Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Codifying is a wonderful way of reducing flexibility.
    It is up to amendment submitters to determine situations where flexibility is and isn't desired, and for seconders and then the House to decide whether that flexibility is worth maintaining or not.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    I can't see anything necessarily majorly wrong with this, so aye I guess.
    What's majorly wrong with the current Constitution and GD that it needs to be rewritten in its entirety? :mute:

    If you have to say 'I can't see', 'necessarily', 'majorly' and 'I guess' then that really isn't confidence enough to start a new 'constitutional era' no?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Codification exists where flexibility is undesired. I would note that the Speaker STILL HAS flexibility in constitutional matters through interpretation. The words ought not be interpreted to reach an absurd conclusion, and so while the Constitution is 'binding' on the Speaker, it is not binding in the sense that it prescribes a single course of action in every possible situation.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It's not about stopping things. It's about procedure. Remember recently when I allowed a petition to be withdrawn? It didn't specify in the GD at the time that doing so was allowed but I did it as that was what made sense. If I choose to let a bill be debated for an extra day or something can I expect a VoNC for acting unconstitutionally? And if not then you're making the Constitution into a Guidance Document rather than the other way around.

    This is deeply, deeply unnecessary.

    I'd rather the illusion of flexibility than absolutely none at all anyway. However as Fez succinctly says, there is flexibility.
    If you let a bill be read for an extra day your motives would be questioned as that is unconstitutional and you know it. Indeed you should face some kind of sanction for doing so.

    Also as for you pony that is more about the person not thinking through the amendment or assuming that people would be smart enough and it was a one off. If it is a rare occurrence then it doesn't need to be codified for.

    There may be some but especially the GD is a constitution. If you go against it you anger people and people use it as a quick way to get things codified.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    If you let a bill be read for an extra day your motives would be questioned as that is unconstitutional and you know it. Indeed you should face some kind of sanction for doing so.

    Also as for you pony that is more about the person not thinking through the amendment or assuming that people would be smart enough and it was a one off. If it is a rare occurrence then it doesn't need to be codified for.

    There may be some but especially the GD is a constitution. If you go against it you anger people and people use it as a quick way to get things codified.
    What if TSR crashed for 12 hours the previous day? What if half the House suffered a powercut that stop them going online? What if I forgot to count down the day in the update? What if the update was really late one night (past midnight) so the number of days count was misleading and that resulted in a mistake. Who knows. What's the benefit of it being binding?

    The current system works. The ability to occasionally stray from the GD's excellent guidance (as we do consistently with PMQs) helps the smooth running of this House and has done so for as long as we both have been members.

    Again, PMQs. We completely ignore the GD. Don't tell me that people will be angry if I don't follow the GD to the letter so that's a good excuse to make its provisons binding. If pressure from the House makes it de facto binding then that just further reinforces the idea that there's no point to this amendment.

    Rather than telling me what's the problem with the status quo why don't you tell me what the benefits of the amendment are.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    What if TSR crashed for 12 hours the previous day? What if half the House suffered a powercut that stop them going online? What if I forgot to count down the day in the update? What if the update was really late one night (past midnight) so the number of days count was misleading and that resulted in a mistake. Who knows. What's the benefit of it being binding?

    The current system works. The ability to occasionally stray from the GD's excellent guidance (as we do consistently with PMQs) helps the smooth running of this House and has done so for as long as we both have been members.

    Again, PMQs. We completely ignore the GD. Don't tell me that people will be angry if I don't follow the GD to the letter so that's a good excuse to make its provisons binding. If pressure from the House makes it de facto binding then that just further reinforces the idea that there's no point to this amendment.

    Rather than telling me what's the problem with the status quo why don't you tell me what the benefits of the amendment are.
    The benifits are that everything is in one place. You don't have the constitution referencing the GD so you then have to go to the GD to see what the rules are only time tables.

    You also get rid of what I'd essentially a 2-tier GD where some of it is binding but to check what parts you have to check the constitution. That is something you yourself have complained about.

