
Abstain (0)
0%
This discussion is closed.
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#121
Report 9 years ago
#121
(Original post by UniOfLife)
So you think maze.e (who you claim made a mistake though we've had no word from him on it and this was only mentioned after the vote closed and the result known) should not change his vote?
Personally, I don't think he should change his vote. It doesn't really matter anyway, the poll is closed.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#122
Report 9 years ago
#122
(Original post by Metrobeans)
Personally, I don't think he should change his vote. It doesn't really matter anyway, the poll is closed.
So you're going with option 2 - bully the speaker into saying that despite the fact that he didn't accept the applications in time to vote that's just tough.
0
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#123
Report 9 years ago
#123
(Original post by UniOfLife)
So you're going with option 2 - bully the speaker into saying that despite the fact that he didn't accept the applications in time to vote that's just tough.
No, I'm waiting until all the facts are known. What I can say with certainty is that no member should be allowed to change their votes after a poll has closed and I'd hope the whole house would agree with me on this one.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#124
Report 9 years ago
#124
(Original post by Metrobeans)
No, I'm waiting until all the facts are known. What I can say with certainty is that no member should be allowed to change their votes after a poll has closed and I'd hope the whole house would agree with me on this one.
OK. So if it turns out that the Tory MPs in question applied to join the MP usergroup before the poll closed and their application was not accepted in time then you'd be happy to have their votes counted and for the Bill to pass 25-24?
0
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#125
Report 9 years ago
#125
I don't think it's quite that simple. One of the MP's who applied to join apparently was a proxy MP. Should that member not have applied at least 4 days before the poll closed?
0
Kolya
Badges: 14
#126
Report 9 years ago
#126
Surely I am not the only member who finds this all rather silly?
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#127
Report 9 years ago
#127
(Original post by Metrobeans)
I don't think it's quite that simple. One of the MP's who applied to join apparently was a proxy MP. Should that member not have applied at least 4 days before the poll closed?
Dunno. Seems very silly to enforce a non-sensical rule simply to ensure that the Left don't end up with even more egg on their faces.

(Original post by Kolya)
Surely I am not the only member who finds this all rather silly?
Not silly, funny
0
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#128
Report 9 years ago
#128
(Original post by UniOfLife)
The Left then have four options:
1) Accept they've ****** up and submit a Bill to put it back
Yeah, some people ****** up, but I don't see the point of passing this only to repeal it a week later. The poll result means that the bill failed. Whether or not this is 'wrong' or something, considering that there's no point in fighting to get this bill passed, why don't we just accept that as the result and move on to something that is less dull and pointless?

Oh, and lol at one Lab MP and one Lib Dem MP being 'the Left.' :laugh:

(Original post by Kolya)
Surely I am not the only member who finds this all rather silly?
It is a bit :sadnod:
0
Kolya
Badges: 14
#129
Report 9 years ago
#129
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Not silly, funny
Given that it is clear the bill would have passed had we had a more active speaker, and that the Noes would win a quick repeal, one would hope that at least one party leader - whatever their affiliation -would be willing to be gracious at this time.
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#130
Report 9 years ago
#130
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Dunno. Seems very silly to enforce a non-sensical rule simply to ensure that the Left don't end up with even more egg on their faces.
Meh, it does seem like a waste of time to pass and then repeal a bill straight after. I'll wait for the Speaker to come on and I'll accept his decision, whatever it is.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#131
Report 9 years ago
#131
(Original post by Jace Falco)
Yeah, some people ****** up, but I don't see the point of passing this only to repeal it a week later. The poll result means that the bill failed. Whether or not this is 'wrong' or something, considering that there's no point in fighting to get this bill passed, why don't we just accept that as the result and move on to something that is less dull and pointless?

Oh, and lol at one Lab MP and one Lib Dem MP being 'the Left.' :laugh:



It is a bit :sadnod:
Well, we could just do that. But I rather like the idea of the Bill passing even if it is repealed later. It's just more fun that way

Also, it's lol at Labour and Lib Dem being unable to whip properly. And given that those two Parties constitute 70% of the PF coalition I think we can safely call that "the Left".

I think we can all admit that it is mightily embarrassing for you guys that the first important vote and two of the three parties in your coalition make a monstrous mess of it allowing the Bill to pass when it should have been an easy 26-24 win. Must be frustrating for the Socialists to have to deal with this now and clean up the mess of your coalition partners.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#132
Report 9 years ago
#132
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Dunno. Seems very silly to enforce a non-sensical rule simply to ensure that the Left don't end up with even more egg on their faces.
All i will say is that its in the constitution, very clearly stated. Where there is ambiguity (as in the recent problem with forming a government, where both sides have valid arguments), then there is a reason to discuss it, but in this situation, there isn't. The constitution plainly states 4 days for a proxy MP. There is no ambiguity, no room for interpretation, so trying to make out that this bill went through when it didn't just shows ignorance on your own part, trying to make an issue out of something that isn't.

If you had a problem with the constitution, you should have submitted an amendment before this was put to vote. You had plenty of time to do so, and if you chose not to, then the outcome is your own fault.

