Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    A149 – New Guidance Document Amendment
    Proposed by: Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP)
    Seconded by: hazzer1998 MP (UKIP), TheDefiniteArticle MP (Soc), tyroncs MP (UKIP), Unown Uzer MP (UKIP)

    Guidance Document



    General Elections

    (1) The formal duration of an election will be 21 Days.
    Day- The Prime Minister holds the authority to announce his/her intention to seek a dissolution on a particular date; as long as parliament does not expire in between.
    Day 0 – Election is called by the Prime Minister or the speaker if parliament has expired. A wash up period of seven days remains in place but no new 'threads' will be submitted to the speaker. The Speaker will inform parties to submit their manifestos;
    Day 7 – All manifestos should have been received by the speaker who shall admit manifestos subject to manifestos meeting the criteria in the Constitution. The Speaker formally declares the previous parliament dissolved and shall remove all MP's from the Division Lobby Forum. The Speaker will post a thread containing ALL manifestos in the MHoC sub-forum and add a secret poll for 7 days with an option for each candidate/party and an option for “Spoilt Ballot.”
    Day 14 – Results of the election are declared by the Speaker who will then inform party leaders they have seven days to form any coalitions
    Day 21 – The coalition is formed in accordance with the Constitution. The speaker formally declares parliament open and announces details of parliament's expiration date.


    By-elections

    (1) The duration of an election shall be 14 days.
    Day 0 – Election is announced by The Speaker. The Speaker will inform interested parties to submit their manifestos.
    Day 3 – All manifestos should have been received by the Speaker. The Speaker shall post the manifestos in a thread in the MHoC forum, add a secret four-day poll with the option of Spoilt Ballot, and send a message out to MPs informing them of the vote.
    Day 7 – The election closes and seats are assigned.


    Speakership Elections

    Day 0 – Returning officer announces the election and asks for manifestos to be submitted to them.
    Day 4 – Returning officer will post the candidates who wish to run in the election for speaker along with manifestos. Candidates for the position are questioned by MPs and members of the House of Commons
    Day 7 – The returning officer will open a secret poll (for MPs only in the Division Lobby) with the candidates’ names and the option for Re-Open Nominations.
    Day 11 – Poll closes. If a candidate has gained more than 50% of the vote, they are elected. If not, the two candidates with the most votes, plus ties, are put into a second three-day ballot with no R.O.N. option. If at any point during the run-off vote a candidate withdraws the run-off is re-ran between the remaining candidate and the next highest placed candidate on the first ballot excluding the candidate who has withdrawn. The run-off may be re-ran a maximum of three times. In the event there is no next placed candidate from the first round the remaining candidate undergoes a Speakership Confirmation motion procedure lasting three days. If three run-offs all result in withdrawals the candidate left undergoes a Speakership Confirmation motion.
    Day 15 to day 19 - If a runoff election was needed, results of the election are announced and the candidate with the most votes is elected.
    Day 22 - If a Speakership Confirmation Motion was called the results are announced.
    (1) The candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected as the new Speaker.
    (2) In the event there is a draw, all candidates will be outlined to the administration team and they will pick the next Speaker.
    (3) In the event no Speaker is elected due to Re-Open Nominations being elected a new election process will begin.
    (4) Speaker manifestos must be no more than 300 words on why they should be Speaker and what they plan to do with the house.
    (5) In the event there is a draw to be Deputy Speaker, the Speaker shall make the decision on who the Deputy shall be.


