A230 – By-Election (Intervals) Amendment

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
A230 – By-Election (Intervals) Amendment
Proposed by: Saracen's Fez MP (Liberal Democrat)
Seconded by: 04MR17 MP (Liberal Democrat), Bailey14 MP (Labour), Joleee MP (Liberal Democrat), Rakas21 MP (Conservative), SoggyCabbages MP (Labour), TheRadishPrince MP (Liberal Democrat)

This House would adjust the Guidance Document as follows:

Remove the following from the section entitled 'MP Activity & Voting Reviews':

1) Four weeks after the State Opening of Parliament, the Speaker will publish a voting review outlining the turnout of each MP to all Division Lobby votes so far that term excluding amendments.

3) Four weeks after the previous voting review, another voting review will be published.

4) A new voting review is published every four weeks after and these procedures are repeated until the end of term.

And replace with the following, respectively:

1) Six weeks after the State Opening of Parliament, the Speaker will publish a voting review outlining the turnout of each MP to all Division Lobby votes so far that term excluding amendments.

3) Six weeks after the previous voting review, another voting review will be published.

4) A new voting review is published every six weeks after and these procedures are repeated until the end of term.

Notes
This amendment moves voting reviews to a six-weekly schedule from a four-weekly one. The move to a six-weekly schedule aims to reduce by-election fatigue, as well as to allow MPs elected in a by-election to settle into their roles before a new voting review and potentially a new by-election takes place.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
If it ain't broke...

This is yet another amendment targeting symptoms rather than causes
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Aye to this amendment.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
I don't like this one because in my opinion the voting review is a monthly moment of vague excitement in the House, plus the change will perhaps make whips lazier and drive down turnout.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
Right. I mean allowed an option, so here goes.

I understand the by-election fatigue argument, however that’s better solved by MPs voting rather than extending the by election gaps, it might help MPs who have taken over a poor seat and just need more items to vote on (I believe this happened last term) but that’s more down to luck and things actually being submitted.

Moreover thanks to the amendment by The Mogg by-elections are now over a shorter time period anyway.
0
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
At first glance I would have said aye, but after thinking about it, and considering the points of our dear speaker and deputy speaker, I will probably go with Nay.
(Original post by Andrew97)
Moreover thanks to the amendment by The Mogg by-elections are now over a shorter time period anyway.
Image
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
I suppose I should also add here that I have already lowered the thresholds with my previous amendment. More leeway on this matter would be overkill.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
I'm undecided on this one so will watch the debate.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Personally I actually like by-elections and think we should have more so I’m opposed.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Aph)
Personally I actually like by-elections and think we should have more so I’m opposed.
There is a real by-election fatigue however. I noticed it keenly as a party leader trying to get the wider membership to turn out to vote. However, as I say, this amendment isn't necessary since I reduced the voting review thresholds with an amendment which reduced by-election frequency anyway.
Last edited by CatusStarbright; 1 year ago
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
There is a real by-election fatigue however. I noticed it keenly as a party leader trying to get the wider membership to turn out to vote. However, as I say, this amendment isn't necessary since I reduced the voting review thresholds with an amendment which reduced by-election frequency anyway.
The issue is that that only works as a solution provided the cases before were within the 40–50% or the 60–70% mark. If we have sustained voting below 40% then the by-election fatigue comes back. We've been quite good this term at not having that (plus having only an uncontested by-election so far) but I'd wager than in the last couple of terms we'd still have had a lot of by-elections.

(Original post by Andrew97)
Right. I mean allowed an option, so here goes.

I understand the by-election fatigue argument, however that’s better solved by MPs voting rather than extending the by election gaps, it might help MPs who have taken over a poor seat and just need more items to vote on (I believe this happened last term) but that’s more down to luck and things actually being submitted.

Moreover thanks to the amendment by The Mogg by-elections are now over a shorter time period anyway.
Many things would be better solved by MPs voting, but the reality is that some don't do this regularly. This would also reduce the chances of a month like the first one this term where the number of items was so small that it made a voting review quite unfair.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
I support this amendment.

I don’t really think that new people settling in is relevant or that we get particular fatigue however I do think that moving to even 8 weeks would provide better timed and more substantive by-elections.

I don’t buy the argument that the lower thresholds are substitutional because I consider them a mistake.

I also don’t think it makes the life of the leadership that much more easy because a leader who can’t manage their seats for three weeks is unlikely to manage them for six.
1
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Undecided on this one, but leaning towards no.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
The issue is that that only works as a solution provided the cases before were within the 40–50% or the 60–70% mark. If we have sustained voting below 40% then the by-election fatigue comes back. We've been quite good this term at not having that (plus having only an uncontested by-election so far) but I'd wager than in the last couple of terms we'd still have had a lot of by-elections.
There's an appropriate balance to be struck however, we can't dramatically reduce the chance of having by-elections because it makes the game less interesting and we can't have too many because of fatigue. It's a hard balance to find I admit.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
There's an appropriate balance to be struck however, we can't dramatically reduce the chance of having by-elections because it makes the game less interesting and we can't have too many because of fatigue. It's a hard balance to find I admit.
I feel like by-elections are only particularly interesting during slow periods in the House. Personally I'd rank them below most items in terms of interest and I think they're more of a faff.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I feel like by-elections are only particularly interesting during slow periods in the House. Personally I'd rank them below most items in terms of interest and I think they're more of a faff.
That is true, but then again we have had a number of slow periods in the last year or so.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
I object to the notion that they are faff, they are important methods of proper seat distribution.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#18
Division, clear the Lobby!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (166)
14.6%
I'm not sure (52)
4.57%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (335)
29.46%
I have already dropped out (34)
2.99%
I'm not a current university student (550)
48.37%

Watched Threads

View All