    Other benifits include getting rid of most of the superfluous parts and repetition between the GD and the constitution. Lastly it stops people taking the easy way and just adding something to the GD because they think it can't pass into the constitution.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    The benifits are that everything is in one place. You don't have the constitution referencing the GD so you then have to go to the GD to see what the rules are only time tables.

    You also get rid of what I'd essentially a 2-tier GD where some of it is binding but to check what parts you have to check the constitution. That is something you yourself have complained about.

    Other benifits include getting rid of most of the superfluous parts and repetition between the GD and the constitution. Lastly it stops people taking the easy way and just adding something to the GD because they think it can't pass into the constitution.
    If the choice is between being shackled to every little detail of the GD (which we happily ignore quite a lot) or having to go between two wiki pages when I forget what the rule is then I pick the latter.

    I do complain about that - because I'd like more flexibility. The entire GD should be purely guidance imo. This amendment does the exact opposite. It's like me complaining about my broken arm so your proceeding to break my legs for the sake of consistency.

    The superfluous stuff could and should be removed in small, piece-meal amendments.

    What exactly is the problem with 'the easy way'. Are you basically saying you want to make it harder to amend the GD? Because making it binding all the way through sounds like a very roundabout and potentially harmful way of doing that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If the choice is between being shackled to every little detail of the GD (which we happily ignore quite a lot) or having to go between two wiki pages when I forget what the rule is then I pick the latter.

    I do complain about that - because I'd like more flexibility. The entire GD should be purely guidance imo. This amendment does the exact opposite. It's like me complaining about my broken arm so your proceeding to break my legs for the sake of consistency.

    The superfluous stuff could and should be removed in small, piece-meal amendments.

    What exactly is the problem with 'the easy way'. Are you basically saying you want to make it harder to amend the GD? Because making it binding all the way through sounds like a very roundabout and potentially harmful way of doing that.
    If there is something which you believe ought not be followed in more than a tiny number of cases, you ought to table an amendment to either refine or remove it.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If the choice is between being shackled to every little detail of the GD (which we happily ignore quite a lot) or having to go between two wiki pages when I forget what the rule is then I pick the latter.

    I do complain about that - because I'd like more flexibility. The entire GD should be purely guidance imo. This amendment does the exact opposite. It's like me complaining about my broken arm so your proceeding to break my legs for the sake of consistency.

    The superfluous stuff could and should be removed in small, piece-meal amendments.

    What exactly is the problem with 'the easy way'. Are you basically saying you want to make it harder to amend the GD? Because making it binding all the way through sounds like a very roundabout and potentially harmful way of doing that.
    I hope that by making it binding all the way through people will think more about what they are doing. And my issue with the easy way is that they get what they want by cheating.

    As for tge GD I personally believe that things like teh timetable for teh GE and the rules regarding the GE should definitely be enforcable and not just Guidence.

    And please don't get me wrong, this isn't an attack on your power like you are worried. Nor is it turning 2 documents into three. What I am trying to do is rebalance the GD and constitution (with the GD becoming the TD) having the rules in the constitution as those are the things that the people want by democracy, and the TD as a place to store time tables to avoid cluttering the constitution and the GD becoming like a case law store. A simple place where judgements and interpretations are passed down so that when people scream and yell 'presedence' there is a simple place to check as opposed to taking things at face value.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    I hope that by making it binding all the way through people will think more about what they are doing. And my issue with the easy way is that they get what they want by cheating.

    As for tge GD I personally believe that things like teh timetable for teh GE and the rules regarding the GE should definitely be enforcable and not just Guidence.

    And please don't get me wrong, this isn't an attack on your power like you are worried. Nor is it turning 2 documents into three. What I am trying to do is rebalance the GD and constitution (with the GD becoming the TD) having the rules in the constitution as those are the things that the people want by democracy, and the TD as a place to store time tables to avoid cluttering the constitution and the GD becoming like a case law store. A simple place where judgements and interpretations are passed down so that when people scream and yell 'presedence' there is a simple place to check as opposed to taking things at face value.
    I'd be interested to hear who exactly you're accusing of cheating.

    We don't know what circumstances may arise. In 6 years has the facts it's 'just guidance' ever caused any kind of problem big or small?

