A235 – By-Elections (Intervals) Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
A235 – By-Election (Intervals) Amendment

Proposed by: Rt. Hon. Connor27 MP (Conservative)
Seconded by: Rt. Hon. CatusStarbright MP (Deputy Speaker, Independent); Rt. Hon. Quirky Editor MP (Labour); Hon. The Mogg MP (Conservative); Rt. Hon. EagleKingdom MP (Conservative)

This House would adjust the Guidance Document as follows:

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

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.

And replace with the following, respectively:


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.

Notes

This amendment reverses the effects of VA230 and reverts the voting review procedure back to its original 4 week interval.

The proposers believe that waiting 6 weeks for the first voting review reduces scrutiny and accountability of MPs which ultimately makes the political aspect of the game less exciting with less by elections.

We therefore believing that reverting this change could create more political excitement and therefore activity within the House.

0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
We get it, you're upset you didn't win the election.

I would also say to the proposer: if you want more activity stop being such a chicken and be man enough to debate items before the house rather than trying to get more Tory vobots. You can pretend that isn't the reason, but nobody's buying it
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Regardless of what Mr Duel may claim, amendments are a non-partisan issue. Indeed the highly popular politically independent Deputy Speaker willingly seconded this; as did the government chief whip and a highly prominent Labour MP.

The issue here is about making the game more exciting (as by elections undoubtably do) and challenging MPs to be more accountable and actually bother to engage in the MHoC; otherwise those seats could easily be given to parties with other active members.

I would urge every member regardless of partisan affiliation to support this amendment.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#4
Right. So I was against the amendment that made it 6 weeks in the first place, as I believe the lower thresholds were sufficient enough. So I guess I’m in favour of this. Plus more by-elections means more engagement opportunities
1
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
I will be voting against this amendment
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
I shall also be voting against this amendment. The proposers should be aware of election fatigue.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
Aye.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
I shall also be voting against this amendment. The proposers should be aware of election fatigue.
Election fatigue? This just reverts things to the way they were. You’ve been around a while, can you name me any instances of election fatigue?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Connor27)
Regardless of what Mr Duel may claim, amendments are a non-partisan issue. Indeed the highly popular politically independent Deputy Speaker willingly seconded this; as did the government chief whip and a highly prominent Labour MP.

The issue here is about making the game more exciting (as by elections undoubtably do) and challenging MPs to be more accountable and actually bother to engage in the MHoC; otherwise those seats could easily be given to parties with other active members.

I would urge every member regardless of partisan affiliation to support this amendment.
If you really are concerned about a lack of activity could you explain to the house your own inactivity onsite? You seem to have plenty of time to make yourself look like a moron offsite so it isn't even a lack of time.

It is neither a measure to improve accountability, nor activity because your party continues to oppose a review system that rewards activity rather than bi-weekly logins, it is part of your desperate attempt to be in government.

How many active members have been elected in by-elections in recent years, not including where an active member was used for name recognition or to get around the rules with their original seat being filled by a vobot?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
No, we don't need by-elections as often as every four weeks, as they could potentially end up being.
0
yaseen1000
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
NAY
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
No, we don't need by-elections as often as every four weeks, as they could potentially end up being.
You said yourself that the Liberal Democrats have active members who are unable to have seats while Labour have so many that they are appointing newly created accounts with 0 posts on TSR whatsoever (never mind in MHoC) to MP positions - surely you see the benefit of having an expedited by election in terms of redistributing seats so that more active people get them? This amendment would be a massive benefit to all parties in the house bar one.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
It’s telling when you look at the people opposing this though (other than Jammy being a bitter old sod as per) it’s clear that this government is already terrified of losing its majority and wants to push back that inevitability as much as possible!

Such a shame to see Labour and the Liberal Democrats viewing an amendment designed for the good of everyone (as I pointed out to Fez) in such a short term party political lens.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Connor27)
You said yourself that the Liberal Democrats have active members who are unable to have seats while Labour have so many that they are appointing newly created accounts with 0 posts on TSR whatsoever (never mind in MHoC) to MP positions - surely you see the benefit of having an expedited by election in terms of redistributing seats so that more active people get them? This amendment would be a massive benefit to all parties in the house bar one.
And I'm putting that party interest aside for what I consider to be the wider House's interest, as someone who finds by-elections on the whole very tedious.

Also, last term we would have been that party that dreaded the voting review. I'm not that short-termist.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Andrew97)
Right. So I was against the amendment that made it 6 weeks in the first place, as I believe the lower thresholds were sufficient enough. So I guess I’m in favour of this. Plus more by-elections means more engagement opportunities
This is exactly my reasoning for seconding this.
0
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
I'm not sure the possibility of four-weekly by elections is the right approach, so I'll be voting against this.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
I'm not sure the possibility of four-weekly by elections is the right approach, so I'll be voting against this.
Voting reviews (not by elections necessarily) every 4 weeks was literally the norm for years in MHoC until a few months ago when an amendment was narrowly passed which pointlessly tinkered with the guidance document.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
I shall also be voting against this amendment. The proposers should be aware of election fatigue.
(Original post by Connor27)
Election fatigue? This just reverts things to the way they were. You’ve been around a while, can you name me any instances of election fatigue?
I should also point out that due to another amendment by Mogg, the by-elections are over a shorter time period anyway. So fatiague is less likely to be an issue. Also with the lower thresholds means there should be less seats lost and thus by-elections anyway.

it may be worth having the first reicew after 6 weeks to give people time to settle in and for government subforum etc to be sorted out. But 4 weeks thereafter is reasonable.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
I'm not sure the possibility of four-weekly by elections is the right approach, so I'll be voting against this.
The thresholds at voting reviews were lowered (by me) to avoid this. Moving to six weeks made seats too safe - it went too far the other way.
0
Paracosm
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
I'll be voting for this amendment, it's important that MHoC remains interesting and six weeks is such an awfully long time. I think 4 weeks is the 'Goldilocks zone', so to speak...
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (201)
67%
No (99)
33%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed