A235 – By-Elections (Intervals) Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
Aye! Funny how the left don't support this almost like the 6 weeks interval is helping them survive!
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
Aye. More byelections means it's more exciting
1
Joleee
Badges: 18
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
what's exciting about by-elections(?).

the only good thing about MHoC is the debate. personally don't give a rip who's in government and how many seats one has; there is no prize at the end and if you're in government, it's just a role.

think someone mentioned in another thread that power is not in seats anyway, and i tend to agree. there is no guaranteed outcome of bills when each party has a 'wide church' of political opinions (so they claim in the Welcome thread when trying to sway people). especially with the option to abstain and limited whipping, we see a variety of results. ps the libertarian party passes lots of bills and there's only like 3 of them.

voting no on this because of my initial question. personally think by-elections are more boring and laborious than good debate and we should focus on the latter. but that's just personal taste.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by Joleee)
what's exciting about by-elections(?).
^^ This
1
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by Andrew97)
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.
I'd like to think they were both aware, since if memory serves me right they both seconded it.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
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
May I ask what your actual voting intention is, since you were openly against putting it to 6 weeks (well sort of, you did the whole "if it ain't broke don't fix it" shtick) but are also acting negatively towards reverting it back.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by The Mogg)
I'd like to think they were both aware, since if memory serves me right they both seconded it.

May I ask what your actual voting intention is, since you were openly against putting it to 6 weeks (well sort of, you did the whole "if it ain't broke don't fix it" shtick) but are also acting negatively towards reverting it back.
I'm undecided, probably going to oppose on the basis of the motivation behind it and complete BS argument provided, some honesty on the reason might change my mind but as long as Connor pretends it's about accountability (which it does absolutely nothing to solve) and activity (which it also does nothing to solve, and Connor refuses to contribute to himself) I am completely disinclined to support what is a wholly partisan move that is purely designed to "correct" a bad election and move more swiftly to the more damaging phase of the term, the phase where we see bill spammed out with no defence because there is a certain party in the house that cares not for debate, despite being part of a debating club, nor quality, but rather spamming out as much tripe as possible
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by Andrew97)
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.
Not really, the fatigue is from frequency, not length. A by-election that is, say, 2 days every 6 weeks will contribute as much fatigue as one that is 2 weeks long every 6 weeks, there is one every six weeks regardless. This just enhances that fatigue by making it every 4 weeks instead.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Joleee)
what's exciting about by-elections(?).

the only good thing about MHoC is the debate. personally don't give a rip who's in government and how many seats one has; there is no prize at the end and if you're in government, it's just a role.

think someone mentioned in another thread that power is not in seats anyway, and i tend to agree. there is no guaranteed outcome of bills when each party has a 'wide church' of political opinions (so they claim in the Welcome thread when trying to sway people). especially with the option to abstain and limited whipping, we see a variety of results. ps the libertarian party passes lots of bills and there's only like 3 of them.

voting no on this because of my initial question. personally think by-elections are more boring and laborious than good debate and we should focus on the latter. but that's just personal taste.
Not to those who are trying to use this amendment to reverse the election, to the Tories seats is power, the more seats they have the less they have to debate because they are more likely to be able to brute force things, have you never noticed that you get a rush of bills late in the term that are of lesser quality or are otherwise unlikely to pass?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by Mr T 999)
Aye! Funny how the left don't support this almost like the 6 weeks interval is helping them survive!
Funny how this appears immediately after the Tories are returned to their position of having to sit on bills because they can't brute force stuff, and few enough seats they're unlikely to be able to this term meaning they either have to publish very few bills this term or actually try and debate, something one has to question if any of them are able to given how often they hide in a fridge when they're asked uncomfortable questions
1
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I'm undecided, probably going to oppose on the basis of the motivation behind it and complete BS argument provided, some honesty on the reason might change my mind but as long as Connor pretends it's about accountability (which it does absolutely nothing to solve) and activity (which it also does nothing to solve, and Connor refuses to contribute to himself) I am completely disinclined to support what is a wholly partisan move that is purely designed to "correct" a bad election and move more swiftly to the more damaging phase of the term, the phase where we see bill spammed out with no defence because there is a certain party in the house that cares not for debate, despite being part of a debating club, nor quality, but rather spamming out as much tripe as possible
I was opposed to extending it to 6 weeks, and hence seconded putting it back to 4, since as Catus said both 6 week reviews and lower thresholds go too far. However, I would be either a complete idiot or a complete liar if I just disregarded the potential advantages it poses to my party, but that by no means is the only reason I seconded this. Just sort of "clearing" my name so to speak.
0
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
Some are saying four is too often, and others that six is not often enough. Why not go for five as a compromise?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by JMR2019.)
Some are saying four is too often, and others that six is not often enough. Why not go for five as a compromise?
No, four is an even number and was the tradition for years before years before Fez decided to introduce his tinkering amendments.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
if any of them are able to given how often they hide in a fridge when they're asked uncomfortable questions
There is a Bill that reflects people's freedom to choose what language they learn in our Party subforum. You have done absolutely sod all regarding the Bill, which I put in this morning and so you should have seen, especially since I quoted you in. Instead, you'd rather go against the other two Libertarian MPs, support the retention of an amendment put in by a lefty MP and s l a g off the Tories.

Do better.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
There is a Bill that reflects people's freedom to choose what language they learn in our Party subforum. You have done absolutely sod all regarding the Bill, which I put in this morning and so you should have seen, especially since I quoted you in. Instead, you'd rather go against the other two Libertarian MPs, support the retention of an amendment put in by a lefty MP and s l a g off the Tories.

Do better.
Amendments aren’t and shouldn’t be partisan. We must all decide where we stand based on what we think is best for the House as a whole.
2
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Amendments aren’t and shouldn’t be partisan. We must all decide where we stand based on what we think is best for the House as a whole.
Indeed, and I believe I’ve made the case for why 4 weeks is a benefit to the House in aggregate overall, and I hope that argument is convincing to all members (including LiberOfLondon whose support am I grateful for.)
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
I preferred the 6 weeks as this was fairer if someone had illness or something such as a bereavement. So Nay from me.
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
Abstain.

I seconded the original amendment because I felt that fewer but multi-seat elections are better for the house. I consider Catus weakening the thresholds to be far more damaging.

I've abstained because the difference is minimal in practise, parties are not stupid enough to lose 4 seats in 2 months.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by babertiops)
What a bunch of absolute virgins you all are with this pretend system on a student website you have.
Nuuuuuurse! He's off his meds again.
(edit - post history and username suggest this is Ttingtox. A ”man” who goes around calling meat eaters murderers and spends his life scrounging off the dole and saying he will rape your mum has no business insulting people and calling people virgins, when he is a incel himself. Painu helvettin, Ttingtox!)
Last edited by LiberOfLondon; 1 month ago
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Nuuuuuurse! He's off his meds again.
(edit - post history and username suggest this is Ttingtox. A ”man” who goes around calling meat eaters murderers and spends his life scrounging off the dole and saying he will rape your mum has no business insulting people and calling people virgins, when he is a incel himself. Painu helvettin, Ttingtox!)
If only Ttingtox could be MHoC PM...
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#40
Do not engage with the troll. Report and move on.
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 (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed