Speakership Reform Proposal and Debate Watch

Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Greetings, I'm creating a new thread to separate this from Pet's resignation. I hope you're alright with this debate—it's only theoretical so far, though if enough people like the ideas presented here, I'm prepared to draft a constitutional amendment.

Like I said there:

(Original post by Life_peer)
This along with other short tenures which have become the norm in the past couple of years makes me wonder if it wouldn't be best to revamp the Speakership itself by separating the administrative part from the decision-making part because we often see great administrators fail at decision-making and vice versa. We also see people being attracted by the decision-making part who seemingly underestimate the burden of daily work and then neglect it.
I've already received three replies to which I'm going to respond now:

(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
The Reddit Sim I use has tweaked the Speakership to allow this to happen. They have a Triumvirate of Speakers - and a consensus has to be achieved for a decision to be made, and then they of course take it in turns to be the administration speaker/leave it to the Deputies.
I think we have very few members and are too partisan for this to work reliably but perhaps it would have a chance given the right implementation. If you're willing to propose a specific model for us to consider, please do.

(Original post by adam9317)
I would say if you could get it to work, working out the technicalities of it, you would have a far more motivated and efficient speakership team no matter who was elected!
Yes, my idea is more or less based on principles of meritocracy. Let people do what they do best without the unnecessary burdens. The off-site wiki is a prime example of the fact that something that does not interest me at all may be attractive and rewarding to others. On the other hand, I enjoy problem-solving and finding fair solutions to new situations, and someone else might enjoy running and overseeing elections or being the liaison with the CT.

I don't believe we can find a single person in the House being able and willing to do it all at this time, however I'm confident we could find a few members fit for each of the necessary responsibilities and categories of tasks.

It could also provide additional safeguards similar to the separation of powers of the state.

(Original post by Aph)
For a long time I've been a fan of a speakership council to do it all. Would also mean that one individual doesn't get all the slack for poor results but the house wouldn't go for it.
My utmost priority is to achieve stability, fairness, and efficiency, not protect snowflakes from criticism, mind you. Elected public servants must be prepared and able to withstand above-normal pressure and take responsibility for their failures, thus I don't feel we should shield anyone beyond TSR rules (even if from JD's constant harassment, lol).

--------

Party leaders and current Speakership team, please see and respond to this. Plus some other reasonable and/or vocal senior persons.

mobbsy91 RayApparently Paracosm Unown Uzer DMcGovern PetrosAC cranbrook_aspie Rakas21 Jammy Duel Nigel Farage MEP Saracen's Fez CoffeeGeek
1
reply
Basiil17
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by Life_peer)
Greetings, I'm creating a new thread to separate this from Pet's resignation. I hope you're alright with this debate—it's only theoretical so far, though if enough people like the ideas presented here, I'm prepared to draft a constitutional amendment.

Like I said there:



I've already received three replies to which I'm going to respond now:



I think we have very few members and are too partisan for this to work reliably but perhaps it would have a chance given the right implementation. If you're willing to propose a specific model for us to consider, please do.



Yes, my idea is more or less based on principles of meritocracy. Let people do what they do best without the unnecessary burdens. The off-site wiki is a prime example of the fact that something that does not interest me at all may be attractive and rewarding to others. On the other hand, I enjoy problem-solving and finding fair solutions to new situations, and someone else might enjoy running and overseeing elections or being the liaison with the CT.

I don't believe we can find a single person in the House being able and willing to do it all at this time, however I'm confident we could find a few members fit for each of the necessary responsibilities and categories of tasks.

It could also provide additional safeguards similar to the separation of powers of the state.



My utmost priority is to achieve stability, fairness, and efficiency, not protect snowflakes from criticism, mind you. Elected public servants must be prepared and able to withstand above-normal pressure and take responsibility for their failures, thus I don't feel we should shield anyone beyond TSR rules (even if from JD's constant harassment, lol).

