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

A196 - Constitutional Comittee Amendment Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    Yes it will cost them their seat in the party but if they win a seat as a indie then entered the committee they would have some influence. This is in fact a loophole In your proposal and could be exploited.
    That's a risky tactic, if labour ran 17 candidates instead of their party they wouldn't get outside votes and even if they didn't they would have at least 1 less seat.

    Also the speaker has the ability to stop that from happening, Petros could have stopped Nigel's lib dem party but did not, that is something the constitution gives them the right to do.

    3) In a general election a maximum of 16 parties and independents can stand, parties and independents from a previous election will get priority over anyone else. The Speaker again has the discretion to remove people from standing in the general election.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Okay so time for a detailed analysis.

    indies shouldn't be allowed on the committee or they, like everyone else should be made to have been an MP for over a year. And the DS should sit too.


    Separation of powers!!!! Parliament should not be the dictator of whether parliament broke the law.
    And (6) is pointless because they can do that anyway... it's called being a member of the house.

    Enactment of the Constitution:

    should be a sub-Forum to prevent ambassadors being whipped.

    the speaker, being elected by the house, should get at least 2 votes.

    who puts it to vote? What kind of poll?
    what kind of vote? Surely if the vote for breachment just passes then the punishment will be 'slap on the wrist'. There should be a clause that breaching parties cannot be their own judge.
    define errors in the constitution?
    banning an individual from the MHoC is a moderation issue not a speakership one. And how is calling a general election ever a proportional action?!
    this should all be removed.[/field]


    Spoiler:
    Show



    A lot of this is just a copy of A17 but I have changed it slightly.


    I'll add more requirements for indies.

    The reason I removed the ds is that they are still involved in party politics.

    I'll remove it if people would like it removed

    Ok

    I had considered giving the speaker more votes but I was not sure how that would work, possibly give the speaker the tie breaking ability as well as a vote.

    That would be the speaker, what type of poll? I would leave that to the committee to decide how they deal with it whether it is just a normal tsr poll stv or something else.

    The ban from the MHoC was just something the original version had it could be a ban on submitting legislation or I could just remove those.
    If multiple parties decided to break the rules during the election then it would probably need to be rerun.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    We elect a speaker to carry out these decisions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Nay.

    We elect a speaker to carry out these decisions.
    Why is that better?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Why is that better?
    Because it means decisions can be made realtively quickly, it keeps party politics out of it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Because it means decisions can be made realtively quickly, it keeps party politics out of it.
    So you would prefer quick decisions rather than good decisions? Petros made a quick decision then changed it when members involved in party politics complained this ensures that the right decision is made quicker.

    Also we trust the deputy speaker to separate their role from party politics
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you would prefer quick decisions rather than good decisions? Petros made a quick decision then changed it when members involved in party politics complained this ensures that the right decision is made quicker.

    Also we trust the deputy speaker to separate their role from party politics
    Quick decisions do not always mean wrong decisions. And do we really want to wait 2/3 days before any decision by a speaker can be made?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Quick decisions do not always mean wrong decisions. And do we really want to wait 2/3 days before any decision by a speaker can be made?
    They don't but it does mean that it's quick, I would rather someone taking time to solve the issue rather than doing the first thing that comes to mind
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    They don't but it does mean that it's quick, I would rather someone taking time to solve the issue rather than doing the first thing that comes to mind
    I dont think any rational speaker would just do the first thing that came into their head.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Take advantage of the Speakership election to elect someone you like rather than forming bureaucracies. Nobody tries to act partisan in the speaker role anyway because this is a game
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    Take advantage of the Speakership election to elect someone you like rather than forming bureaucracies. Nobody tries to act partisan in the speaker role anyway because this is a game
    For someone who likes libertarianism I would have thought you would support taking power away from 1 figure and giving it to the people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    For someone who likes libertarianism I would have thought you would support taking power away from 1 figure and giving it to the people.
    I'm a Marxist now tho. Gulags and cookies for the masses
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Is the speaker always right?
    In the eyes of the law, yes.

    There is no need to decentralise decision-making, indeed it's a bad idea. It's bad enough when everyone chips in now – imagine if there weren't the authority voice there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    I'm a Marxist now tho. Gulags and cookies for the masses
    Yay cookies


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As I've said in the past, we need to make the role of the Speakership team is becoming increasingly demanding; reforms like this relieve the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, which is why I seconded this bill.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    In the eyes of the law, yes.

    There is no need to decentralise decision-making, indeed it's a bad idea. It's bad enough when everyone chips in now – imagine if there weren't the authority voice there.
    Perhaps a case which might be worth noting is TMD, although often the house will vote for moderate voices imagine if TMD had become speaker. I could see him quite easily make up accusations against different individuals and become judge, jury and executioner.

    The question we have to ask ourselves is wether it is right to invest this much power in any one person. In most cases it is, but what about the few where such action has disastrous results?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Perhaps a case which might be worth noting is TMD, although often the house will vote for moderate voices imagine if TMD had become speaker. I could see him quite easily make up accusations against different individuals and become judge, jury and executioner.

    The question we have to ask ourselves is wether it is right to invest this much power in any one person. In most cases it is, but what about the few where such action has disastrous results?
    Then he gets VoNCed (or potentially banned if he does what IIRC he did in the MUN) like any other speaker that abuses the position.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emily Porter)
    As I've said in the past, we need to make the role of the Speakership team is becoming increasingly demanding; reforms like this relieve the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, which is why I seconded this bill.
    Incidentally why do you think it is becoming increasingly demanding?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Incidentally why do you think it is becoming increasingly demanding?
    The constant criticism of the Speakership team, sometimes even without explanation; the expectations of the Speakership team etc.

    Constitutional reforms such as introducing a Constitutional Committee, and appointing a personal assistant, would help relieve the stress on the Speakership team. Had Petros had more support, and had issues raised before they blew up, then he would most likely not have resigned.
 
 
 
Updated: June 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
Liquorice: Love it, or loathe it?

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.