As to the issue of the actual MP who applied, but wasn't accepted into the group, i have a little sympathy for. But only a little, since all the other parties managed to have no problems with their members joining the group, but i think in this case, it was just unfortunate, and not the fault of anyone, so i wouldn't have a problem with that vote counting, if what has been stated in this thread about application time is true... the constitution probably needs amending to remove ambiguity in this area, as to when MPs have to apply to have votes count (i would say before a bill is put for vote, but there are technical issues with that i understand).

As for vote changing, this is still an area under discussion, as again, its not mentioned one way or the other in the constitution. I think there should be some leeway on this (as i have mentioned in the discussion), but as i don't know the situation with the particular voter, i wont comment on whether or not in this instance it should be allowed.
0
paperclip
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#133
Report 9 years ago
#133
Mannnnnnn, another pointless argument? Wait until after the speaker makes a decision then dispute that decision if need be, m'kay?
0
ThePants999
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#134
Report 9 years ago
#134
(Original post by UniOfLife)
I'm just enjoying the spectacle.
+1 to that. This whole Bill has been an awesome spectator sport, from the Left arguing in favour of redundancy for our poorest workers, to this absolute classic of a thread.

That said, I think the "clearly it's 26-24" thing is a pretty sad indictment of the party system. The arguments in favour were not successfully refuted during debate, so to my mind the fact that all parties simply ignore the arguments and force their members to vote in accordance with stereotypical political positioning simply shows how closed-minded the House is. We might as well just let our two independents vote - we'll get exactly the same results.
0
Kyalimers
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
#135
Report 9 years ago
#135
(Original post by ThePants999)
+1 to that. This whole Bill has been an awesome spectator sport, from the Left arguing in favour of redundancy for our poorest workers, to this absolute classic of a thread.

That said, I think the "clearly it's 26-24" thing is a pretty sad indictment of the party system. The arguments in favour were not successfully refuted during debate, so to my mind the fact that all parties simply ignore the arguments and force their members to vote in accordance with stereotypical political positioning simply shows how closed-minded the House is. We might as well just let our two independents vote - we'll get exactly the same results.
That is not true. My Drugs Bill for example has not seen a similar division.

But a Bill of such importance as this, merits the responses that were taken.
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#136
Report 9 years ago
#136
(Original post by sohanshah)
That is not true. My Drugs Bill for example has not seen a similar division.

But a Bill of such importance as this, merits the responses that were taken.
Is it being whipped?

I think Pants makes a valid point about the debate. The reality, as far as I can be objective on the matter, appears to have been clear that those in favour of the Bill put forward strong arguments and successfully refuted every objection of those opposed. Were there some objective arbiter there would be no doubt which side won the debate. However, blind ideology and whipping ensured that those who started opposed remained opposed despite the debate having strongly proven one side correct.

But then, I guess if you're opposed to the Bill you'd strongly disagree with this. I doubt any of you in the PF have the guts to say that you lost the debate but voted against the Bill anyway.
0
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#137
Report 9 years ago
#137
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Is it being whipped?

I think Pants makes a valid point about the debate. The reality, as far as I can be objective on the matter, appears to have been clear that those in favour of the Bill put forward strong arguments and successfully refuted every objection of those opposed. Were there some objective arbiter there would be no doubt which side won the debate. However, blind ideology and whipping ensured that those who started opposed remained opposed despite the debate having strongly proven one side correct.

But then, I guess if you're opposed to the Bill you'd strongly disagree with this. I doubt any of you in the PF have the guts to say that you lost the debate but voted against the Bill anyway.
Plenty of arguments were put forward Tony, you just refused to listen to any but the ones you could put down :rolleyes:
0
Thunder and Jazz
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#138
Report 9 years ago
#138
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Is it being whipped?
Can only speak for the L/Dems but yes.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#139
Report 9 years ago
#139
(Original post by Gremlins)
Plenty of arguments were put forward Tony, you just refused to listen to any but the ones you could put down :rolleyes:
Really? I followed the debate quite closely and can't recall any of said arguments. All the ones put forward were quashed by various debaters in favour of the Bill as I recall. Could be wrong though...
0
Kyalimers
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
#140
Report 9 years ago
#140
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Is it being whipped?
Drug Patent Reform Bill was not whipped, no.

But then, I guess if you're opposed to the Bill you'd strongly disagree with this. I doubt any of you in the PF have the guts to say that you lost the debate but voted against the Bill anyway.
People can think for themselves. If you're left wing, you are going to be heavily against this Bill, no matter what arguments you make. That's a given to be fair.

And I'll say this now: I voted Nay even before a debate began in here. It was stupid to even consider having a debate. Such is this Bill, a debate is not going to get anywhere, because a left wing MP would be fundamentally against the idea of removing the minimum wage, simply because it would allow abuse of workers. That's what the left believe, and no debate would have changed the idealogy behind that.
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (260)
38.92%
No - but I will (45)
6.74%
No - I don't want to (49)
7.34%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (314)
47.01%

Watched Threads

View All