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

A95 - Controversial Bill Amendment Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A95 - Controversial Bill Amendment
    Proposed by: That Bearded Man MP
    Seconded by: Chlorophile MP, O133 MP, RayApparently MP, Saoirse:3 MP




    Controversial Bill Amendment


    An amendment to give members of the TSR public an opportunity to engage in some of the House's best moments, giving them a flavour and encouraging people to join.


    Preamble
    As always, MPs have been trying to boost activity and tempt in new members to the House. To new members, the level of detail involved puts many off, while could also tempt many in. If the wider TSR audience could get a glimpse of some of the more interesting debates we are having, this could be a good way to boost activity


    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    We propose to change the following, all changes are italicised:

    1) Under the section entitled "Bills," add in the following

    1) Acts of Parliament or EU laws passed in real life will apply to the Model House of Commons, so long as they do not contradict bills passed in this House. Legislation passed here always takes precedence over legislation passed in real life. This House is, however, governed by same legislative boundaries as defined by Model House of Commons Law with regard to the devolution of powers to the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly.

    2) Party Leaders or members (submitting private members bills) will send the bill to the Speaker.

    3) The Speaker will acknowledge they have received the bill and post the bill title and post the date the bill will go up for discussion in the Hansard.

    4) The Speaker will then post the bill in the House of Commons forum on the day a bill is to go up for discussion (as stated in the Hansard).

    5) The Speaker will then PM all members to inform them that a new bill is up for discussion.

    6) The Speaker will remind the submitters of the bill when they have 48 hours left to make decisions on whether a bill goes to another reading or to voting.

    7) The speaker will be responsible for posting the final bill in the Division Lobby and sending a PM round to the MPs to inform them of a vote.

    8) The Speaker is responsible for informing the Choosers when the result of the vote is up

    9) The Speaker is responsible for adding the bill into the main "Debate and Current Affairs" forum, should the Choosers support it.
    2) Under the title "Bill procedure" change the following;

    1) In the House of Commons a maximum of one government bill, one non-government bill, one motion, one treaty and one amendment per day is permitted, excluding ‘joke’ bills.

    2) Once an item has been submitted it will be listed in the Hansard and marked with the date the bill will go up for discussion, if the bill has been predicted as a "Controversial Bill" the bill will be marked with an asterisk as well.

    3) Each item will be assigned a number, this number will continue throughout the bill from reading to voting, a bill under discussion will be denoted a Bxx, a bill at voting will be Vxx, a motion will be Mxx, a treaty as Txx and an amendment will be Axx.

    4) Each item can undergo a maximum of 3 readings:

    (a) First Reading – Two days minimum, Six days maximum (with an additional 48 hour extension if requested)
    (b) Second Reading – One day minimum, Four days maximum (with an additional 24 hour extension if requested)
    (c) Third reading – One day minimum, Three days maximum
    5) After a reading, the item is put into cessation for up to 7 days unless the proposer has asked for it to go to a new reading or to cessation.

    6) At any point during an item's discussion the submitter can ask for a 7 day cessation period.

    7) An item can be withdrawn at any point.
    And add in the following

    8) Items can be discussed by all members of the House of Commons.

    9) After an item has been put to vote, it can be discussed in the "Debate and Current Affairs" forum.
    3) Under the title "Bill Formatting" change the following:

    1) State first whether the bill is a Private Members Bill, or whether it is a Bill being proposed by the Party (if the latter is the case then it must be submitted by the Party Leader or Deputy Leader).

    2) Each bill should contain the following:

    Short Title - Here you should add an asterisk if you wish to indicate that you believe this to be a controversial bill.

    Just to give the general jist of the bill, and make it easy to pay reference to, reduce to full title (below) to something less wordy. Make it short and simple.

    Example:

    Education Reform Bill 2006


    Title of the bill

    Brief (but full) description of the bill, preferably in one sentence. Expand slightly on the short title, and make sure the Title gets across briefly the nature of the bill.

