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

A125 - Statements, Reviews and Budgets Amendment Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Then again why not simply remove SOS reports from the GD, add a vote to the budget and that can be the amendment - I don't see why anything more is needed than that.
    I don't believe that the budget should be voted on unless it meets significant criticism from the house, at which point it should be sent to vote by the PM or the LotO, or the SoS himself. The budget is non-binding, along with reviews, and as such they shouldn't be voted on unless met with the significant criticism that should cause the government to reconsider.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I don't believe that the budget should be voted on unless it meets significant criticism from the house, at which point it should be sent to vote by the PM or the LotO, or the SoS himself. The budget is non-binding, along with reviews, and as such they shouldn't be voted on unless met with the significant criticism that should cause the government to reconsider.
    That just introduces ambiguity, for instance, does this mean you shall request the speaker to allow us to vote on your budget?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That just introduces ambiguity, for instance, does this mean you shall request the speaker to allow us to vote on your budget?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, because only a handful of people had major concerns, and where there were concerns they were on one or two policies out of quite a lot included. There'll be a chance to vote on the finance bill and welfare bill, which should both pass.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    No, because only a handful of people had major concerns, and where there were concerns they were on one or two policies out of quite a lot included. There'll be a chance to vote on the finance bill and welfare bill, which should both pass.
    Which is exactly why your proposal doesn't work.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which is exactly why your proposal doesn't work.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It works fine, if there's significant opposition the the route the Government's taking then the LotO can call for a vote on a departmental review (inc. the budget) in order to 1) highlight the lack of support in the government's proposals and 2) force the Government to take a different approach.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    It works fine, if there's significant opposition the the route the Government's taking then the LotO can call for a vote on a departmental review (inc. the budget) in order to 1) highlight the lack of support in the government's proposals and 2) force the Government to take a different approach.
    But who defines "significant opposition"? You have just shown that it cannot be the chancellor, as they will almost certainly always say there is no real opposition, as you just did (going to be sad and go check the "debate" in a minute). It can't be the Speaker because they will always be accused of bias, and if it's going to be up to the LotO or Shadow Chancellor you may as well make no special exception for the budget.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I don't believe that the budget should be voted on unless it meets significant criticism from the house, at which point it should be sent to vote by the PM or the LotO, or the SoS himself. The budget is non-binding, along with reviews, and as such they shouldn't be voted on unless met with the significant criticism that should cause the government to reconsider.
    By that token then, your budget, subject to sustained criticism both inside and outside the Government, should have been put to vote. I don't see why there's this obscure mechanism by which a budget and similar should be put to vote. Put simply why can't it be:

    SOIs - not put to vote, budget - put to vote. Why does this amendment need to do anything other than this?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But who defines "significant opposition"? You have just shown that it cannot be the chancellor, as they will almost certainly always say there is no real opposition, as you just did (going to be sad and go check the "debate" in a minute). It can't be the Speaker because they will always be accused of bias, and if it's going to be up to the LotO or Shadow Chancellor you may as well make no special exception for the budget.
    It'd be up to the relevant people to make the call. No doubt if the house thought my budget was truly horrendous there would have been a massive song and dance about it and as was made clear, there would have been the precedence for the SSoS or LotO to ask the speaker for a vote on it. However, there was undoubtedly criticism, as there would be on any issue, but was there criticism enough to justify the LotO to call a vote on a non binding report? No. However, if I wanted to impliment a flat tax of 1% and remove all welfare and increase corp tax to 99% on turnover (yes turnover, and not profits) then the LotO would say "This budget is absolute dribble, I'd like there to be a vote on it".
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    By that token then, your budget, subject to sustained criticism both inside and outside the Government, should have been put to vote. I don't see why there's this obscure mechanism by which a budget and similar should be put to vote. Put simply why can't it be:

    SOIs - not put to vote, budget - put to vote. Why does this amendment need to do anything other than this?
    My budget received criticism from a few MPs on the fringes, the fringes of both the house and the Government. and by no means a majority, and for the most part, criticism was of one or two policies rather than the report as a whole.

    Firstly, as SoIs are binding and the budget is not, that proposed amendment would get virtually no support.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    It'd be up to the relevant people to make the call. No doubt if the house thought my budget was truly horrendous there would have been a massive song and dance about it and as was made clear, there would have been the precedence for the SSoS or LotO to ask the speaker for a vote on it. However, there was undoubtedly criticism, as there would be on any issue, but was there criticism enough to justify the LotO to call a vote on a non binding report? No. However, if I wanted to impliment a flat tax of 1% and remove all welfare and increase corp tax to 99% on turnover (yes turnover, and not profits) then the LotO would say "This budget is absolute dribble, I'd like there to be a vote on it".
    Again, you are further reinforcing the point, nobody partial can make a decision because there will always be a bias, tbh, even if everybody outside the government who commented criticised it you would probably still say that there wasn't enough because there are all the government shills applauding on command. And you know what, requests for votes were made, at least questioning as to whether a vote is allowed, and I am about to start my check through to confirm, at the very least from the Shadow Chancellor. As Toronto said, there was significant criticism, you're just too biased to accept it as significant enough.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    It'd be up to the relevant people to make the call. No doubt if the house thought my budget was truly horrendous there would have been a massive song and dance about it and as was made clear, there would have been the precedence for the SSoS or LotO to ask the speaker for a vote on it. However, there was undoubtedly criticism, as there would be on any issue, but was there criticism enough to justify the LotO to call a vote on a non binding report? No. However, if I wanted to impliment a flat tax of 1% and remove all welfare and increase corp tax to 99% on turnover (yes turnover, and not profits) then the LotO would say "This budget is absolute dribble, I'd like there to be a vote on it".
    Except that they can't, as the Speaker explicitly stated in the thread. In fact, he said:

    'If there's some desperate pleas for a vote I'll consider it but it wouldn't work on the same principle from the strictest interpretation of the GD.'

    So let's get the idea that there can be a vote on the budget out the way now, as precedent and the GD indicates that there cannot be.

    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    My budget received criticism from a few MPs on the fringes, the fringes of both the house and the Government. and by no means a majority, and for the most part, criticism was of one or two policies rather than the report as a whole.

    Firstly, as SoIs are binding and the budget is not, that proposed amendment would get virtually no support.
    With the greatest of respect, you have said that josb and I are 'far right' and that your budget was Keynesian, so I hardly think that you're the best judge of what the 'fringes' are. With regard to the amendment concerning voting on the budget and making it binding, I see no problem with that at all. If a Government is fully convinced of their plans, why would they be worried about it being binding?
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Again, you are further reinforcing the point, nobody partial can make a decision because there will always be a bias, tbh, even if everybody outside the government who commented criticised it you would probably still say that there wasn't enough because there are all the government shills applauding on command. And you know what, requests for votes were made, at least questioning as to whether a vote is allowed, and I am about to start my check through to confirm, at the very least from the Shadow Chancellor. As Toronto said, there was significant criticism, you're just too biased to accept it as significant enough.
    It feels strange debating on the same side as you ..... good, but strange
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    It feels strange debating on the same side as you ..... good, but strange
    I'm only on page 1 of the debate, and naturally I will be condensing my notes to remove the numerous irrelevant points and make it a bit more SFW, but so far there are 2 criticisms, 1 internal and 1 external, and Petros implying support.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm only on page 1 of the debate, and naturally I will be condensing my notes to remove the numerous irrelevant points and make it a bit more SFW, but so far there are 2 criticisms, 1 internal and 1 external, and Petros implying support.
    Is that of the budget? I was going to do the same, but you beat me to it - great minds though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Except that they can't, as the Speaker explicitly stated in the thread. In fact, he said:

    'If there's some desperate pleas for a vote I'll consider it but it wouldn't work on the same principle from the strictest interpretation of the GD.'

    So let's get the idea that there can be a vote on the budget out the way now, as precedent and the GD indicates that there cannot be.

    With the greatest of respect, you have said that josb and I are 'far right' and that your budget was Keynesian, so I hardly think that you're the best judge of what the 'fringes' are. With regard to the amendment concerning voting on the budget and making it binding, I see no problem with that at all. If a Government is fully convinced of their plans, why would they be worried about it being binding?
    Relative to the Government the criticism that was received came from the 'far right' and the 'far left'. Then when it came to being put to the house, the right disagreed as was expected, and most of the criticism came from the right of the house.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Relative to the Government the criticism that was received came from the 'far right' and the 'far left'. Then when it came to being put to the house, the right disagreed as was expected, and most of the criticism came from the right of the house.
    So you consider @United1892 and toronto353 on the extremes? Or Neb for that matter who stated opposition to several elements.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Relative to the Government the criticism that was received came from the 'far right' and the 'far left'. Then when it came to being put to the house, the right disagreed as was expected, and most of the criticism came from the right of the house.
    I hardly think that it is fair to use the term 'far right' and 'far left' in relation to your opponents, even if claiming relative to the Government and I maintain that our criticism was not far right relative to the Government. As I see it, you're using that as a term to denigrate your opponents to try to discredit us. That said, you still haven't explained to me why all of these changes are needed or indeed to explain adequately why a budget shouldn't be voted on. With opposition within Government and from the Right outside the Government, it was the perfect opportunity to call a vote and one should have been called given the scale of such opposition, but instead it couldn't have been because of the GD. The simple changes that I and others are calling for, including voting on the budget, make perfect sense in my opinion.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you consider @United1892 and toronto353 on the extremes? Or Neb for that matter who stated opposition to several elements.
    Apparently so, allow me to quote the following post:

    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Aph is definitely sitting on the hardcore left, and Josb and Toronto are on the far right. This is especially the case if you use the Government as a base.
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post62294811
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Apparently so, allow me to quote the following post:



    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post62294811
    I can only assume that the Rt Hon gentleman sees himself as in the perfect centre and has a very small bubble around him containing moderates.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you consider @United1892 and toronto353 on the extremes? Or Neb for that matter who stated opposition to several elements.
    United is one of the most left wing members of the house, and toronto is one of the most right wing members of the liberals. Neb's criticism is down to a difference of opinion.

    Having gone through the thread myself, 10 MPs expressed criticism of the budget 20% which is far from a majority, and most of those 10 MPs were in the Opposition. If LP wanted to send the budget to vote he could have asked Ray, who said that he would consider putting it to vote considering there was enough opposition. I don't think 20% of MPs having made a criticism of the budget is reason enough to put my own Budget to vote. toronto353
 
 
 
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: February 4, 2016
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • 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.