    It's attack on my freedom and the freedom of future Speakers to apply common sense and judgement. We don't need the GD and Constitution merged in order to keep a record of precedents which I'm capable of finding already.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If there is something which you believe ought not be followed in more than a tiny number of cases, you ought to table an amendment to either refine or remove it.
    This I plan to do in the Summer. This doesn't do what I'd like in the meantime.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I do complain about that - because I'd like more flexibility. The entire GD should be purely guidance imo. This amendment does the exact opposite. It's like me complaining about my broken arm so your proceeding to break my legs for the sake of consistency.
    Hear, hear!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Flexibility comes at the cost of specificity and structure. I believe the flexibility to not make a decision which is patently unreasonable is fine; flexibility not to make a decision because the Speaker thinks it is unfair is not.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Do not have time to go through the documents to see the fully changes and so it would be unfair for me to make a judgement.

    Abstain.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    It seems alright. Aye.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Seems a worthwhile simplification and so an aye from me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Why the heck would anyone support an Aph-led campaign to change the Constitution which has been used at least since 2010? :confused:

    I agree there should be a clear distinction between what is essentially statute (the Constitution) v. common law (the GD plus the Speaker's rulings) and that only the former should be considered primary authority without this weird de facto binding nature of the current GD which essentially negates legal certainty, however I find the late number of C/GD amendments worryingly high. It's almost as if certain members didn't care about the main purpose of the MHoC (to debate political ideas) and only wanted to tweak the formal attributes of the simulation ad infinitum.

    We're facing a continuous decline in activity and gaining fewer and fewer new members who continue to stick around and participate in public debates, yet you find the system which has been going on without any major issues for years the most important thing to focus on?

    Anyway, if you really want to do this because what the heck, let's waste some energy, I suggest you start with abolishing the GD altogether (still a major source of legal uncertainty) and replace it with a list of rulings that a) interpret the Constitution where needed, and b) create common law on the go.

    RayApparently You shouldn't be debating this, you know…
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why the heck would anyone support an Aph-led campaign to change the Constitution which has been used at least since 2010? :confused:

    I agree there should be a clear distinction between what is essentially statute (the Constitution) v. common law (the GD plus the Speaker's rulings) and that only the former should be considered primary authority without this weird de facto binding nature of the current GD which essentially negates legal certainty, however I find the late number of C/GD amendments worryingly high. It's almost as if certain members didn't care about the main purpose of the MHoC (to debate political ideas) and only wanted to tweak the formal attributes of the simulation ad infinitum.

    We're facing a continuous decline in activity and gaining fewer and fewer new members who continue to stick around and participate in public debates, yet you find the system which has been going on without any major issues for years the most important thing to focus only ?

    Anyway, if you really want to do this because what the heck, let's waste some energy, I suggest you start with abolishing the GD altogether (still a major source of legal uncertainty) and replace it with a list of rulings that a) interpret the Constitution where needed, and b) create common law on the go.

    RayApparently You shouldn't be debating this, you know…
    For the bit in bold that's what this does...

    Also I do hope that you aren't against this because it's my name.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    For the bit in bold that's what this does...

    Also I do hope that you aren't against this because it's my name.
    It doesn't. There's another GD document with the same structure which is e.g. modifying a section of the C when the exclusion of party forums should be included in the C, if you really want to be so thorough.

    I am, because most of what you touch on here tends to be crap and this appears to be just another step in your personal crusade against the status quo of MHoC proceedings.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    It doesn't. There's another GD document with the same structure which is e.g. modifying a section of the C when the exclusion of party forums should be included in the C, if you really want to be so thorough.

    I am, because most of what you touch on here tends to be crap and this appears to be just another step in your personal crusade against the status quo of MHoC proceedings.
    Are you talking about the timetable document? Because that's just to keep things neat as it would be awful trying to make that fit the Constitutions numbering system.

    Then that is just poor reasoning and debating. To be against something because of who supported it is an awful stance to take and a extremely unreasonable one. When you complain about people not debating and then you yourself cannot put up a defendable stance in a debate shows a great deal of hypocracy. This is about making a simpler constitutional set up and a library of speakers rulings.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.