Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    A96 - Voting Reviews Amendment
    Proposed by the Rt Hon. O133 MP
    Seconded by the Rt Hon. RayApparently MP, the Rt Hon. MacDaddi MP, the Rt Hon. That Bearded Man MP and the Rt Hon. RoryS MP


    Voting Reviews Amendment
    An Amendment to introduce more frequent voting reviews and a probational period for new MPs

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen'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:—

    We propose to replace the section on MP Activity in the Guidance Document:


    1) After a two month interval the Speaker will conduct a review of MP voting records aimed at assessing the proportion of votes that each MP has attended.
    2) The Speaker will publish the results of the aforementioned review in the MHoC and highlight those seats which have either been vacant or contain MP's with sub-standard voting records.
    3) For the purposes of this amendment sub-standard will be defined as 50% of all votes in the Division Lobby within that two month period.
    4) One month from the aforementioned review the Speaker will conduct a further review of those seats that were considered vacant or containing MP's of sub-standard performance.
    5) The Speaker of the MHoC will once again highlight those seats which are still unfilled or containing MP's considered to be sub-standard.
    6) Within two weeks of the second MP review the Speaker will conduct a by election containing the seats which were considered vacant or containing sub-standard MP's.
    7) Parties which had vacant or sub-standard seats are prohibited from partaking in the aforementioned by-election.
    8) Normal by election procedure applies.
    with the following:

    1) 4 weeks into the term, the Speaker will conduct a review of MP voting records aimed at assessing the proportion of votes that each MP has attended.
    2) The Speaker will publish the results of the aforementioned review in the MHoC and highlight vacant seats and new MPs (those who have never previously served as an MP) whose voting turnout is less than 60%.
    3) 8 weeks into the term, the Speaker will conduct another review of MP voting records:
    a. Seats highlighted in the previous review will be put up for by-election if they are still vacant or the voting turnout for Weeks 5 to 8 is less than 60%.
    b. Seats held by non-new MPs whose voting turnout is less than 60% will be highlighted, as will seats vacated since the previous review.
    c. Seats held by new MPs elected since the previous review whose voting turnout is less than 60% will be highlighted.
    4) 12 weeks into the term, and every 4 weeks after that until the end of the term, the procedure detailed in 3) will be repeated.
    5) Parties whose seat(s) were put up for by-election are prohibited from participating in the resultant by-election, which will follow normal by-election procedure.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand 2). The way I am reading it is that people who have been MPs before cannot have their seat highlighted. I am pretty sure it was not intended to read like that.

    I would instead phrase it '2) The Speaker will publish the results of the aforementioned review in the MHoC and highlight seats and MPs whose turnout is below 60%.'

    '3) 8 weeks into the term, the Speaker will conduct another review of MP voting records:
    a. Seats highlighted in the previous review will be put up for by-election if the the voting turnout for Weeks 5 to 8 is less than 60% and they do not qualify as a 'new' MP.
    b. Seats whose voting turnout is less than 60% will be highlighted, as will seats vacated since the previous review.
    c. An MP is removed from the 'new' MP category if they have served as an MP for at least 4 full weeks.'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    A very, very easy AYE!
    Will be interesting to see if anyone opposes this.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    I don't understand 2). The way I am reading it is that people who have been MPs before cannot have their seat highlighted. I am pretty sure it was not intended to read like that.

    I would instead phrase it '2) The Speaker will publish the results of the aforementioned review in the MHoC and highlight seats and MPs whose turnout is below 60%.'

    '3) 8 weeks into the term, the Speaker will conduct another review of MP voting records:
    a. Seats highlighted in the previous review will be put up for by-election if the the voting turnout for Weeks 5 to 8 is less than 60% and they do not qualify as a 'new' MP.
    b. Seats whose voting turnout is less than 60% will be highlighted, as will seats vacated since the previous review.
    c. An MP is removed from the 'new' MP category if they have served as an MP for at least 4 full weeks.'
    You've misunderstood the original amendment there, the idea is to introduce a probation period for new MPs, so it is they that have the review after 4 weeks, whilst everyone else gets 8.

    I don't see the problem with the original though, people who have been MPs before have their seat highlighted in the second review.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    You've misunderstood the original amendment there, the idea is to introduce a probation period for new MPs, so it is they that have the review after 4 weeks, whilst everyone else gets 8.

    I don't see the problem with the original though, people who have been MPs before have their seat highlighted in the second review.
    OK, so what this amendment does is move reviews to once every 4 weeks after 8 weeks, and changes the threshold to 60%.

    However if an MP is 'new' they have a review after 4 weeks as well.

    What is the definition of 'new'?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    What is the definition of 'new'?
    Those who have never previously served as an MP in the case of the first review each term, those who have never undergone a review from there on.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    Those who have never previously served as an MP in the case of the first review each term, those who have never undergone a review from there on.
    Ok, then. A definite Aye.
    • Offline

      18
      Nay. For obvious reasons.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Online

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by nebelbon)
      Nay. For obvious reasons.
      What reasons?
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      I'm not too bothered about the new Mps but I will not support increasing the threshold to 60% when turnout is still on average in the 70%.
      • Offline

        18
        (Original post by O133)
        What reasons?
        It is too strict on new members. The threshold is too high.
        • Wiki Support Team
        Online

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by nebelbon)
        It is too strict on new members. The threshold is too high.
        The new members' probation period was inspired by the Escutcheon saga. If people agree to be MPs then don't bother to vote then there should be a quicker way to remove them.

        I don't think 60% is too high though, MPs should be aiming for 100%.
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by O133)
        The new members' probation period was inspired by the Escutcheon saga. If people agree to be MPs then don't bother to vote then there should be a quicker way to remove them.

        I don't think 60% is too high though, MPs should be aiming for 100%.
        Rats, i was thinking you were making it easier raising it for some reason.

        As your making it harder, i give 100% support to this.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        Aye
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        60%?! Is that all? There are people here who'd love to be MPs and that seems like a really, really low number.
        • Wiki Support Team
        Online

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Green_Pink)
        60%?! Is that all? There are people here who'd love to be MPs and that seems like a really, really low number.
        It's currently 50%.
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by O133)
        It's currently 50%.
        Really?? So you can not turn up to vote on half the items, and still keep your seat at the expense of other members? :confused:
        • Community Assistant
        Offline

        21
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Green_Pink)
        Really?? So you can not turn up to vote on half the items, and still keep your seat at the expense of other members? :confused:
        Frankly I wanted it much higher when I created these reviews but the hippies want to love and nurture MP's.
        • Offline

          12
          (Original post by Rakas21)
          Frankly I wanted it much higher when I created these reviews but the hippies want to love and nurture MP's.
          Of course, damn hippies.

          But in all seriousness we all know who this would affect, but I am glad to see the threshold being raised. Aye
          Offline

          14
          ReputationRep:
          I would be supportive of raising it to 75%, but 60% is a good start.
         
         
         
        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: August 5, 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
        Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
      • 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.