--------

Party leaders and current Speakership team, please see and respond to this. Plus some other reasonable and/or vocal senior persons.

mobbsy91 RayApparently Paracosm Unown Uzer DMcGovern PetrosAC cranbrook_aspie Rakas21 Jammy Duel Nigel Farage MEP Saracen's Fez CoffeeGeek
Love it LP, it would mean we don't have unreliable speakers/ neglect of key things. I would run for an elections/CT liaison position if this was created. PS, if you need a seconder for this amendment, I will second it.
0
reply
littleswany
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Life_peer)
Greetings, I'm creating a new thread to separate this from Pet's resignation. I hope you're alright with this debate—it's only theoretical so far, though if enough people like the ideas presented here, I'm prepared to draft a constitutional amendment.

Like I said there:



I've already received three replies to which I'm going to respond now:



I think we have very few members and are too partisan for this to work reliably but perhaps it would have a chance given the right implementation. If you're willing to propose a specific model for us to consider, please do.



Yes, my idea is more or less based on principles of meritocracy. Let people do what they do best without the unnecessary burdens. The off-site wiki is a prime example of the fact that something that does not interest me at all may be attractive and rewarding to others. On the other hand, I enjoy problem-solving and finding fair solutions to new situations, and someone else might enjoy running and overseeing elections or being the liaison with the CT.

I don't believe we can find a single person in the House being able and willing to do it all at this time, however I'm confident we could find a few members fit for each of the necessary responsibilities and categories of tasks.

It could also provide additional safeguards similar to the separation of powers of the state.



My utmost priority is to achieve stability, fairness, and efficiency, not protect snowflakes from criticism, mind you. Elected public servants must be prepared and able to withstand above-normal pressure and take responsibility for their failures, thus I don't feel we should shield anyone beyond TSR rules (even if from JD's constant harassment, lol).

--------

Party leaders and current Speakership team, please see and respond to this. Plus some other reasonable and/or vocal senior persons.

mobbsy91 RayApparently Paracosm Unown Uzer DMcGovern PetrosAC cranbrook_aspie Rakas21 Jammy Duel Nigel Farage MEP Saracen's Fez CoffeeGeek
This looks like an interesting proposal, not a party leader or senior person, hope you don't mind my comments...

Doing logistical stuff such as as you mentioned the election would interest me but at this point I would not have enough knowledge to be the speaker so perhaps if the two aspects were separated as you suggest more people might get involved whilst at the same time reducing the burden.
0
reply
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
A general debate around how the Speakership team works is probably constructive given the fact that two Speakers have resigned in four months, so I will let this thread stay up.
0
reply
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Life_peer Brilliant idea, you get the best of both worlds, with those speakers who enjoy certain parts of the work not getting bogged down in the **** they hate, plus this should aid stability in the house, with less speakers cutting their time short. I think if we look at the tenure of the deputy speakers in the past, compared to speakers; it shows the work load can be a main driving factor in the frequent changes of the team.

I would be happy to second any amendment to this effect of what LP has written above
0
reply
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
My concern with expanding the speakership team is that I would still want anyone involved in speakership duties to be politically neutral – and frankly I'm not convinced there are enough things to do in the role for lots of people to want to be active and impartial.

There are some things that could be taken out of the speaker's remit though were an admin team to be set up, such as Hansard etc.

Really the update every night is a reasonably quick process once you get the hang of it and sort out a routine to make sure you do everything you need to.

I would oppose a sort of cross-party speakership council, that's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
0
reply
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Also I personally resigned because it got a bit monotonous and I got fed up of having to bite my tongue. There's nothing that can be done really about that other than let the speaker be partisan (bad idea).

Whilst not wanting hugely short terms I don't see why people are so concerned that speakers are doing terms of less than a year.


The only possible solution I can see bar the aforementioned admin team is to have an impartial (possibly let them join a party and debate but not vote as an MP?) deputy speaker and give them a more regular admin workload.
0
reply
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
I support the idea of having a team of 3 speakers who are considered equal (instead of having a speaker and a deputy speaker); they take it in turns to carry out administrative work but have to make major decisions collectively. If there is any situation where one must take the lead (e.g. scheduling who carries out updates on which days, or deciding who runs general elections), then maybe the longest serving could be considered 'first amongst equals'. The only question about this system is whether neutrality would be expected from all three at all times - I think it would be a shame to take away three presumably experienced members from partisan politics - maybe it could work in the same way as deputy speakers tend to perform the role, wherein they are only neutral when they are undertaking official business.
0
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by DreamlinerFinder)
Love it LP, it would mean we don't have unreliable speakers/ neglect of key things. I would run for an elections/CT liaison position if this was created. PS, if you need a seconder for this amendment, I will second it.
Cheers, I appreciate the support! I don't want to get into anything specific yet but rather attempt to make this a bottom-up collective effort since I've noticed that radical amendments such as what this initiative aims to be sometimes get rejected due to details and that it's more difficult to change one's mind later.

(Original post by littleswany)
This looks like an interesting proposal, not a party leader or senior person, hope you don't mind my comments...

Doing logistical stuff such as as you mentioned the election would interest me but at this point I would not have enough knowledge to be the speaker so perhaps if the two aspects were separated as you suggest more people might get involved whilst at the same time reducing the burden.
By all means, your comments are welcome. After all, you and ones like you are the future of this MHoC and we need to expand our membership.

Indeed. Updating the hansard doesn't require a long-time experience, yet creating rulings supported by our rules and precedent does. I don't see why the person doing the latter had to do the former or why the person doing the former had to stay impartial and without party membership.

(Original post by adam9317)
Life_peer Brilliant idea, you get the best of both worlds, with those speakers who enjoy certain parts of the work not getting bogged down in the **** they hate, plus this should aid stability in the house, with less speakers cutting their time short. I think if we look at the tenure of the deputy speakers in the past, compared to speakers; it shows the work load can be a main driving factor in the frequent changes of the team.

I would be happy to second any amendment to this effect of what LP has written above
Thank you for the support!

Speaking of tenures, I think it would be a good idea to limit their length so that we don't end up with certain roles set in stone as it was in the case of toronto353's Deputy Speakership. These could be overruled if let's say 80% of the House expressed support for the present incumbent to protect the House from genuinely good figures being forced to retire prematurely despite their major positive effect.

The main motivation for this is to ensure that members have a realistic chance of progression to a more important public role in the foreseeable future and to partially prevent the House from apathy.
0
reply
Paracosm
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
This is a really interesting idea - I'm running on empty at the moment, so I'll give full thoughts after I've perked up later on. Thanks LP I definitely agree something needs to be done to bring about stability here, because the situation is quite dire imo.
0
reply
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
I agree there needs to be reform, however, I not believe the reform needs to be formal involving amendments to the Constitution and Guidance Document. Part of my manifesto for Speaker is to improve cooperation with the Deputy Speaker to share the burden of tasks; updating the Hansard, keeping voting reviews, and communicating with the CT is not something requiring political neutrality and there is no reason the DS cannot have their role expanded to include helping out. The decision making will rest with the Speaker as it is now but the unarguable admin tasks are being shared out. Creating a third position, passing amendments, and considering a change to form a Speakers' council is not needed when there is a second elected individual whose role is small.
0
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
My concern with expanding the speakership team is that I would still want anyone involved in speakership duties to be politically neutral – and frankly I'm not convinced there are enough things to do in the role for lots of people to want to be active and impartial.
I second this, political neutrality in the case of the ‘decision-maker’ is a must. I do not propose to let this person or a set of persons join parties, present their political views during their tenure, or support any party in any way.

There are some things that could be taken out of the speaker's remit though were an admin team to be set up, such as Hansard etc.

Really the update every night is a reasonably quick process once you get the hang of it and sort out a routine to make sure you do everything you need to.
This is a good idea if we want a quick fix with easy implementation, though I think that a larger reform is more likely to succeed in the long run since this is just taking some of the responsibilities and passing them onto a few others.

I would oppose a sort of cross-party speakership council, that's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Likewise. I'm not trying to implement a forceful equality scheme. It should be as apolitical and meritocratic as possible.

(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Also I personally resigned because it got a bit monotonous and I got fed up of having to bite my tongue. There's nothing that can be done really about that other than let the speaker be partisan (bad idea).

Whilst not wanting hugely short terms I don't see why people are so concerned that speakers are doing terms of less than a year.


The only possible solution I can see bar the aforementioned admin team is to have an impartial (possibly let them join a party and debate but not vote as an MP?) deputy speaker and give them a more regular admin workload.
I think the issue with short terms is that it's an indicator of decline but the main problem is what happens during those terms, and perhaps that there is a visible lack of commitment.