    Example:

    A bill that makes the studying of History, compulsory in all state schools up to and including Key Stage Four.


    Enacting words

    All bills should start with the enacting words as follows:

    "BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's [King's] most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-"


    Content

    Do this however you like, there is no word limit, and you may bullet-list, paragraph, do whatever you like. Just make it simple and in plain English. No multi-coloured text, different sizes or fonts will be carried over, though.

    The bill should also be in a “field” in this field must be included the bill name and party/private member submitting the bill, the way you put your bill in a field is as follows:

    Bill name (party/private member name)Bill content goes here
    To summarise what this will mean, please see the Bill to match it below;

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Controversial Bill......Bill 2014, TSR Government


    Controversial Bill Act

    An Act to make interesting debates more public to give potential members a flavour of House of Commons debates

    Preamble
    As always, MPs have been trying to boost activity and tempt in new members to the House. To new members, the level of detail involved puts many off, while could also tempt many in. If the wider TSR audience could get a glimpse of some of the more interesting debates we are having, this could be a good way to boost activity

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    (1.) Definition

    "Choosers" refers to the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and the authors of the bill. With the assumption that their opinions adequately represents that of their coalitions.

    (2.) Selection
    Upon writing a bill, writers have the choice to include an (*) to indicate that they think it satisfies the criteria in (3.) Once the bill has been voted, the Choosers must agree that the bill should be made public.

    After the vote, the Speaker may decide that all criteria have been filled from (3.) despite the lack of asterisk, and the request sent out to the Choosers.

    (3.)Criteria

    When written, the author may include an (*) in anticipation that the bill will
    • Be about a topic that will be understood by the lay public
    • Be likely to spark debate
    • Be interesting to discuss to the wider public

    The bill should definitely be selected if it is
    • Expected to be viewed by some as "controversial"

    (4.)Made Public

    Once the Choosers have given permission for the bill to be made public, the bill, along with all the comments, will be posted into the Debate forum.

    A message, outlining the bill, and result will also be added, advertising the Model House of Commons.

    The minimum time it will remain active in the Debate section will be one week.

    Users can requests comments be removed before the bill is sent off, timing is at the discretion of the Speaker.

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

    5. Short title
    (1) This act may be cited as the Controversial Bill......Bill 2014.

    6. Commencement and extent
    (1) This Act shall come into force immediately
    2) This Act extends to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, first of all I assume that this is the Guidance document that is being amended.

    With 1.1) to 1.7) (inc.) they should not be in there, as otherwise there would be duplicates of the same text. Or say '1) Under the section entitled "Bills," add in the italicised text'

    1.8) Choosers? Not the best name, call them 'Tellers' or something.
    1.9) Impossible, see 2.9)

    Bills8) Items can be discussed by all members of the House of Commons.
    Bills9) After an item has been put to vote, it can be discussed in the "Debate and Current Affairs" forum.


    2.8) Is just stating the obvious and confers no benefit (that I can see)

    As for 2.9) There is no place in the DC&A forum where we can put it. You cannot start threads in the main DC&A forum, only in it's sub-forums. Furthermore we have our own sub-forum(s) for a reason, there is no point forcing us onto them, with 'Controversial Bills' MPs would be more likely to present off-putting to larger sections of TSR, hence why they are controversial, therefore even if we could post in the DC&A forums we would just be broadcasting our most bigoted ideas to larger sections of TSR, making them less likely to join.

    Moving on to the Bill bit in the Spoiler:

    (2) 'Once a Bill has been voted'? Clarification needed. I assume that this should have 'upon' at the end. When it says 'the Choosers must agree that the bill should be made public.' First off, it says that the Choosers are the PM, LotO, and the authors, does that mean that the whole party/coalition are the authors, or just the party leadership, or leader, or writer. But what happens if more than one person/party wrote it? How do they agree whether to go public or not? Majority, Unanimous or Consensus? If it is the middle option then I doubt this amendment will ever be used.

    Why do we need the asterisk bit, if this does go through we should just select ordinary bills, not designate certain ones as special.