    Bills, Motions, and Petitions Procedure

    (1) When an item has been submitted it will be listed in the Hansard, and marked with the date the bill will go up for discussion.
    (2) Each item will be assigned a number, this number will continue from reading to voting, a bill under discussion will be denoted a Bxx, a bill at voting will be Vxx, a motion will be Mxx, and an amendment will be Axx.
    (3) Each item can undergo a maximum of 3 readings:
    (a) First Reading – Two days minimum, six days maximum (with an additional 48-hour extension if requested)
    (b) Second Reading – One-day minimum, four days maximum (with an additional 24-hour extension if requested)
    (c) Third reading – One-day minimum, Three days’ maximum
    (4) After a reading, the item is put into cessation for up to 7 days unless the proposer has asked for it to go to a new reading or to division.
    (5) At any point during an item's discussion the submitter can ask for a 7-day cessation period.
    (6) An item can be withdrawn at any point.
    (7) Each bill going to vote will have the question “Should this bill be passed into law?” each amendment going to vote should have the question “Should this amendment be passed into the Constitution, or Guidance Document?” each motion going to vote will have the question “Do you agree with this motion?” each petition going to vote will have the question “Do you support this petition?" and each Statement of Intent going to vote will have the question “Should this statement of intent be approved?”
    (8) Voting on bills, amendments, motions and petitions should have the following three options:
    (a) As many as are of that opinion, Aye
    (b) On the contrary, No
    (c) Abstain
    (9) Voting should always last for 4 days. All MPs are entitled to one vote, and may change their vote by asking the Speaker.
    (10) Voting on bills, motion, treaties, petitions and statements of intent should be made public.
    (11) Voting on Amendments should remain secret.


    Referendums

    (1) A thread will be posted in Current Affairs along with a poll posing the question to the members of TSR.
    (2) All TSR members with more than 100 posts and three months’ experience may vote.
    (3) Referendums will pass if more votes are cast in favour than against (excluding abstentions), but a bill or motion may stipulate a higher percentage.
    (4) Voting at a referendum will last four days.


    MoNC

    (1) An MoNC will automatically start a 3-day discussion where both sides get to argue their points; the Speaker will start a thread and post the reasons for the motion of no confidence being called.
    (2) After the 3-day discussion a 4-day poll will be opened in the Division Lobby that all MPs can have a vote on. The poll will be a private poll only showing the results when it has ended.


    Notes
    This amendment makes many changes;

    to the Guidance Document

    1. Shorten procedure for by-elections to 7 days from 14 days
    2. Remove requirement for seconders for amendments.
    3. Numbers all match up to give the Guidance Document coherency.
    4. The process for bills, motions, and petition was all similar before but it has now been merged with the differences being written in one clause, this allows the repetitive clauses to be removed for each option. The same thing was done for elections, and MoNCs in the Government, speaker, and Deputy Speaker.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Not sure that amendments shouldn't have seconders
    Also if the new constitution amendment doesn't pass and this does it will right royally mess things up so they should have been done as one.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    Not sure that amendments shouldn't have seconders
    Also if the new constitution amendment doesn't pass and this does it will right royally mess things up so they should have been done as one.
    They were split due to the different majorities required and I hope the proposer will exercise common sense in vote timings (I would be willing to delay for this purpose) if he feels the same way you do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    They were split due to the different majorities required and I hope the proposer will exercise common sense in vote timings (I would be willing to delay for this purpose) if he feels the same way you do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    GD/constitution amendments have been done before and it is considered unless they meet the constitution criteria they don't meet either.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    GD/constitution amendments have been done before and it is considered unless they meet the constitution criteria they don't meet either.
    There have been both – accepting none or just the GD bit dependent upon phrasing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Aph)
    Not sure that amendments shouldn't have seconders
    Also if the new constitution amendment doesn't pass and this does it will right royally mess things up so they should have been done as one.
    Thing is, Nigel has said anyone can put him down as seconder on anything, I'm generally fairly willing to put my name down as seconder on most things, even if I don't really agree, and I think others are of the same opinion, as it helps spark a bit of debate, so I agree about getting rid of need for seconders tbh. If it's that bad, it won't be passed in Division.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    GD/constitution amendments have been done before and it is considered unless they meet the constitution criteria they don't meet either.
    I agree, they were submitted as one amendment but were split up, but I will ask both need the requirement for amending the Constitution because replacing the Guidance Document with the Guidance Document here will not work if the Constitution is not replaced.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Thing is, Nigel has said anyone can put him down as seconder on anything, I'm generally fairly willing to put my name down as seconder on most things, even if I don't really agree, and I think others are of the same opinion, as it helps spark a bit of debate, so I agree about getting rid of need for seconders tbh. If it's that bad, it won't be passed in Division.
    But it can waist time. And if it is so awful then it shouldn't really get to the house because there is no hope of votes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    They were split due to the different majorities required and I hope the proposer will exercise common sense in vote timings (I would be willing to delay for this purpose) if he feels the same way you do.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But why not post them together, after all, your priority is getting things out together rather than ensuring there is always new stuff?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But it can waist time. And if it is so awful then it shouldn't really get to the house because there is no hope of votes.
    I agree having seconders is a good thing but seconders do not work, when I want to write an amendment I include UKIP MPs with an MP from another party to meet the requirement, there is no discussion, there is no debate on the amendment, and the seconders have not seen the amendment. Needing to have seconders takes the time it takes to write out their names which is thirty seconds, I do not believe a defence can be made of the requirement when it is easily exploited.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I agree having seconders is a good thing but seconders do not work, when I want to write an amendment I include UKIP MPs with an MP from another party to meet the requirement, there is no discussion, there is no debate on the amendment, and the seconders have not seen the amendment. Needing to have seconders takes the time it takes to write out their names which is thirty seconds, I do not believe a defence can be made of the requirement when it is easily exploited.
    I always show my seconders the stuff first and let them debate the pros and cons of it st the same time.
    I also have found that speakers (faland was great at this) tend to check with the seconders for confirmation first. If the speaker isn't doing that it's a matter of a bad police force and not bad laws.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But why not post them together, after all, your priority is getting things out together rather than ensuring there is always new stuff?
    A combination of size (needing multiple posts) and wanting proper scrutiny of both.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    A combination of size (needing multiple posts) and wanting proper scrutiny of both.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Pull the other one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I always show my seconders the stuff first and let them debate the pros and cons of it st the same time.
    I also have found that speakers (faland was great at this) tend to check with the seconders for confirmation first. If the speaker isn't doing that it's a matter of a bad police force and not bad laws.
    But there is no requirement for Speaker to check for seconders, I think it is better to have no seconders but have all members of the MHoC debate an amendment. There is not a lot of debate happening because bills are not in large numbers, debating an amendment does not detract from other debates, and it is better to have more opinions on an amendment.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Aph)
    I always show my seconders the stuff first and let them debate the pros and cons of it st the same time.
    I also have found that speakers (faland was great at this) tend to check with the seconders for confirmation first. If the speaker isn't doing that it's a matter of a bad police force and not bad laws.
    To be fair, I think almost all amendments I've seconded, I haven't actually read. I just hear the title, and say Yay or Nay!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I agree, they were submitted as one amendment but were split up, but I will ask both need the requirement for amending the Constitution because replacing the Guidance Document with the Guidance Document here will not work if the Constitution is not replaced.
    I will probably nay on this motion, I like points 1 and 3 but I want an overhaul of motions and amendments.

    In real life an MP moves a motion and then someone seconds it, whilst on TSR a motion is almost forced on the house. I'd like for motions and amendments to be put into division for 1 day where the vote is if people will second it or not, once a threshold has been reached it re-enters for discussion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, absolutely not. As we have discovered tonight, the GD lacks for insufficient detail, rather than too much.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    But there is no requirement for Speaker to check for seconders, I think it is better to have no seconders but have all members of the MHoC debate an amendment. There is not a lot of debate happening because bills are not in large numbers, debating an amendment does not detract from other debates, and it is better to have more opinions on an amendment.
    I was under the impression that it was implicit. After all you could bash any old names on there.
    I will consider but I'm likely to vote nay due to the current constitutional amendment.
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    To be fair, I think almost all amendments I've seconded, I haven't actually read. I just hear the title, and say Yay or Nay!
    You disappoint me.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    I will probably nay on this motion, I like points 1 and 3 but I want an overhaul of motions and amendments.

    In real life an MP moves a motion and then someone seconds it, whilst on TSR a motion is almost forced on the house. I'd like for motions and amendments to be put into division for 1 day where the vote is if people will second it or not, once a threshold has been reached it re-enters for discussion.
    The **** is the point in that... we might as well just put it straight to division for a vote to allow it or not...!
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Aph)
    I was under the impression that it was implicit. After all you could bash any old names on there.
    I will consider but I'm likely to vote nay due to the current constitutional amendment.

    You disappoint me.
    That's alright, the feeling is most likely mutual.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: July 29, 2016
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”

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.