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

MHoC By-election March 2016: VOTE HERE! Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who do you wish to elect as an MP to the TSR Model House of Commons?
    "The Financier" (endorsed by the TSR Conservative and Unionist Party)
    27
    33.75%
    "Hydeman" (endorsed by the TSR National Liberal Party)
    15
    18.75%
    "JoeL1994" (Independant)
    15
    18.75%
    "Gladiator12345" (endorsed by the TSR Socialist Party)
    21
    26.25%
    Spoilt Ballot
    2
    2.50%

    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Your resignation from the party whose seats are now up for grabs to have the chance of practically regaining one of them is a morally questionable one too so I wouldn't push it if I were you…
    Why? It's just the way the cookie crumbles.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    That's a good idea! Hmm, maybe the more people I offend with my drawing skills using a mouse, the more money I'll get!
    Ah I see that you subscribe to Donald Trump's philosophy for gaining votes and delegates
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Also, RayApparently, just in case, can I ask for a ruling on JoeL1994 attempting to rejoin the Liberals after winning a seat? The GD suggests his seat would go to the Liberals for the rest of the term, but I'd submit that this should be banned in advance.
    RayApparently If I win the seat I support a ban on me rejoining the Liberals or any other party until after the GE.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Your resignation from the party whose seats are now up for grabs to have the chance of practically regaining one of them is a morally questionable one too so I wouldn't push it if I were you…
    From what I heard it wasn't a plot to get the Liberals a seat but rather than Joe and the Liberals had irreconcilable differences so you should support him if you want to end the Liberal domination.

    #VoteJoe
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    That part of the GD isn't for you to ignore. It is binding on you.
    That is actually correct, my mind was on previous disputes with the honourable gentleman.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Needless to say I disagree (also, please don't take this as me targeting you personally). In our model political system, the Speaker is proxying the role of the speaker and the courts. The speaker IRL is just a procedural role for the most part. Where the Speaker is acting in the capacity of courts, he should act, insofar as is possible, consistently with the role of courts IRL - that is to say, he should issue guidance based not on what he feels the rule ought to be based on fairness or whatever unless there is literally no precedent on that or a similar point in either the Constitution, the GD, or previous Speaker decisions (which ought to be written down for reference - this is for verification purposes). Rather, he should rule based on what forms the most coherent view of the rules of the House as a whole.

    Do you disagree?
    *sigh*

    I have no made my decision based on what I view is 'fair', I have made it based on the fact that it is not prohibited by the GD (which is where this 'debate' should have ended) and the fact that I've witnessed 4 MHoC elections and signatures were used as part of campaigns in at least 3 of them.

    Just because Aph complains doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to go 'You know what? We were all wrong all that time...'

    I see no more reason for discussion. Whether The Financier wishes to change his signature or not is up to him. It does not contravene the rules as they have been followed and enforced term after term. The original complain conceded that there was no literal rule breach and I would argue that the rules were not even broken in spirit.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    *sigh*

    I have no made my decision based on what I view is 'fair', I have made it based on the fact that it is not prohibited by the GD (which is where this 'debate' should have ended) and the fact that I've witnessed 4 MHoC elections and signatures were used as part of campaigns in at least 3 of them.

    Just because Aph complains doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to go 'You know what? We were all wrong all that time...'

    I see no more reason for discussion. Whether The Financier wishes to change his signature or not is up to him. It does not contravene the rules as they have been followed and enforced term after term. The original complain conceded that there was no literal rule breach and I would argue that the rules were not even broken in spirit.
    I am arguing because I feel this is an important constitutional point, but also, no evidence has been provided that these are the rules which have been enforced, merely followed. If there were evidence that this rule had been enforced in the past, then I think there would be no case to answer, so to speak; as it is, I feel that clarification of the precise extent of the rule should be made by way of reasoning. I will not push this point any further, however, as I have great respect for you and I understand I'm being a right royal pain in the arse right now.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    RayApparently If I win the seat I support a ban on me rejoining the Liberals or any other party until after the GE.
    I would like to clarify, in case there was any doubt, that I am not suggesting that this was the purpose; you know how much of a nit I am for technicalities.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    … to try to make every party in the House change its name, obviously…
    Ohhhh.
    My bad

    Liberals - The Centrist party
    Labour - the Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist Party or People's Democracy
    Conservative - The Capitalist & Reformist/Unionist Party
    Green - The Environmentalist/ecological party
    UKIP - The British National Party
    Socialist - The Workers' Party

    DRINK!!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I would like to clarify, in case there was any doubt, that I am not suggesting that this was the purpose; you know how much of a nit I am for technicalities.
    I know, I'd completely agree it should be a safeguard though just to stop me taking a seat to a party.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Ohhhh.
    My bad

    Liberals - The Centrist party
    Labour - the Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist Party or People's Democracy
    Conservative - The Capitalist & Reformist/Unionist Party
    Green - The Environmentalist/ecological party
    UKIP - The British National Party
    Socialist - The Workers' Party
    You're joking, right?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Ohhhh.
    My bad

    Liberals - The Centrist party
    Labour - the Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist Party or People's Democracy
    Conservative - The Capitalist & Reformist/Unionist Party
    Green - The Environmentalist/ecological party
    UKIP - The British National Party
    Socialist - The Workers' Party
    I'd very much like to see those election numbers.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That is actually correct, my mind was on previous disputes with the honourable gentleman.



    *sigh*

    I have no made my decision based on what I view is 'fair', I have made it based on the fact that it is not prohibited by the GD (which is where this 'debate' should have ended) and the fact that I've witnessed 4 MHoC elections and signatures were used as part of campaigns in at least 3 of them.

    Just because Aph complains doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to go 'You know what? We were all wrong all that time...'

    I see no more reason for discussion. Whether The Financier wishes to change his signature or not is up to him. It does not contravene the rules as they have been followed and enforced term after term. The original complain conceded that there was no literal rule breach and I would argue that the rules were not even broken in spirit.
    That made me laugh - perhaps more than was appropriate.




    DRINK!!
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I am arguing because I feel this is an important constitutional point, but also, no evidence has been provided that these are the rules which have been enforced, merely followed. If there were evidence that this rule had been enforced in the past, then I think there would be no case to answer, so to speak; as it is, I feel that clarification of the precise extent of the rule should be made by way of reasoning. I will not push this point any further, however, as I have great respect for you and I understand I'm being a right royal pain in the arse right now.
    Interesting - I think it's a rather unimportant constitutional point.

    It'd be tricky to find a past Speaker commenting on the use of signatures during elections because it is so petty a thing for an opposing member to bring up that common sense (i.e. that it's ok) has always prevailed.

    The original complaint made by Aph was worded in such a way that I can't quite understand how this is a debatable point. There is no rule against putting 'Vote for Me' in your signature. It isn't written in the GD and there never has been such a rule.

    I drew the line where I think it should be, based on what has been done before and what is written in the GD.

    If you PM people outside your party to vote a certain way you're breaking the rule.
    If you post in D&CA you might get in trouble with the mods for spamming but not with me.
    If you have something in your signature that's fine.
    If you post on public walls of people outside your party you are going against the spirit of the rule.

    Perhaps future Speaker's will quote that as precedent.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Saracen's Fez Andy98, it would be good if you could maximise electoral turnout among your parties. Another left-wing MP would be nice.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    That made me laugh - perhaps more than was appropriate.


    DRINK!!
    Ditto for the below.

    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Ohhhh.
    My bad

    Liberals - The Centrist party
    Labour - the Social Democrat/Democratic Socialist Party or People's Democracy
    Conservative - The Capitalist & Reformist/Unionist Party
    Green - The Environmentalist/ecological party
    UKIP - The British National Party
    Socialist - The Workers' Party

    DRINK!!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    You're joking, right?
    What? He set up a challenge, and sitting here at my computer I shouted, "HOLD MY BEER".
    It's a good attempt, and accurate of the parties' views.
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I'd very much like to see those election numbers.
    It could actually work in preventing people from just voting for a name, because they'd have to examine the parties' policies in their manifestos to make a decision since they've never heard of the parties before.


    DRINK!!
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Interesting - I think it's a rather unimportant constitutional point.

    It'd be tricky to find a past Speaker commenting on the use of signatures during elections because it is so petty a thing for an opposing member to bring up that common sense (i.e. that it's ok) has always prevailed.

    The original complaint made by Aph was worded in such a way that I can't quite understand how this is a debatable point. There is no rule against putting 'Vote for Me' in your signature. It isn't written in the GD and there never has been such a rule.

    I drew the line where I think it should be, based on what has been done before and what is written in the GD.

    If you PM people outside your party to vote a certain way you're breaking the rule.
    If you post in D&CA you might get in trouble with the mods for spamming but not with me.
    If you have something in your signature that's fine.
    If you post on public walls of people outside your party you are going against the spirit of the rule.

    Perhaps future Speaker's will quote that as precedent.
    This is fine. Thankyou. I interpreted the spirit of the rule as a ban on campaigning outside of manifestos, but your ruling is justifiable and obviously more important than my opinion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Ditto for the below.
    I'm surprised one of them hasn't noticed by now and gone mental like they normally do



    DRINK!!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Saracen's Fez Andy98, it would be good if you could maximise electoral turnout among your parties. Another left-wing MP would be nice.
    Party members will at the end of the day have a free vote and I will not be recommending they vote for any particular candidate.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is fine. Thankyou. I interpreted the spirit of the rule as a ban on campaigning outside of manifestos, but your ruling is justifiable and obviously more important than my opinion.
    The rule's there because when people get spammed with MHoC-related private messages it puts them off the MHoC and just makes us generally less popular within the TSR community. We're already the weird ones anyway.

    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I'm surprised one of them hasn't noticed by now and gone mental like they normally do

    DRINK!!
    Give it a minute.
 
 
 
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: March 29, 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.