    I am afraid that it is a flawed concept, with a distinct lack of clarity, and is unworkable/impossible to apply.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Nay as Crypto said we don't need our Bills being debated up on the D&CA forum as this one would become pointless!
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Nay, first of all I assume that this is the Guidance document that is being amended.

    With 1.1) to 1.7) (inc.) they should not be in there, as otherwise there would be duplicates of the same text. Or say '1) Under the section entitled "Bills," add in the italicised text'

    1.8) Choosers? Not the best name, call them 'Tellers' or something.
    1.9) Impossible, see 2.9)

    Bills8) Items can be discussed by all members of the House of Commons.
    Bills9) After an item has been put to vote, it can be discussed in the "Debate and Current Affairs" forum.




    Okay, you challenge the formatting of it, noted.

    2.8) Is just stating the obvious and confers no benefit (that I can see)
    It's a guidance document, guidance documents need to point out the obvious, for as you say, clarity

    As for 2.9) There is no place in the DC&A forum where we can put it. You cannot start threads in the main DC&A forum, only in it's sub-forums. Furthermore we have our own sub-forum(s) for a reason, there is no point forcing us onto them, with 'Controversial Bills' MPs would be more likely to present off-putting to larger sections of TSR, hence why they are controversial, therefore even if we could post in the DC&A forums we would just be broadcasting our most bigoted ideas to larger sections of TSR, making them less likely to join.I don't think they should be in a subforum, but posted directly in Debate forum, or even in the UK Politics section, which would be feasible. The point of "controversial" isn't to scare people away, but will get people interested. For instance, let's say we pass a bill legalising euthanasia. People see this and think either A) Wonderful idea, I think we should implement this in real life, except maybe increase the age requirement or B) That's disgraceful, how dare you. Both of those will probably debate on the page, then may be convinced the MHOC is for them. A lot of people are still interested in controversial political debate, just without data, details, finances etc.

    Moving on to the Bill bit in the Spoiler:

    (2) 'Once a Bill has been voted'? Clarification needed. I assume that this should have 'upon' at the end. When it says 'the Choosers must agree that the bill should be made public.' First off, it says that the Choosers are the PM, LotO, and the authors, does that mean that the whole party/coalition are the authors, or just the party leadership, or leader, or writer. The author of the bill doesn't matter, regardless they have to pass through the author, PM and LOTO. I figured that was the best compromise of time and reflecting the majority of the House. Party leaders instead of PM and LOTO also feasible But what happens if more than one person/party wrote it? How do they agree whether to go public or not? As I say, I'm assuming that the PM and LOTO represent their coalitions, if it's a Liberal bill, goes through Qwertish, me and Liberal leader. Government just me and Qwertish. I'm expecting the leaders to be fair and represent their parties views. Majority, Unanimous or Consensus? If it is the middle option then I doubt this amendment will ever be used. Majority

    Why do we need the asterisk bit, if this does go through we should just select ordinary bills, not designate certain ones as special. Just in case we forget, hence I allowed them to designated AFTER passing as well

    I am afraid that it is a flawed concept, with a distinct lack of clarity, and is unworkable/impossible to apply.
    I disagree, see above.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will95206)
    Nay as Crypto said we don't need our Bills being debated up on the D&CA forum as this one would become pointless!
    Except that they are only to be rarely shared in public and only to show people what the House is like. Not all bills are controversial.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Except that they are only to be rarely shared in public and only to show people what the House is like. Not all bills are controversial.
    Hum I still see no need to exert our influence into the D&CA forum. This is unnecessary work for the Speaker and will annoy many non-MHoCer's!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will95206)
    Hum I still see no need to exert our influence into the D&CA forum. This is unnecessary work for the Speaker and will annoy many non-MHoCer's!
    This website is seething with trolls - I seriously doubt people in the D&CA forum will be annoyed by our posting some threads.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    This website is seething with trolls - I seriously doubt people in the D&CA forum will be annoyed by our posting some threads.
    If they want to come to the MHoC, let them. Lets not infiltrate the forum with our Bills though. Also I dont want to e switching forums just for a Bill, especially as I am 99% MHoC forum!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the principle of getting lay people insights into what it's like being an MP. But I'm not totally sure on whether this is the best way to do it. It's a god idea, but I'm not sure how it'll work in practice.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will95206)
    If they want to come to the MHoC, let them. Lets not infiltrate the forum with our Bills though. Also I dont want to e switching forums just for a Bill, especially as I am 99% MHoC forum!
    Ah, I might not have made this clear, but the idea was to have it submitted AFTER we debate it ourselves.

    In other words, Euthanasia Bill** appears, we debate as normal, then we decide to vote or discard as normal, after voting it is then put into the General forum. The decision/debate by the regulars is already done.

    I realise what's missing, I wrote a Bill alongside this amendment which I also sent to Faland. I'll ask him to put it up tomorrow. I figured a bill would be needed to sort these details.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    When this was submitted, we decided that we needed to discuss it internally because from a mod perspective it could be potentially problematic. Anyway we decided to let it go up but I want to make clear from the start that whilst this presents moderation difficulties, what actually gets put into practise may not be the same as what you choose to vote for, adjustments may have to be made to how it's carried out (as is often the case for GD matters anyway). Put simply, the way we mod the site takes precedence over a forum game, so whilst we'd much rather deal with the House at arms length and let it take care of itself when it can, we'll get involved when issues present themselves.

    With my mod hat still on, the first major issue is taking the House out of the House. We have different subforums for a reason, we wouldn't want a Maths thread in Society, and whilst that's a slightly more extreme example, it's fairly similar to here: we don't particularly want a MHoC thread in another part of D&CA. Presumably the destination will have to be UK Politics, which makes sense because it falls under my umbrella anyway. The issue is that UK Politics is generally a place for people to discuss real politics rather than imaginary politics (even though I admittedly enjoy the latter more). If we are going to have threads in there, they ideally need to be presented in a generalised, "normal" thread format rather than the bill style of the wendy house, which sort of defeats the object though.
    After that, there's another related issue of duplication. We wouldn't want someone to create two threads for the same thing even if in different areas, which it seems like this will do depending on how it's actually pursued.

    I'm not saying this is all bad, I like to see the House promoted, so long as it's not done too much - but there are lots of issues with the current implementation.
    ---

    Speaking just as plain old Jarred for a moment rather than mod Jarred; I don't like that people choose when they think their bill is controversial. Everyone likes publicity for their own stuff and will all want their bills to be elevated to the more popular forums to get their name out, so there's a vested interest for people to always star out their own items on every submission isn't there? Obviously that doesn't mean that everything will be accepted as controversial, but it does make it more likely and people will think "Ah I may as well try it!!!"

    Also is it just me who finds this a little bit hard to follow?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    When this was submitted, we decided that we needed to discuss it internally because from a mod perspective it could be potentially problematic. Anyway we decided to let it go up but I want to make clear from the start that whilst this presents moderation difficulties, what actually gets put into practise may not be the same as what you choose to vote for, adjustments may have to be made to how it's carried out (as is often the case for GD matters anyway). Put simply, the way we mod the site takes precedence over a forum game, so whilst we'd much rather deal with the House at arms length and let it take care of itself when it can, we'll get involved when issues present themselves.

    With my mod hat still on, the first major issue is taking the House out of the House. We have different subforums for a reason, we wouldn't want a Maths thread in Society, and whilst that's a slightly more extreme example, it's fairly similar to here: we don't particularly want a MHoC thread in another part of D&CA. Presumably the destination will have to be UK Politics, which makes sense because it falls under my umbrella anyway. The issue is that UK Politics is generally a place for people to discuss real politics rather than imaginary politics (even though I admittedly enjoy the latter more). If we are going to have threads in there, they ideally need to be presented in a generalised, "normal" thread format rather than the bill style of the wendy house, which sort of defeats the object though.
    After that, there's another related issue of duplication. We wouldn't want someone to create two threads for the same thing even if in different areas, which it seems like this will do depending on how it's actually pursued.

    I'm not saying this is all bad, I like to see the House promoted, so long as it's not done too much - but there are lots of issues with the current implementation.
    ---

    Speaking just as plain old Jarred for a moment rather than mod Jarred; I don't like that people choose when they think their bill is controversial. Everyone likes publicity for their own stuff and will all want their bills to be elevated to the more popular forums to get their name out, so there's a vested interest for people to always star out their own items on every submission isn't there? Obviously that doesn't mean that everything will be accepted as controversial, but it does make it more likely and people will think "Ah I may as well try it!!!"

    Also is it just me who finds this a little bit hard to follow?
    As a Mod, both of your main points are valid, as we discussed before.

    As Jarred, I highly doubt that would work. Let's take the Bottle Deposits Bill, not exactly what I'd count as Controversial. As a Govt bill I/we might agree but I doubt that the Opposition would go along with that. Since both have to agree it would surely eliminate that. I can't imagine opposition and government backchannelling to force it through. Plus I see no credit in it, it doesn't really bother me if one of my bill gets chosen or not. Additionally, it could technically encourage more members to write more divisive, entertaining bills. As was pointed out with my City Redesignation Bill.

    Also, to Will I said that we wrote a bill to explain the process. Not sure whether you received it too (probably did) but I've submitted it also.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    I don't think they should be in a subforum, but posted directly in Debate forum, or even in the UK Politics section, which would be feasible. The point of "controversial" isn't to scare people away, but will get people interested. For instance, let's say we pass a bill legalising euthanasia. People see this and think either A) Wonderful idea, I think we should implement this in real life, except maybe increase the age requirement or B) That's disgraceful, how dare you. Both of those will probably debate on the page, then may be convinced the MHOC is for them. A lot of people are still interested in controversial political debate, just without data, details, finances etc.
    So basically you will be doing the same discussions as what already happens there just with a bit of self promotion. I guarantee that if someone is in UK politics, they already know about the MHoC, all we are doing is taking activity out of the House.



    (2) The author of the bill doesn't matter, regardless they have to pass through the author, PM and LOTO. I figured that was the best compromise of time and reflecting the majority of the House. Party leaders instead of PM and LOTO also feasible As I say, I'm assuming that the PM and LOTO represent their coalitions, if it's a Liberal bill, goes through Qwertish, me and Liberal leader. Government just me and Qwertish. I'm expecting the leaders to be fair and represent their parties views.

    Ok we need clarification in the actual amendment. From what I understand the PM, LOTO and the writer's party leader need to agree together unanimously to proceed.


    Nay, I can see no point. Also the amendment and accompanying Bill are confusing/omit important details, and therefore makes my head hurt.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)


    Nay, I can see know point. Also the amendment and accompanying Bill are confusing/omit important details, and therefore makes my head hurt.
    Well, you haven't seen the bill yet.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)


    Nay, I can see know point. Also the amendment and accompanying Bill are confusing/omit important details, and therefore makes my head hurt.
    And, the idea is that MHOC members debate it in the MHOC, the general UK Politics section is where maybe a couple of members comment to start it up and leave it at that. It's purpose is to show them a taster of what the House is like. It's also a bit more straight forward than you are implying.

    "Normal bill"
    Written, debated, voted, passed.

    Controversial Bill
    Written, debated, voted, passed.

    THEN

    Posted in other forum, maybe a couple of members outline points. Then leave it for non-members, or maybe if some of the quieter members want to, fine. This version bares no consequence on bills passing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Well, you haven't seen the bill yet.
    Sorry, I assumed that it was the one in the spoiler.

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    And, the idea is that MHOC members debate it in the MHOC, the general UK Politics section is where maybe a couple of members comment to start it up and leave it at that. It's purpose is to show them a taster of what the House is like. It's also a bit more straight forward than you are implying.

