Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:







    Greetings MP's...

    As a result of the fourth voting review of the term, two parliamentry seats have a sufficiently low turnout to warrant a by-election.

    In accordance with the constitution and guidance document the timetable below is how this by-election will be undertaken...

    14) The duration of an election shall be 11 days.

    Day 0 – Election is announced by The Speaker.
    Day 0 - The Speaker will inform interested candidates/parties to submit their manifestos
    Friday 17th November (18:00) – All manifestos should have been received by The Speaker.
    Day 7 - The Speaker will post the manifestos in a thread in the Model House of Commons forum, add a secret 4 day poll with the option of “Spoilt Ballot”.
    Day 11 – The election closes and seats are assigned. The provisions for the manifestos are as follows..

    4) Manifestos submitted must be less than 600 words.

    i) Manifestos may not contain more than two image files.
    ii) Manifestos may contain one audio or video file:
    (A) lasting less than 90 seconds
    (B) containing less than 200 words (not included in the manifesto word count)
    (C) not infringing on copyright law
    iii) Manifestos may not contain pictures of, or quotes attributed to, any real-life figure, living or dead, political or otherwise.
    iv) Where a manifesto is received with more than 600 words, the Speaker will cut the manifesto at the 600-word mark.

    The Liberal and Socialist Parties will be prohibited from contesting the election or endorsing any candidate.

    The election will be multiple choice with the two highest scoring candidates being elected.

    *Speakers Note - With the recent closure of the Green/Democrat Party i have decided not to include that one seat in this by-election.

    It would be fundamentally unfair to prohibit the Liberal and Socialist parties from standing in an election for the seat given that it was not lost in a voting review and an election is due in five weeks.

    I have therefore judged that it is not practical to hold a by-election for the seat formerly held by the Green Party and parliament will proceed without this seat.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Hype hype hype
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker;

    By refusing to refill the Green Party seat; you are acting in contravention of subsection 3.1 of the MHOC constitution:

    “3.1. will elect 50 MPs using the d’Hondt method”

    By reducing the house to 49 MPs and not reallocating the seat using d’hondt from the GE or a by-election (which is established by precedent with the Nat Libs, the centre party, and the old Libers); you are clearly acting against the binding rules of the house, please explain your justification or reverse the decision.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Mr Speaker;

    By refusing to refill the Green Party seat; you are acting in contravention of subsection 3.1 of the MHOC constitution:

    “3.1. will elect 50 MPs using the d’Hondt method”

    By reducing the house to 49 MPs and not reallocating the seat using d’hondt from the GE or a by-election (which is established by precedent with the Nat Libs, the centre party, and the old Libers); you are clearly acting against the binding rules of the house, please explain your justification or reverse the decision.
    Technically we did elect 50 MPs though – there's nothing saying what happens beyond that initial election. Whilst I do think the Speaker is being overly rigid in failing to find a solution, I don't think he is being unconstitutional.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Why can’t there be separate polls instead of making us go the rest of the term with 49 seats?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Technically we did elect 50 MPs though – there's nothing saying what happens beyond that initial election. Whilst I do think the Speaker is being overly rigid in failing to find a solution, I don't think he is being unconstitutional.
    It all depends on ones interpretation of the constitution. You could find that you only have to elect 50 MPs using the d'Hondt method at the election is necessary. However. you could also construe this to mean that the House must have 50 MPs at all times, distributed by the d'Hondt method.

    Personally, I'd interpret this literally on its face value as the Speaker and yourself have done as there's no real ambiguity there and the wording is sufficiently definite.

    Statutory interpretation.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    Statutory interpretation.
    Has plagued this house for years.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Mr Speaker;

    By refusing to refill the Green Party seat; you are acting in contravention of subsection 3.1 of the MHOC constitution:

    “3.1. will elect 50 MPs using the d’Hondt method”

    By reducing the house to 49 MPs and not reallocating the seat using d’hondt from the GE or a by-election (which is established by precedent with the Nat Libs, the centre party, and the old Libers); you are clearly acting against the binding rules of the house, please explain your justification or reverse the decision.
    You forgot the key point.. that it is in the general election section.
    3.The General Election

    3.1. will elect 50 MPs using the d’Hondt method

    A general election did occur, 50 seats were distributed.. the winner of that seat no longer exists and as such your correct that ordinary precedent would suggest a by-election.. however we are 5 weeks from an election, we will realistically be 3 weeks by the time we have a validated result at best (i'm constitutionally mandated to hold this voting review by-election before you bring that up) and so we either have to include in this one (unfair to the Socialists and Liberals), run a concurrent by-election (the House gains nothing in terms the activity a by-election can bring/new voters it can draw) or have it after.

    I reject the idea that those ideas are realistically practical and so choose to exercise common sense.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You forgot the key point.. that it is in the general election section.
    3.The General Election

    3.1. will elect 50 MPs using the d’Hondt method

    A general election did occur, 50 seats were distributed.. the winner of that seat no longer exists and as such your correct that ordinary precedent would suggest a by-election.. however we are 5 weeks from an election, we will realistically be 3 weeks by the time we have a validated result at best (i'm constitutionally mandated to hold this voting review by-election before you bring that up) and so we either have to include in this one (unfair to the Socialists and Liberals), run a concurrent by-election (the House gains nothing in terms the activity a by-election can bring/new voters it can draw) or have it after.

    I reject the idea that those ideas are realistically practical and so choose to exercise common sense.
    Hear Hear! I fully support your reasoning and your decision in this matter.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Hear Hear! I fully support your reasoning and your decision in this matter.
    Of course you do; it benefits the freedom hating left by not following the constitution and long held precedent following a party disbanding or being closed down...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Of course you do; it benefits the freedom hating left by not following the constitution and long held precedent following a party disbanding or being closed down...
    It doesn't go against the constitution, though you are right that it does go against precedent. I feel that the reasons for breaking that precedent are valid in this case. I think I am able to look beyond how it would benefit my own party (which is a centrist party, not a left wing one) to what is best for the house, however. Still, I don't see how this benefits or disadvantage any wing. To be run fairly it would need to be the case that all parties would be able to stand in that election.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    In accordance with the guidance document no by-election will be held as only two manifestos (Libertarian and Conservative candidates) were received and a by-election is ergo not required. Seats 54 and 55 will be allocated to the respective candidates on Friday 1st December should the parliamentry term remain in session.
 
 
 
  • 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?
  • 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.