A141 - Voting Review Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
A141 - Voting Review Amendment; Proposed: Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP)
Seconded: Jammy Duel (Conservative), EricAteYou (Labour), Mobbsy91 (Conservative), Adam9317 (UKIP)


Part I: Guidance Document Amendment

Add to the Guidance Document under MP Activity & Voting Reviews, 3.1a MP Seat Allocation

1) The Speaker shall allocate each MP a seat number.
2) Party leaders have until the first Division Lobby results are announced at the start of a new term to change the seat number allocated to their MPs.
3) The Speaker shall conduct voting reviews in accordance with the section above.
4) Parties are allowed to change the order of the seat number allocated to their MPs outside the window at the start of the term provided;
a. The new member appointed to an MP seat has not been an MP serving in any party, in any seat for longer than five weeks at the time of switching.
i. This includes being an MP in the previous term. For the sake of this amendment, the election period is not seen as a break, the previous term counts toward being an MP, and the election period does not count as the four week break described below.
b. The exception to 4a is if the member has not been an MP for longer than four consecutive weeks.
c. A member covering an MP may make a one-off switch to cover another MP after being an MP for over five weeks provided the member was originally brought in as an MP after not being an MP for more than four weeks, and has not served as an MP in any party, in any seat for more than ten consecutive weeks.
d. An member who was serving as an MP before being replaced by a member who meets the criteria in 4a to 4c, may start as an MP to cover an MP who has left.

Worked Example

Suppose a party with four MPs, MP A to MP D, who are the same MPs who served the party last term, if MP B has a voting record below 70%, another MP may not switch seats to take MP B’s seat, however, a member, who has previously served as an MP, and is returning to being an MP after a break of over five consecutive weeks, may become an MP to replace MP B.

If another MP has become inactive, the member who met the conditions of not being an MP for more than five weeks, who was called to cover for MP B, and has been an MP covering for MPs for more than five weeks, may make one switch to cover an MP provided the MP making the switch to cover was brought in after not being an MP for over five weeks.

If an MP in Seat 1 is replaced by another member, but another MP in a different seat, for instance Seat 5 leaves after two weeks, the member who was the Seat 1 MP before being replaced by a member who meets the criteria, may return to replace an MP if five weeks have not passed from the time the ex-MP for Seat 1 was replaced.

Part II: One-off retrospective amendment to a past event which will be binding on the Speaker if this Amendment passes

1) From the TSR Socialist Party, TheDefiniteArticle will be allocated seat 45, and cBay will be allocated seat 43 for the voting review in Parliament XXIII in June 2016.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Although I will not be commenting on the merits of the proposal itself, I do have an interest as Speaker in a coherent guidance document, and in order for this to sit coherently with the existing content a reference to seat numbers ought to be integrated into the existing section.

I also wonder, given a worked example was seen to be required, whether the proposer might wish to review and simplify the wording of the text itself?

Finally, it is not acceptable for an amendment to look to retrospectively reverse a decision made by the Speaker with regard to a change already made and completed.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Part II is wrong and section 4 part one seems unnecessary but it's very confusing...
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Aph)
Part II is wrong and section 4 part one seems unnecessary but it's very confusing...
How exactly is part II wrong?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Nay due to part II. Retrospective amendments should only be used in exceptional circumstances (read: conduct which has led to a site-wide ban); to do otherwise risks the MHoC becoming subject to the tyranny of the majority.

Also, there is no good reason to include 'any party' in 4a.

The idea is fine though, and this should've been the rule all along. All that is needed, apart from the above, is for it to be written in a manner more consistent with the existing GD.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
How exactly is part II wrong?
Retrospective amending.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Aph)
Retrospective amending.
One could argue that it isn't retrospective because the review that it applies to hasn't happened.
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
I agree with removing part 2.

Do that and you have an Aye from me
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
One could argue that it isn't retrospective because the review that it applies to hasn't happened.
I woudl argue that the seats have already changed, it was done and asked for before teh rule change so it's retrospective.

I woudl however suggest that a way of ordering parties is given, personally I would also order seats in alphabetical but it isn't of massive concert
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Why even bother? People will change before 70%, use proxies, or find some other mechanism to bypass this.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
One could argue that it isn't retrospective because the review that it applies to hasn't happened.
This wouldn't even be close to a good argument though. It is applying a new rule to action which has already occurred.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
I would not wish to overrule the Speaker. Am happy to review once a revised version is put before the House.
0
Hazzer1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Nay
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
This has gone to a second reading.
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

2,698

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
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

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (157)
13.29%
Excited (105)
8.89%
Worried (216)
18.29%
Terrified (276)
23.37%
Meh (94)
7.96%
Confused (32)
2.71%
Putting on a brave face (152)
12.87%
Impatient (149)
12.62%

Watched Threads

View All