    "Normal bill"
    Written, debated, voted, passed.

    Controversial Bill
    Written, debated, voted, passed.

    THEN

    Posted in other forum, maybe a couple of members outline points. Then leave it for non-members, or maybe if some of the quieter members want to, fine. This version bares no consequence on bills passing.
    So all we are doing is cluttering up UK politics while saving one or two people one click? As I said if people browse UK politics then they will know about the MHoC, we already have a stickied thread as well.

    The asterisk thing shouldn't exist. The leaders should be competent enough to decide whether a Bill is worth further debate or not without being told so by an asterisk. So since there are normally 3 'Choosers' is it decided by majority or by unanimity whether something goes up or not?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Sorry, I assumed that it was the one in the spoiler.



    So all we are doing is cluttering up UK politics while saving one or two people one click? As I said if people browse UK politics then they will know about the MHoC, we already have a stickied thread as well.

    The asterisk thing shouldn't exist. The leaders should be competent enough to decide whether a Bill is worth further debate or not without being told so by an asterisk. So since there are normally 3 'Choosers' is it decided by majority or by unanimity whether something goes up or not?
    My mistake, I meant to submit it separately but no, that is the bill in question.

    I also don't think it's "further debate" since all the relevant debate IS done in the House for said bill. Once it finishes, we toss it in to Politics and they have their own debate on it. Some of them I'm sure will be attracted to what they see. You are exaggerating the asterisk, it's something I might add to a "Full Privatisation of the NHS" bill since it's obviously controversial. I have allowed the Speaker to overrule and it can be rejected by any of the Choosers.

    Choosers is unanimous. The PM, LOTO and authors must agree. (If a UKIP bill, leader of UKIP must agree)

    We obviously disagree about the attitudes of them and us. I think we are dissuading them because a) they don't see WHAT we actually do. They don't see our bills, our debates, anything, without going on to the forum, and even then it is a bit confusing. b) I also think what they do see of us is pretentious, focusing on tax rates, etc. They want to see interesting bills. If they see them, they might be more interested in joining.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    My mistake, I meant to submit it separately but no, that is the bill in question.

    I also don't think it's "further debate" since all the relevant debate IS done in the House for said bill. Once it finishes, we toss it in to Politics and they have their own debate on it. Some of them I'm sure will be attracted to what they see. You are exaggerating the asterisk, it's something I might add to a "Full Privatisation of the NHS" bill since it's obviously controversial. I have allowed the Speaker to overrule and it can be rejected by any of the Choosers.

    Choosers is unanimous. The PM, LOTO and authors must agree. (If a UKIP bill, leader of UKIP must agree)

    We obviously disagree about the attitudes of them and us. I think we are dissuading them because a) they don't see WHAT we actually do. They don't see our bills, our debates, anything, without going on to the forum, and even then it is a bit confusing. b) I also think what they do see of us is pretentious, focusing on tax rates, etc. They want to see interesting bills. If they see them, they might be more interested in joining.
    Ok, thank you for clarifying. I think that the way this would work best is by making it special, I reckon we should incorporate awards into this. As well as starting (Member, new MP, Legislator, Joker, Debater etc.) of the term again, we could also do Bill of the term. That Bill would go up in the UK politics forum right after the conclusion of the GE. Therefore capitalising when interest in the House is at a high and allowing newer members who get hooked to become MPs instead of drifting away.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Wait does this mean we get a PM every time a bill is put up for discussion, because that can become over the top, our inbox's would fill up fast, or can the Update count as the PM.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by talentedlobster)
    Wait does this mean we get a PM every time a bill is put up for discussion, because that can become over the top, our inbox's would fill up fast, or can the Update count as the PM.
    To prevent that I had suggested just authors, LOTO and PM. If we move for party leaders, then I assumed PM would be handier. There won't be many bills deemed "controversial" so it isn't going to be a pile-up.
 
 
 
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.

Updated: July 22, 2014
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.