Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

MHoC By-Election: Voting Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who should be elected as an MP in seat 50?
    Aph
    3
    2.94%
    adam9317
    22
    21.57%
    Birchington
    23
    22.55%
    george_c00per
    34
    33.33%
    ABoyHasNoName
    17
    16.67%
    (Spoilt ballot)
    3
    2.94%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Would carrying out thorough assessments before people have assisted deaths be a compromise?
    There are those in the medical profession who make mistakes, those who would be in the pay of the organisation taking life, and those who may feel bullied or pressured into saying yes. *A personal not a party view, as I expect Birchington's contrary view is.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Would carrying out thorough assessments before people have assisted deaths be a compromise?
    And once again it still starts on the slippery slope, that thorough assessment will likely become less and less thorough

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Can I ask for the candidates views on the Chilcot report?
    I feel the Chilcot report essentially states the obvious, and it's good to see a conclusion finally reached on the matter. I have always been opposed to the Iraq War - indeed it was my first real political awakening at the tender age of 12.

    Tony Blair was right to apologise - I'll now be watching with some interest to see what happens next.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Can I ask for the candidates views on the Chilcot report?

    Apologies for the short reply- im on my mobile the next few days.

    It largely sets out what we expected and what the people largely thought.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Destabilising the Church of England is removing christianity as the dominant religion as voting a prime minister out of office is killing him.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    LTG is on holiday

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've been voting on my own though so I don't think anyone's proxying my seat.

    The likiest periods for me to miss votes are 9-12 July (Easter Island), 16-19 July (Cusco), and 22-25 July (Lima, Panamá, Venuzuela), 31 July (air). And of course who knows? I'll probably die in Venezuela, even on just a stopover.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I've been voting on my own though so I don't think anyone's proxying my seat.

    The likiest periods of me to miss votes are 9-12 July (Easter Island), 16-19 July (Cusco), and 22-25 July (Lima, Panamá, Venuzuela), 31 July (air). And of course who knows? I'll probably die in Venezuela, even on just a stopover.
    Ahhhh OK

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aph: I'd like to know what you mean by "pro-bureaucracy" and "for social responsibility" in policy terms. On the whole though, I like the ideas, but some detail would be nice and the format really didn't work

    Adam: How can you pledge to be pragmatic in such a tumultuous environment when you yourself claim very certain and rigid economic views? What if the pragmatic best option was to increase spending or government intervention, given we are likely to enter recesssion again short? And how can you honestly promise all this and refer to Brexit as a "situation" when it is a situation you campaigned for despite the pragmatic economic evidence being almost entirely on the other side?

    Birchington: Come on, you can do better than random buzzwords. Who the **** has said we don't want a sensible economic plan or the protection of civil rights? Drop the ********, tell us what you actually want to do, and definitely don't only use a fraction of the space allowed for a manifesto and then promise us "so much more"! I'm almost offended that I'm being asked to vote for such a frankly lazy effort.

    george_c00per: Good style, although could do with a tiny bit more polish. A selection of good, workable policy proposals under a coherent ideological banner. You have my vote

    ABoyHasNoName: Best formatted manifesto, and again I like that you've detailed policy even if I find myself in disagreement with it. However, you'd do better without the over-the-top propaganda about what other parties have supposedly done - it isn't particularly credible or believeable and detracts from the very valid points you do make. Still, putting politics aside it's a good effort and in my opinion the second-best manifesto here.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Aph: I'd like to know what you mean by "pro-bureaucracy" and "for social responsibility" in policy terms. On the whole though, I like the ideas, but some detail would be nice and the format really didn't work
    In terms of social responsibility I belive that people should give up their rights for the good of Society. I'm somewhat liberal (pro-lgbt, pro-choise ect.) but belive that people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want but should work for the betterment of society as a whole.