(Original post by cBay)
I support the idea of having a team of 3 speakers who are considered equal (instead of having a speaker and a deputy speaker); they take it in turns to carry out administrative work but have to make major decisions collectively. If there is any situation where one must take the lead (e.g. scheduling who carries out updates on which days, or deciding who runs general elections), then maybe the longest serving could be considered 'first amongst equals'. The only question about this system is whether neutrality would be expected from all three at all times - I think it would be a shame to take away three presumably experienced members from partisan politics - maybe it could work in the same way as deputy speakers tend to perform the role, wherein they are only neutral when they are undertaking official business.
I don't like the idea of turning the Speakership into the Socialist party, sorry. You've described the current Speaker who can sometimes be partisan, with two deputies partially bound by an additional layer of equality which de facto doesn't exist and only complicates all decision-making due to a single kingmaker, two mates against one, or whatever social effect that makes small-group democracy ineffective and underperforming.
1
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Life_peer)
I don't like the idea of turning the Speakership into the Socialist party, sorry. You've described the current Speaker who can sometimes be partisan, with two deputies partially bound by an additional layer of equality which de facto doesn't exist and only complicates all decision-making due to a single kingmaker, two mates against one, or whatever social effect that makes small-group democracy ineffective and underperforming.
What CBay proposed there (excluding his longest serving criteria) is incredibly similar to afcwimbledon2's suggestion you quoted in the OP suggesting reservations over practicality in the current demographics but not outright rejection...

So, what are you seeing in practice different between:

Three speakers making a decision by consensus; taking it in turns to be the administration speaker (Afcwimbledon2s suggestion) and;
Three speakers taking it in turns to be the administration speaker, but making decisions as a collective (CBays post).
0
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#14
PetrosAC Could you please postpone your resignation and especially the upcoming Speakership election for a few days until we discuss this? It's been received rather well so far and I think there is enough demand to warrant that.
1
reply
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
What CBay proposed there (excluding his longest serving criteria) is incredibly similar to afcwimbledon2's suggestion you quoted in the OP suggesting reservations over practicality in the current demographics but not outright rejection...

So, what are you seeing in practice different between:

Three speakers making a decision by consensus; taking it in turns to be the administration speaker (Afcwimbledon2s suggestion) and;
Three speakers taking it in turns to be the administration speaker, but making decisions as a collective (CBays post).
I should have been more critical of the triumvirate but since Afcwimbledon2 has recently resurfaced after a long period of inactivity, I wanted to encourage him to propose a specific implementation tailored for the MHoC which he thinks would work best for others including myself to consider with greater care.

cBay's suggestion came later and made me realise how similar it is to the Socialist party leadership and ultimately reject due to constructs such as equality followed by ‘first amongst equals’ or the conditionally changing requirement of neutrality.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
I'll take a look in the morning.
0
reply
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
I will support this - it will be interesting to see how this is implemented. However, the circumstances are very extreme and it tests the very existence of the House, so there must be stability, and if this brings that, which I'm sure it will- then I will definitely support it.
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
I'm nit sure electing one judge and one administrator from amongst us would work well. This is why I prefer a tiumerate model where all 3 are equal as it's more likely to produce balanced judgements and there are more hands to do administrative tasks.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
I don't think we need anything quite so radical. In my opinion we don't use the deputies nearly enough as evidenced by the Hansard for example.

I say that we should make the deputy speakership a full time position like speaker.

I also think that one of the problems is electing speakers people like, not always the best candidate.

That said, I hereby endorse Fez for speaker again. He was the last speaker to be both trusted and reasonably authoritative.
0
reply
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by Aph)
I'm nit sure electing one judge and one administrator from amongst us would work well. This is why I prefer a tiumerate model where all 3 are equal as it's more likely to produce balanced judgements and there are more hands to do administrative tasks.
The three members will have to be active, knowledgeable, and experienced, taking three of that type of member from the MHoC will be be the beginning of the end for the MHoC as activity would decline. The work of Speaker is not difficult, it is that previous Speakers have not managed their time in the right way, did not communicate with the deputy as much as they should have, and did not have the right personality to be Speaker.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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 did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (337)
15.64%
The paper was reasonable (1172)
54.39%
Not feeling great about that exam... (466)
21.62%
It was TERRIBLE (180)
8.35%

Watched Threads

View All