Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

A185 - Speakership Motion Amendment (Second Reading)

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Speakership Motion Amendment

    Proposed: Nigel Farage MEP (Con)
    Seconded: Unown Uzer MP (UKIP), Jammy Duel MP, Fleky6910 MP (Con), Richpanda MP (UKIP)


    Add to the Guidance Document under General Elections:

    11) At the opening of each Parliament, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker shall each undergo a vote of confidence by MPs.
    a) The motion for each shall poll read 'I move that Speaker/Deputy Speaker's name do take the Chair of this House as Speaker/Deputy speaker.'
    b) The options shall be: aye, no, abstain.
    c) The motion will be passed if more MPs vote Aye than No
    d) If the motion fails a Speakership, or Deputy Speakership election will start.
    e) Both confirmation motions shall take place at the same time.

    Add to the Guidance Document under Speaker Elections

    8) The process for Speaker elections when both positions are vacant:
    a) The Deputy Speaker will remain in position to conduct the Speaker election following the standard process for electing a Speaker.
    b) The Speaker may continue in their position until a replacement is elected, or choose to leave their position.
    i) if the Speaker chooses to leave, the Deputy Speaker shall assume Speaker duties until the election for a replacement is complete.
    c) When the new Speaker has been elected, the new Speaker shall conduct a Deputy Speaker election to find the new Deputy Speaker.
    d) If the Deputy Speaker is unavailable to conduct the Speaker election, the Serjeant-at-arms will conduct the election.

    Changes

    Section is being added to Speaker Elections to set out a process for who the MHoC will move forward in the event of both confidence motions failing.

    Notes

    The purpose of this amendment is to change the formality at the start of term to allow MPs to have a vote of confidence in the Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker. Both members serve in a similar capacity so it is fair both members are subject to the same confirmation process at the start of term.

    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I guess that this gets the process over and done with more quickly, not that that's hugely important as a confirmation motion doesn't stop business.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I can see how this will work. BUT... who runs the elections in this instance. Do we have the equivalent of a 'father of the house' who could support this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    I can see how this will work. BUT... who runs the elections in this instance. Do we have the equivalent of a 'father of the house' who could support this.
    What? If both seats are simultaneously up for election for any reason the DS elects the Speaker, then the new Speaker the DS. If neither is able to do it the sergeant at arms does it, which makes me think, maybe the Sergeant at arms needs formalising somewhere, or alternatively it is more generally worded so instead of referring to a position that technically doesn't exist it is made that the CT runs it, worded in such a way that their stooge in the MHoC has the authority.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What? If both seats are simultaneously up for election for any reason the DS elects the Speaker, then the new Speaker the DS. If neither is able to do it the sergeant at arms does it, which makes me think, maybe the Sergeant at arms needs formalising somewhere, or alternatively it is more generally worded so instead of referring to a position that technically doesn't exist it is made that the CT runs it, worded in such a way that their stooge in the MHoC has the authority.
    I just feel like such a simultaneous action should have neither speaker involved. It's another natural check and something like a Sergeant at arms would help here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    I just feel like such a simultaneous action should have neither speaker involved. It's another natural check and something like a Sergeant at arms would help here.
    Section 8(d) calls for a Serjeant-at-arms to run the election if the Speaker, or Deputy Speaker cannot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    I just feel like such a simultaneous action should have neither speaker involved. It's another natural check and something like a Sergeant at arms would help here.
    I would say that the same argument could be made for all speakership elections. The argument requires that we do not trust the person holding the election to be honest, it requires that we assume they're going to rig the election one way or another, and this lack of trust should not be something that begins when they are leaving.

    For the record, Nigel Farage MEP PetrosAC, I won't be supporting progression until the "sergeant at arms" bit of the change is adjusted as per post 4
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Section 8(d) calls for a Serjeant-at-arms to run the election if the Speaker, or Deputy Speaker cannot.
    I'm suggesting we formalise this so a Sergeant at arms always runs these elections.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would say that the same argument could be made for all speakership elections. The argument requires that we do not trust the person holding the election to be honest, it requires that we assume they're going to rig the election one way or another, and this lack of trust should not be something that begins when they are leaving.

    For the record, Nigel Farage MEP PetrosAC, I won't be supporting progression until the "sergeant at arms" bit of the change is adjusted as per post 4
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I would say that the same argument could be made for all speakership elections. The argument requires that we do not trust the person holding the election to be honest, it requires that we assume they're going to rig the election one way or another, and this lack of trust should not be something that begins when they are leaving.

    For the record, Nigel Farage MEP PetrosAC, I won't be supporting progression until the "sergeant at arms" bit of the change is adjusted as per post 4
    Noted
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. I feel existing procedures are sufficient for confidence in the Speaker, and ultimately Speakership changing causes damage.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    nay; the current provisions are sufficient.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to vote Nay.

    I feel like what you are describing is common sense and we already decided last summer that Financier would take the reigns were both absent.

    Not a bad idea but your filling our documents with twaddle, we don't need to codify the process for going to the toilet.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm going to vote Nay.

    I feel like what you are describing is common sense and we already decided last summer that Financier would take the reigns were both absent.

    Not a bad idea but your filling our documents with twaddle, we don't need to codify the process for going to the toilet.
    What are you opinions on the other half of the amendment?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    What are you opinions on the other half of the amendment?
    Seems reasonable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This item has entered cessation
 
 
 
Updated: April 24, 2017
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.

Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?

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.