    And for burocracy I belive that burocracy is ultimately a good thing. It prevents major abuses of power and keeps people safe. Things like how I'm in favour of having a five house legislature IRL just so that one party or whatever can make all the decisions but instead they get help up for a while so rushed decisions can't be made. I also don't like cutting red tape except where absolutely nessesary because I'd prefer that people need to jump through hoops if it keeps people safe.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    In terms of social responsibility I belive that people should give up their rights for the good of Society. I'm somewhat liberal (pro-lgbt, pro-choise ect.) but belive that people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want but should work for the betterment of society as a whole.

    And for burocracy I belive that burocracy is ultimately a good thing. It prevents major abuses of power and keeps people safe. Things like how I'm in favour of having a five house legislature IRL just so that one party or whatever can make all the decisions but instead they get help up for a while so rushed decisions can't be made. I also don't like cutting red tape except where absolutely nessesary because I'd prefer that people need to jump through hoops if it keeps people safe.
    Your views are so warped at times...

    But anyway, I'm intrigued about how your five house system would work. Last I heard, you were advocating three houses :P I'm more of a one and a half house type of guy.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cBay)
    Your views are so warped at times...

    But anyway, I'm intrigued about how your five house system would work. Last I heard, you were advocating three houses :P I'm more of a one and a half house type of guy.
    I know... I can struggle to know where I stand on issues because I believe that both sides are right

    Yes I was, but then I went away and decided that 5 houses were better for practicality and oversight.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I know... I can struggle to know where I stand on issues because I believe that both sides are right

    Yes I was, but then I went away and decided that 5 houses were better for practicality and oversight.
    You also decided it's the way to borrow more and tax more How long until we're in double digits with the ever decreasing practicality?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I know... I can struggle to know where I stand on issues because I believe that both sides are right

    Yes I was, but then I went away and decided that 5 houses were better for practicality and oversight.
    But what are the compositions of these five houses? Like how are they elected/chosen, what are their different powers? I'm just intrigued trying to figure out how you arrived at five as the ideal number.

    As far as I'm aware, four houses seems to be the historical record, the Swedish Riksdag of the Estates - each one representing the four different social classes (somewhat like how our 2 houses historically represented the 'lords' and the 'commons')
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You also decided it's the way to borrow more and tax more How long until we're in double digits with the ever decreasing practicality?
    Public services are valuable.
    (Original post by cBay)
    But what are the compositions of these five houses? Like how are they elected/chosen, what are their different powers? I'm just trying to figure out how you arrived at five as the ideal number..
    I'd have:
    • House of Representatives (Elected by PR across the country) same as the House of Commons
    • House of Delegates (senators) elected to represent the 12 regions on the UK (and hopefully BOTs and CDs in the future) also same as HoC
    • House of the executive: has 11 members, elected every 10 years to control executive power. Appointed using PR with a cap of 3 seats per party to prevent any one person or leader controlling all the executive power in the UK. Basically the queen.
    • House of academics: streamlined House of Lords with no real power and they have to be experts no people good in buissiness or musical theatre, plus appointed by an independent body.
    • House of religions: small house to reflect the religious make up of the U.K. only house where religious leaders can sit and again appointed. Like the house of academics its advisory too.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Public services are valuable.

    I'd have:
    • House of Representatives (Elected by PR across the country) same as the House of Commons
    • House of Delegates (senators) elected to represent the 12 regions on the UK (and hopefully BOTs and CDs in the future) also same as HoC
    • House of the executive: has 11 members, elected every 10 years to control executive power. Appointed using PR with a cap of 3 seats per party to prevent any one person or leader controlling all the executive power in the UK. Basically the queen.
    • House of academics: streamlined House of Lords with no real power and they have to be experts no people good in buissiness or musical theatre, plus appointed by an independent body.
    • House of religions: small house to reflect the religious make up of the U.K. only house where religious leaders can sit and again appointed. Like the house of academics its advisory too.
    Why not be even more impractical and have an unclear number, so you elect a president who appoints a cabinet and then all 5 are elected for each of the departments?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Public services are valuable.

    I'd have:
    • House of Representatives (Elected by PR across the country) same as the House of Commons
    • House of Delegates (senators) elected to represent the 12 regions on the UK (and hopefully BOTs and CDs in the future) also same as HoC
    • House of the executive: has 11 members, elected every 10 years to control executive power. Appointed using PR with a cap of 3 seats per party to prevent any one person or leader controlling all the executive power in the UK. Basically the queen.
    • House of academics: streamlined House of Lords with no real power and they have to be experts no people good in buissiness or musical theatre, plus appointed by an independent body.
    • House of religions: small house to reflect the religious make up of the U.K. only house where religious leaders can sit and again appointed. Like the house of academics its advisory too.
    Interesting, I ask because it's a subject I'm particularly interested in.

    I assume your house of executives is loosely based on the swiss model? In terms of how it is commonly understood, this would not be a 'house' as such because it only has executive power, not legislative power (much like how the EU commission isn't considered a house because whilst it has legislative initiative, it does not have legislative power). The swiss model is one I'm interested in but I'm yet to determine how it could fit in with my other ideas.

    The house of delegates is pretty similar to an idea of my own, where the regional assemblies in a federal system nominate members to the HoL. The amount of nominations a party gets depends on how many seats they have in the regional assembly, and they would have to list their nominations before elections so it is essentially an indirect party list PR. Imo, this is the best of both worlds in that they are nominated so are more likely to be experts and what not rather than politicians, but they still have a mandate from the public. I would imagine the powers would remain much the same as the HoL now, but they would also have the power to block legislation if they perceive the HoC to be overstepping its authority in imposing its will on the regions.

    In terms of religious representation, I was thinking maybe some quotas on the party nominations so that a minimum number of religious people are nominated, minimum number of ethnic minorities, and minimum numbers of any other group of people that is at risk of oppression through majority rule. So basically it seems my line of thinking is pretty similar to yours, I just believe the various requirements can all be rolled into one with the second house.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cBay)
    Interesting, I ask because it's a subject I'm particularly interested in.

    I assume your house of executives is loosely based on the swiss model? In terms of how it is commonly understood, this would not be a 'house' as such because it only has executive power, not legislative power (much like how the EU commission isn't considered a house because whilst it has legislative initiative, it does not have legislative power). The swiss model is one I'm interested in but I'm yet to determine how it could fit in with my other ideas.
    yes that what it's based on. I would probably give it the ability to propose and veto laws (would need to veto with a supermajority) it's based on a belief that leaders and figure heads aren't needed and a group of leaders would do just as well.

    The house of delegates is pretty similar to an idea of my own, where the regional assemblies in a federal system nominate members to the HoL. The amount of nominations a party gets depends on how many seats they have in the regional assembly, and they would have to list their nominations before elections so it is essentially an indirect party list PR. Imo, this is the best of both worlds in that they are nominated so are more likely to be experts and what not rather than politicians, but they still have a mandate from the public. I would imagine the powers would remain much the same as the HoL now, but they would also have the power to block legislation if they perceive the HoC to be overstepping its authority in imposing its will on the regions.
    That is actually very similar to teh German senate model and id also be happy with that. Although personally I would only allow up to 4 representatives per state so elections might be better otherwise it'll end up being 2 from the government equivalent, 1 from opposition and one from minor parties which wouldn't likely end up being close.

    In terms of religious representation, I was thinking maybe some quotas on the party nominations so that a minimum number of religious people are nominated, minimum number of ethnic minorities, and minimum numbers of any other group of people that is at risk of oppression through majority rule. So basically it seems my line of thinking is pretty similar to yours, I just believe the various requirements can all be rolled into one with the second house.
    The only reason I included a religious house is that I feel we should be secular. Also people have a lot of misconceptions about religion so I'd probably make it the only house where religious issues with a bill can be brought up (can be discussed in other houses after mentioned in this house?) and I'm not massively in favour of legal quotas because people then claim they are being oppressed... I do see their merit but I would rather that they be volentary.

