A115 - Acting Prime Minister Amendment 2015

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
A115 - Acting Prime Minister Amendment 2015Proposed by: The Hon. Jammy Duel MP (Con)
Seconded by: The Rt. Hon. Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP), The Hon. Mobbsy91 MP (Con), The Hon. Actaeon MP (Lib), The Hon. cranbrook_aspie MP (Lab), The Rt. Hon. JoeL1994 (Lib)

Acting Prime Minister Amendment 2015
The following shall be added to the Constitution:
Acting Prime Minister
14. Acting Prime Minister
14.1 The role of Acting Prime Minister shall be filled:—
14.1.1 if the Prime Minister is deemed inactive; or
14.1.2 at the pleasure of the Prime Minister;
14.2 The position of Acting Prime Minister shall be filled by the highest ranking active member in the line off Prime Ministerial succession;
14.3 The line of Prime Ministerial succession shall be as follows:—
14.3.1 person bearing the designation of Deputy Prime Minister;
14.3.2 Secretary of State with responsibility for Home Affairs;
14.3.3 Secretary of State with responsibility for Defence;
14.3.4 Secretary of State with responsibility for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs;
14.3.5 Chancellor of the Exchequer;
14.3.6 Secretary of State with responsibility for Health;
14.3.7 Secretary of State with responsibility for Transport;
14.3.8 Secretary of State with responsibility for Justice;
14.3.9 Secretary of State with responsibility for Communities and Local Government;
14.3.10 Secretary of State with responsibility for Business and Innovation;
14.3.11 Secretary of State with responsibility for Education;
14.3.12 Secretary of State with responsibility for Energy and Climate Change;
14.3.13 Secretary of State with responsibility for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
14.3.14 Secretary of State with responsibility for Work and Pensions;
14.3.15 Minister of State with responsibility for the Cabinet Office;
14.3.16 Paymaster General;
14.3.17 Secretary of State with responsibility for Culture, Media and Sport;
14.3.18 Attorney General;
14.3.19 Secretary of State with responsibility for International Development;
14.3.20 Leader of the House of Commons;
14.3.21 Secretary of State with responsibility for Scotland;
14.3.22 Secretary of State with responsibility for Wales;
14.3.23 Secretary of State with responsibility for Northern Ireland;
14.3.24 Speaker of the House of Commons;
14.4 The Acting Prime Minister has all powers available to them that the Prime Minister would have;
14.5 For this section, a person shall be deemed inactive if they have not made any posts in the Model House of Commons sub forum, or any sub forums there of, in the preceding 72 hours.


NotesThis amendment seeks to prevent future issues as experienced by the Deputy Prime Minster of the second government of Parliament XXI whereby their wish to call an early election was rejected due to the transfer of powers not being codified and therefore the speaker used their judgement to say that it is not. This amendment seeks to prevent this by codifying the transfer of powers to Acting Prime Minister as well as establishing which member shall enter the role and at what point. The line of succession is as given in V742, and given here for when/if V742 is repealed by any means, with the final entry being removed due to the role no longer existing
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I think that if it gets bad enough for the speaker to be APM then the government needs a VoNC. Also, 72 hours is a very short time. It should be 240 hours in my mind.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Aph)
I think that if it gets bad enough for the speaker to be APM then the government needs a VoNC. Also, 72 hours is a very short time. It should be 240 hours in my mind.
As said in the notes, the list is derived from V742, itself derived from RL measures, and I doubt that it would ever leave the top few.

As for the time, I initially had it as 7 days for the PM and hadn't decided on what for the rest, whether to be consistent in the 7 days or go shorter, but then when discussing it with Nigel he proposed 72 hours given that, at times at least, 72 hours is a long time (and consider that if we were to scale this up to a RL parliament that would be a month)
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Looks good. Don't see a problem with 72 hours considering the position of PM isn't lost permanently.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
As said in the notes, the list is derived from V742, itself derived from RL measures, and I doubt that it would ever leave the top few.

As for the time, I initially had it as 7 days for the PM and hadn't decided on what for the rest, whether to be consistent in the 7 days or go shorter, but then when discussing it with Nigel he proposed 72 hours given that, at times at least, 72 hours is a long time (and consider that if we were to scale this up to a RL parliament that would be a month)
See I agree with 7 days although I would prefer 10. Given that it takes a bill a week to pass though the house in general 7 days seems fair.

but the RL argument is kinda mute as things don't develop as quickly here as RL. RL passes up to 670 (I believe is the record) items a year, we have never seen more then 80 bills in one term before, even last term when it lasted 9 months not the normal 6. So I would ideally say 10 but would settle for 7
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
When does an Acting PM become a PM?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
72 hours is too short a time for an Acting PM to be forcibly appointed.
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Aph)
I think that if it gets bad enough for the speaker to be APM then the government needs a VoNC. Also, 72 hours is a very short time. It should be 240 hours in my mind.
You didn't wait 240 hours to declare yourself Acting Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has a very important role which entails a lot of responsibility - any longer than 3 days without that role being carried out would in my view be damaging. Aye.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Aph)
See I agree with 7 days although I would prefer 10. Given that it takes a bill a week to pass though the house in general 7 days seems fair.

but the RL argument is kinda mute as things don't develop as quickly here as RL. RL passes up to 670 (I believe is the record) items a year, we have never seen more then 80 bills in one term before, even last term when it lasted 9 months not the normal 6. So I would ideally say 10 but would settle for 7
80 bills in one term, which would translate to 800 over the course of a RL parliament (let's assume our election periods and the RL holiday periods balance each other out more or less). What's the pass rate of RL bills?

----------------

It seems to me that this is going to be all a case of debating a period of time
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
I disagree with that whopping great big list (even if it was taken off of one of my bills ) - I dislike the inflexibility of codifying matters like this. And I think in many cases the party hierarchy supersedes the cabinet hierarchy which is supposed to be made up of equals.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
You didn't wait 240 hours to declare yourself Acting Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has a very important role which entails a lot of responsibility - any longer than 3 days without that role being carried out would in my view be damaging. Aye.
I acted in an attempt to counter Adam declaring himself too early.

The only thing that APM can't do which the PM can is call a GE, everything else is in the hands of the APM and even DPM in the framework of the MHoC. So we really aren't missing out on much.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
80 bills in one term, which would translate to 800 over the course of a RL parliament (let's assume our election periods and the RL holiday periods balance each other out more or less). What's the pass rate of RL bills?

----------------

It seems to me that this is going to be all a case of debating a period of time
Port pass rate, 50% at best probably.

It will be
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
No I don't think I'd like to pollute the Constitution with all of this to be honest, it's way too much and is messy. Also, those cabinet positions might not even exist if certain governments (like ours) chooses to rename any. So if we're going to go down a route of this much formalisation, let's at least make sure its watertight and not based on 'Well this guy has the closest role to position X in the list so we'll make him Acting PM' coz by then you'll have the same problems as before. It's also a really weird list, surely the Chancellor should outrank all those other positions? And surely the man running the judicial system outranks the man running the trains? We're in a Post-Morgsie age :lol:

To be honest this is such a rare occurrence I'm not sure if its even worth codifying at all. But if we do go down this route, might I suggest the following more acute solution?

14. Acting Prime Minister
14.1 The role of Acting Prime Minister shall be filled:—
14.1.1 if the Prime Minister is deemed inactive; or
14.1.2 at the pleasure of the Prime Minister;
14.2 The position of Acting Prime Minister shall be filled by the highest ranking active member in the line off Prime Ministerial succession;
14.3 A line of Prime Ministerial succession must be formally published by a Government within 7 days of it assuming power.
2
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jarred)
No I don't think I'd like to pollute the Constitution with all of this to be honest, it's way too much and is messy. Also, those cabinet positions might not even exist if certain governments (like ours) chooses to rename any. So if we're going to go down a route of this much formalisation, let's at least make sure its watertight and not based on 'Well this guy has the closest role to position X in the list so we'll make him Acting PM' coz by then you'll have the same problems as before. It's also a really weird list, surely the Chancellor should outrank all those other positions? And surely the man running the judicial system outranks the man running the trains? We're in a Post-Morgsie age :lol:

To be honest this is such a rare occurrence I'm not sure if its even worth codifying at all. But if we do go down this route, might I suggest the following more acute solution?

14. Acting Prime Minister
14.1 The role of Acting Prime Minister shall be filled:—
14.1.1 if the Prime Minister is deemed inactive; or
14.1.2 at the pleasure of the Prime Minister;
14.2 The position of Acting Prime Minister shall be filled by the highest ranking active member in the line off Prime Ministerial succession;
14.3 A line of Prime Ministerial succession must be formally published by a Government within 7 days of it assuming power.
Why not just condense it down to the first 5 then, so down to Chancellor, even though it will probably never get anywhere near that.
As for the order, consider this: In such a situation IRL that you would be going much beyond DPM, the economy isn't likely to be top of the priorities list. The progression to Home Secretary seems logical enough, then consider that if even they are, let's be frank about this, also dead you're probably going to be looking at martial law anyway and it would be a matter of national defence.
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Aph)
I acted in an attempt to counter Adam declaring himself too early.
I highly, highly doubt that that was your real motive, but I'm not going to derail this by arguing about that
0
Wellzi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
I like the list, and it has proven necessary to lay out the order of succession.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Aph)
I acted in an attempt to counter Adam declaring himself too early.
Despite making a statement to the contrary? And how exactly does making a totally unfounded claim make you the good guy vs somebody making a totally legitimate claim? Can you also point out where in any document there is defined a time span? After all, there has to be a minimum time span for him to be able to be too early.
0
El Salvador
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
I don't think this is realistic. In real life, Nick Clegg wouldn't have been able to call an election when Dave was on holiday.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
I highly, highly doubt that that was your real motive, but I'm not going to derail this by arguing about that
Well it was my true motive but there isn't much point arguing because you won't believe me.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Despite making a statement to the contrary? And how exactly does making a totally unfounded claim make you the good guy vs somebody making a totally legitimate claim? Can you also point out where in any document there is defined a time span? After all, there has to be a minimum time span for him to be able to be too early.
I never made such a statement. There is president. Looking back times tend to be from 1 week to a month. This was the first sub one week and was indeed 2 days. But again I'm not here to argue again over this.
0
localblackguy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
I don't see the need for the list being longer than 14.3.5. After that, it really should be based on one's ability rather than their arbitrary interest in a position. Also think it should be a week rather 3 days, conversions to RL parliament time are irrelevant for this imo.
0
El Salvador
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by RayApparently)
I disagree with that whopping great big list (even if it was taken off of one of my bills ) - I dislike the inflexibility of codifying matters like this. And I think in many cases the party hierarchy supersedes the cabinet hierarchy which is supposed to be made up of equals.
instead some govts would have some of them as ministers
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

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (151)
14.44%
I'm not sure (46)
4.4%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (312)
29.83%
I have already dropped out (27)
2.58%
I'm not a current university student (510)
48.76%

Watched Threads

View All