Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    A150 – Voting Review Amendment
    Proposed by: TheDefiniteArticle MP (Soc)
    Seconded by: cranbrook_aspie MP (Lab), DMcGovern MP (Soc), JoeL1994 MP (Lab), PetrosAC MP (Lib), Quamquam123 MP (Lab)

    Amend the Guidance Document as follows:

    Under 3.2, MP Seat Allocation:

    Replace: "4) MPs are not allowed to switch from one seat number to another seat number unless;
    a. a period of four weeks has passed
    b. the member is a proxy MP who has not been an MP for more than four consecutive weeks before becoming a proxy MP, unless a period of four weeks has passed since last serving as an MP for four consecutive weeks. For the purposes of this bill the election period does not count towards those four weeks of not being an MP."

    With: "4) The Speaker shall reject any seat changes which are designed merely to boost the activity of a particular seat without effecting substantive changes in the party's MPs."
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    This seems like a much, much better wording and I support it wholeheartedly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    No, it's way too subjective. And I would've thought that people would want clarity in these clauses given how we have just seen how people like to bend anything that's not 100% objective. At most, I'd reduce the time to 3 weeks, but that's it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, the current rules restrict legitimate reasons for changing MPs.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    No, it's way too subjective. And I would've thought that people would want clarity in these clauses given how we have just seen how people like to bend anything that's not 100% objective. At most, I'd reduce the time to 3 weeks, but that's it.
    Naturally, it's a subjective question, but normally it's quite clear one way or another. The amendment is obstructive and Nigel himself has called it the 'worst thing he ever wrote in MHoC'. This retains the ability to block attempts to simply get through a loophole, but allows the flexibility which is justified in a game where people often need to take short periods of time off.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, the current rules are obstructive in a way they weren't intended to be and by the looks of things quite hard to enforce. The Speaker is an intelligent individual who I think we can trust not to be too biased in the application of this, so that shouldn't be an issue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    We simply need a balance between not changing seats to boost activity, yet not effecting true and effective operation of a party.

    This is too subjective
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye, I have written an amendment coming tomorrow to repeal the amendment this changes; I shall support this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is a reasonable proposal.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Naturally, it's a subjective question, but normally it's quite clear one way or another. The amendment is obstructive and Nigel himself has called it the 'worst thing he ever wrote in MHoC'. This retains the ability to block attempts to simply get through a loophole, but allows the flexibility which is justified in a game where people often need to take short periods of time off.
    That's what proxies are for if someone needs a short period off
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Aye, the current rules are obstructive in a way they weren't intended to be and by the looks of things quite hard to enforce. The Speaker is an intelligent individual who I think we can trust not to be too biased in the application of this, so that shouldn't be an issue.
    Let us all decide for ourselves whether we trust him or not.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Sure, why not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye. We should be able to trust the Speaker to carry this out amendment properly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    To say TDA wants things to be definite and absolute it sounds an awful lot like he is a fan of flexibility where it helps his own party.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    To say TDA wants things to be definite and absolute it sounds an awful lot like he is a fan of flexibility where it helps his own party.
    To clarify, this isn't perfect. However, the status quo is obviously unacceptable, and I couldn't come up with a way of both getting rid of this silly rule, which nobody (I'd submit including the Speaker) really understands, and which is really obstructive to legitimate changes; as well as continuing to prevent the possibility for seat-changes to circumvent the voting reviews.

    Also, this is certain. It is permissible to make any seat change unless it is intended to circumvent the rules. The importance of certainty is that individuals know what they are and aren't permitted to do. There is no problem with that here.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This amendment is in cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This amendment has been withdrawn.
 
 
 
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: August 8, 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.