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

VA171 - MP Dupe Checking Amendment Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this amendment be passed?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    22
    47.83%
    On the contrary, No
    20
    43.48%
    Abstain
    4
    8.70%

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    VA171 – MP Dupe Checking Amendment
    Proposed by: mobbsy91 MP (Con)
    Seconded by: adam9317 MP (Con), CoffeeGeek MP (Con), JoeL1994 MP (Lab), Quamquam123 MP (Lab), SoggyCabbages MP (Lab)



    MP Dupe Checking Amendment



    The following will be added to the MP Section in the Guidance Document:
    13) All MPs, including proxies, must have a dupe check carried out, either by the Speaker or the relevant Party Leader. If the Party Leader has already carried out a dupe check prior to the member becoming an MP, no further checks are necessary.
    14) If the MP or proxy has had no prior check, the check should be requested immediately when they are announced as MP or proxying, and the MP or proxy can fulfil their duties whilst awaiting the check to be completed. If the check comes back with a match to any other member of the MHoC, then normal appropriate action will be taken.
    15) Any Party Leader can ask the Speaker to investigate whether an MP has had a dupe check carried out.
    16) The Speaker should make a spreadsheet showing which members have been dupe checked, and the date of completion, viewable to the MHoC.

    Notes:
    Spoiler:
    Show


    At the moment there is no requirement for Party Leaders to dupe check members joining their Party, and also no requirements on any members becoming MPs. This amendment brings into effect that anyone becoming an MP or a proxy must have a dupe check carried out, at some point during their time in the MHoC. Please note that this amendment does allow members to be an MP or proxy whilst the check is being carried out.

    The spreadsheet recording which members have been checked and when would be started from the passing of this amendment, with no need to be done retrospectively.


    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    adam9317 this is a secret poll , is it meant to be?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    adam9317 this is a secret poll , is it meant to be?
    Amendments always have secret polls.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Amendments always have secret polls.
    Ok thx!
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Just to point out the speaker can't second and isn't a con...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Just to point out the speaker can't second and isn't a con...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    V! o! N! C! V! o! N! C!

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Just to point out the speaker can't second and isn't a con...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    He's a closet tory. Once a tory always a tory!
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Or right wing
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Just to point out the speaker can't second and isn't a con...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Or an MP
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No, this creates bureaucracy on an issue which should be left to party leaders.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. This is a seriously bad idea. Let me explain. When I created "Green_Pink", it was exceptionally easy to make sure it passed an initial dupe test (although in the event the Liberals didn't bother). This amendment isn't going to catch anyone with something vaguely resembling a brain cell or two, and instead will lead to people who may otherwise have aroused suspicion not being checked at a later date (when they may have let their guard drop) because of the fact they've already been passed as clean. At best it's unnecessary bureaucracy, at worst it's counter-productive.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Just to point out the speaker can't second and isn't a con...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I seconded this when I was in the house a few weeks back as an MP, as it was brought forward to the house then sat in cessation for a while!
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    V! o! N! C! V! o! N! C!

    Spoiler:
    Show




    Gotta wait two weeks
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, this creates bureaucracy on an issue which should be left to party leaders.
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Nay. This is a seriously bad idea. Let me explain. When I created "Green_Pink", it was exceptionally easy to make sure it passed an initial dupe test (although in the event the Liberals didn't bother). This amendment isn't going to catch anyone with something vaguely resembling a brain cell or two, and instead will lead to people who may otherwise have aroused suspicion not being checked at a later date (when they may have let their guard drop) because of the fact they've already been passed as clean. At best it's unnecessary bureaucracy, at worst it's counter-productive.
    What they said. ^^^
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm convinced, again by Saoirse. Nay.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    I see no reason to codify this and extend the beaurocratic hand of the state. Frankly if a party leader was stupid enough not to dupe check new members, they should be subject to a VoNC.

    The only good part of this is the spreadsheet and there's nothing stopping any one you (or the speaker) from compiling that anyway.

    (Original post by Aph)
    Just to point out the speaker can't second and isn't a con...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm pretty sure that prior speakers have done so although i can't remember if the rules were changed to stop it.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Nay.

    I see no reason to codify this and extend the beaurocratic hand of the state. Frankly if a party leader was stupid enough not to dupe check new members, they should be subject to a VoNC.

    The only good part of this is the spreadsheet and there's nothing stopping any one you (or the speaker) from compiling that anyway.



    I'm pretty sure that prior speakers have done so although i can't remember if the rules were changed to stop it.
    This was more to ensure that party leaders don't have the ability to add users to their party who they may know are dupes in order to keep high voting reviews...

    As you've said though, as this is likely to pass, I may just keep a spreadsheet myself
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    This was more to ensure that party leaders don't have the ability to add users to their party who they may know are dupes in order to keep high voting reviews...

    As you've said though, as this is likely to pass, I may just keep a spreadsheet myself
    I've requested dupe checks on people in other parties before. If you have suspicions about other MP's then people are free to act on them.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I've requested dupe checks on people in other parties before. If you have suspicions about other MP's then people are free to act on them.
    Yep, will most likely just do that in the future!
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Ayes to the right: 22
    Noes to the left: 20
    Abstentions: 4
    The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it! Unlock!
    Turnout: 92%
 
 
 
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: January 30, 2017
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.