    And it would certainly seem that way. I just like everything seperated out and each place to have a specific purpose and see the merits to each as reason for each to exist on its own.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why not be even more impractical and have an unclear number, so you elect a president who appoints a cabinet and then all 5 are elected for each of the departments?
    Was there any need for that? I don't see your point
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    yes that what it's based on. I would probably give it the ability to propose and veto laws (would need to veto with a supermajority) it's based on a belief that leaders and figure heads aren't needed and a group of leaders would do just as well.
    Yea I agree on your view on leaders. An alternative to the swiss model would actually be the European Commission model, ironically (given how much hate it gets), where each region would choose one person to represent it. I believe if the representative was elected or at least accountable in some way then it wouldn't be problem that we have with the EU commission.

    That is actually very similar to teh German senate model and id also be happy with that. Although personally I would only allow up to 4 representatives per state so elections might be better otherwise it'll end up being 2 from the government equivalent, 1 from opposition and one from minor parties which wouldn't likely end up being close.
    Yea that's true actually, I do like the idea behind the German senate although I feel it's a bit too small in being completely effective. I think Spain has a similar sort of thing too where its senate is at least partially chosen by the regions (not quite sure how that works though). I'm not keen on direct elections personally because I feel it would inevitably lead to two houses of partisan politicians which can cause deadlock. I was thinking somewhere between 10 and 20 representatives per region (so between 130 and 260 in total) as an appropriate level where it is a significant reduction on current numbers but still enough to give a vast range of expertise and experience.

    The only reason I included a religious house is that I feel we should be secular. Also people have a lot of misconceptions about religion so I'd probably make it the only house where religious issues with a bill can be brought up (can be discussed in other houses after mentioned in this house?) and I'm not massively in favour of legal quotas because people then claim they are being oppressed... I do see their merit but I would rather that they be volentary.

    And it would certainly seem that way. I just like everything seperated out and each place to have a specific purpose and see the merits to each as reason for each to exist on its own.
    I'm not too keen on quota's either tbh, it could lead to the ridiculous situation of a party like the BNP having to nominate a muslim to represent them. I'm still working on what checks can be put in place to guard against oppression by majority rule.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cBay)
    Yea I agree on your view on leaders. An alternative to the swiss model would actually be the European Commission model, ironically (given how much hate it gets), where each region would choose one person to represent it. I believe if the representative was elected or at least accountable in some way then it wouldn't be problem that we have with the EU commission.
    the European Commission model is a good one but I prefer the Swiss model simply because the commission still has a leader with the final say.

    Yea that's true actually, I do like the idea behind the German senate although I feel it's a bit too small in being completely effective. I think Spain has a similar sort of thing too where its senate is at least partially chosen by the regions (not quite sure how that works though). I'm not keen on direct elections personally because I feel it would inevitably lead to two houses of partisan politicians which can cause deadlock. I was thinking somewhere between 10 and 20 representatives per region (so between 130 and 260 in total) as an appropriate level where it is a significant reduction on current numbers but still enough to give a vast range of expertise and experience.
    id probably have 10 per UK region and 20 in terms of BOT+CDs as they are vastly different to eachother. Maybe creating the Caribbean as one state and 'all others' as the other? And I feel that either way they will be partisan politicians. They would just have to learn to compromise I guess.

    I'm not too keen on quota's either tbh, it could lead to the ridiculous situation of a party like the BNP having to nominate a muslim to represent them. I'm still working on what checks can be put in place to guard against oppression by majority rule.
    super-majorities tend to be the best way.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I've been voting on my own though so I don't think anyone's proxying my seat.

    The likiest periods for me to miss votes are 9-12 July (Easter Island), 16-19 July (Cusco), and 22-25 July (Lima, Panamá, Venuzuela), 31 July (air). And of course who knows? I'll probably die in Venezuela, even on just a stopover.
    Please post a picture of Easter Island when you are there?

    Travelling reminds me to ask- what are the candidates view on HS2?*
    *
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.

  • 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.