This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
A112 - MHoL Amendment

Proposed by: the Rt. Hon. PetrosAC

Seconded by: the Hon. JoeL1994 MP (UKIP), the Rt. Hon. Kittiara MP (Green), the Rt. Hon. Airmed MP (Liberal), the Hon. Adam9317 MP (UKIP), the Rt. Hon. RayApparently MP (Labour), the Hon. thehistorybore MP (Conservative), the Hon. It’s a Shame MP (Socialist/Green), the Rt. Hon. KingStannis MP (Labour)

This amendment will amend the constitution to outline the existence of a Model House of Lords, and the details added in the Guidance Document

In the Constitution;
Amend the title of section 13 from "Crisis Committee" to "Model House of Lords", and alter the text from:

"1) Will be a committee of at least 1 member of each party, exceptions explained in the Guidance Document.

2) Activity will be organised in accordance with the Guidance Document."

to

"1) The Model House of Lords will consist of 2 appointed members from each party, the Lord Speaker and the Deputy Lord Speaker, who will be elected from and by the other peers.
2) Activity will be organised in accordance with the Guidance Document."

In the Guidance Document;

Section 16 (Crisis Committee) of the Guidance is hereby removed and replaced with:

(1) The MHoL will comprise of the following:
(1.1) The Lord Speaker and Deputy Lord Speaker
(1.2) 2 appointed members from each party

(2) The Deputy Speaker of the Commons will become the Lord Speaker
(2.1) The Lord Speaker will remain Deputy Speaker of the Commons
(2.2) The Lord Speaker has the following responsibilities:
(2.2.1) Overseeing the House of Lords as a forum assistant and ruling where the constitution doesn't specify a cause of action.
(2.2.2) Being group leader of the Peer usergroup and admitting in new peers.
(2.2.3) Organising the debate and voting on bills and motions.
(2.2.4) Running Deputy Lord Speakership elections
(2.2.5) Enforcing the Constitution


(3) Any peer can stand to become Deputy Lord Speaker
(3.1) Only peers can vote in the Deputy Lord Speaker elections.
(3.2) The election will be carried out by the Lord Speaker in the following time frame:

Day 1: The election is announced. Window for manifestos is open. Manifestos must not exceed 250 words with all manifestos being PMed to the Lord Speaker
Day 4: A Q&A thread is opened with each manifesto displayed
Day 7: Round 1 of voting begins.
Day 10: Voting concludes. The winning candidate must have 1 more vote than the second placed candidate. If this is not the case, the process to elect a Deputy Lord Speaker will repeat, with only the candidates with the joint highest votes being allowed to enter.

(4) When the Speaker of the Commons is away, the Lord Speaker will fill in for the Speaker of the Commons whilst the Deputy Lord Speaker will fill in for the Lord Speaker.

(5) Peers can delay legislation for up to 28 days, if they have proposed an amendment which the House of Commons does not accept.
(6) Peers cannot veto any legislation.
(7) Peers will only vote on final readings of any legislation from the Commons
(7.1) Here they can allow the piece of legislation to pass or suggest amendments to it
(7.2) There will be 4 days of debate and amendment proposals, before 3 days of voting
(7.3) The Commons can bypass the Lords if a piece of legislation passes with a two-thirds majority
(7.4) Budgets from the Treasury bypass the Lords
(8) Peers can submit their own legislation, which will run under the same conditions as pieces of legislation from the Commons but will have to pass through both chambers.
(9) If a Peer wishes to amend part of the constitution or guidance document, this can be done so via a vote in the House of Lords - The Commons will not vote on these amendments.

(10) One life peer will be elected at the end of every term.
(10.1) Former Speakers, Deputy Speakers and Ministers with responsibility for a Great Office of State can be considered for a Life Peerage as long as they have been an MP, Party Leader, Deputy Party Leader, Party Chair or Party Commissar for 12 months in total.
(10.1.1) They do not need to have been in just one position for 12 months.
(10.2) Members can be put up for election by being nominated by other members. They will be contacted by the Lord Speaker to either accept or decline the nomination
(10.3) Only MPs and Peers may vote in Life Peerage elections
(10.4) The election time table for a Life Peerage is as follows:

Day 1 - Nominations are sent to the Lord Speaker
Day 4 - Nomination period closes, voting begins
Day 10 - Voting closes. The candidate with the highest number of votes becomes a Life Peer

(10.5) Retiring Speakers and Deputy Speakers can automatically become a Life Peer when they leave office should they choose to.
(10.6) Clause 10.5 is void if the member in question is removed by Vote of No Confidence or is removed against their will.
(10.7) After a term has been served, Life Peers will be subject to a voting review by the Lord Speaker, every 3 months.
(10.7.1) If a peer has a voting record of less than 80%, they will be at risk of losing their peerage
(10.7.2) A peer will be given 6 weeks to get their voting record over 80%. If they do not, they will lose their peerage.

(11) The Crisis Committee will be retained within the House of Lords
(11.1) Each appointed peer will have a vote on the crisis committee
(11.2) If any votes are tied on the Crisis Committee, the Lord Speaker will have the deciding vote.
(11.3) The Crisis Committee will be expected to come up with 5 realistic hypothetical scenarios per term, which will be put to the House of Commons by the Lord Speaker.
(11.4) The Crisis Committee will be able to highlight and ask for solutions to as many real life scenarios as they like.

(12) No one can serve as a Peer and an MP at the same time unless
(12.1) With the permission of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker and each party leader.
(12.2)The peer is proxying for an MP for a maximum of 42 days at one time.

(13) A new forum will be created, entitled "Model House of Lords"
(13.1) Within this forum, two sub forums will be created, entitled "Crisis Committee", where all scenarios are discussed, and "Division Lobby", where peers can vote on legislation and Crisis Committee scenarios.
(13.2) A new usergroup will be created entitled “Peer”
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Does this mean we may, in the future, have Life_peer the Life Peer?
1
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Not this again! What's the motivation? All I see are complications.

(Original post by Green_Pink)
Does this mean we may, in the future, have Life_peer the Life Peer?
It has been my plan from the beginning, mwhahahaha! :hat:
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Life_peer)
Not this again! What's the motivation? All I see are complications.



It has been my plan from the beginning, mwhahahaha! :hat:
It'll create a higher level of debate and may open MP seats for newer members.

In the end, I think this is worth a shot. I'm more than happy to make changes - I want this to work.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Nay. Snufkin
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
I hate the House of Lords in RL, but should be worth a punt in here and will be a nice home for the Crisis Committee.
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Life_peer)
Not this again! What's the motivation? All I see are complications.



It has been my plan from the beginning, mwhahahaha! :hat:
Forgot to say the other day, I like this Winston a lot.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by PetrosAC)
It'll create a higher level of debate and may open MP seats for newer members.

In the end, I think this is worth a shot. I'm more than happy to make changes - I want this to work.

Posted from TSR Mobile
What exactly is that ‘higher level of debate’? New members don't need MP seats to become/remain active because the only difference to ordinary members is voting – they're free to debate anything they like and write legislation.

The MHoC is also not overflowing with new members (and the voting record of 2/5 of your own members was below that 80% threshold at the time of the last review, mind you). If it were, we'd raise the number of MP seats. Why not do that instead?
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Airmed)
Forgot to say the other day, I like this Winston a lot.
Cheers. He frowns at you Liberal pranksters.
0
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Nay.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Unsure, I'll need convincing either way I think.
0
Blue Meltwater
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
I've heard a lot of the arguments for this but I'm still not sure what a MHoL would add to the MHoC other than sap activity. That said, it might be worth testing out.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Life_peer)
What exactly is that ‘higher level of debate’? New members don't need MP seats to become/remain active because the only difference to ordinary members is voting – they're free to debate anything they like and write legislation.

The MHoC is also not overflowing with new members (and the voting record of 2/5 of your own members was below that 80% threshold at the time of the last review, mind you). If it were, we'd raise the number of MP seats. Why not do that instead?
I agree, people can still remain active without being MPs, but obviously people would like/prefer to be MPs. Plenty of new members join but fizzle out, maybe they won't if they are MPs.

As for my own parties voting record, we've taken steps to improve that, and have plenty of members waiting in the wings.

We could raise the number of MPs, but it'd just be the same old. Why not try something new? It'll add a new dimension to the MHoC and could potentially encourage more members to join.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Unsure, I'll need convincing either way I think.
(Original post by Blue Meltwater)
I've heard a lot of the arguments for this but I'm still not sure what a MHoL would add to the MHoC other than sap activity. That said, it might be worth testing out.
I think in the end, it's worth trying it out. If it's unsuccesful, I'll be the first to admit it. However, I think it'll work and I think it'll boost rather than sap activity.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
I would love to see this, but I think it would ultimately be damaging.
  • There isn't really an issue with too many people which could justify this to allow more people to vote, if anything the opposite is true.
  • We have few enough people who debate, let alone debate well, for splitting this into two groups being a good idea
  • I do not feel that anybody here could actually properly fulfill the role of the Lords
  • It would make passing legislation EVEN longer, it already takes forever without potentially adding a month for actually no reason, but at least 4 days, in most cases I suspect with literally nothing happening
  • What does it actually achieve?
  • Would amendments actually be proposed?
  • Would they pass?
  • would they be accepted?
  • I also see this inherently as a way for the left to force through ideas, although at least they can't block legislation.
  • Also not too sure what I think to two seats for every party
0
It's a Shame
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
Aye, obviously.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
Aye!
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
I would like to raise the idea of altering this to say that we would have a trial period, then it would either be continued or discontinued based on success. Then it would be a definite aye from me.

Also, out of curiosity, do the 12 months have to be consecutive?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I would love to see this, but I think it would ultimately be damaging.
  • There isn't really an issue with too many people which could justify this to allow more people to vote, if anything the opposite is true.
  • We have few enough people who debate, let alone debate well, for splitting this into two groups being a good idea
  • I do not feel that anybody here could actually properly fulfill the role of the Lords
  • It would make passing legislation EVEN longer, it already takes forever without potentially adding a month for actually no reason, but at least 4 days, in most cases I suspect with literally nothing happening
  • What does it actually achieve?
  • Would amendments actually be proposed?
  • Would they pass?
  • would they be accepted?
  • I also see this inherently as a way for the left to force through ideas, although at least they can't block legislation.
  • Also not too sure what I think to two seats for every party
I think there are enough people around to accomodate 12 Lords and I think this could encourage more people to join.

Do you think we're anywhere close to fufilling the roles of MPs? We're here because we enjoy politics and debate. This opens up more debate.

I'm happy to shorten the waiting period. We could make the Salisbury Convention apply for coalitions though.

We'll have to wait and see what it achieves if this passes.

Potentially but maybe not. Better to cover it if they are.

The Lords could any make amendments for the Lords.

This isnt a Left VS Right issue.

I felt it was better than having it elected. Parties may not be able to cope with more than two lords.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Life_peer)
Cheers. He frowns at you Liberal pranksters.
I chuckle at you Tory eejits.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Are you worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (226)
61.08%
No (77)
20.81%
Not sure (67)
18.11%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed