A22 - Discussion Watch

This discussion is closed.
daniel_williams
Badges: 15
#1
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#1
A22 (BruceTaylor)
When an election is called as per the rules laid out in this constitution, a postponement of thirty days can be achieved if at least seven MPs from three parties publicly request a vote on the issue in the House of Commons. A two day vote will then be held, with a simple majority of votes required. If the movement passes the election process must then start thirty days after the end of the vote.

It's for inserting between points 9 and 10 of the General Elections section
Nothos
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 10 years ago
#2
Allow me to explain the logic behind this amendment:

While the constitution does allow a two month extension to be granted, attempts to put the election forward one month were ignored by the government once the election had officially started despite various MPs, including the leader of the opposition, requesting one.

Therefore, I feel that while it is the government's job to call the election, we, the elected MPs of the commons should at least have some say about whether the election process is started immediately upon the dissolution of parliament or 30 days later.

I would also like to point out that independents count as a party, so if you have 3 MPs from the socialists, 3 from the libertarians and an independent, then the motion will carry.
0
Metrobeans
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 years ago
#3
Two day vote? Only 7 Mp's? :no:

I'm against the whole idea though. It is a benefit of being government that they get to decide when an election is called.
0
davireland
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 years ago
#4
despite the fact this is a student forum and it is a known fact that activity drops during exam period. Bruce, you have my complete support with this.
0
Ed.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 10 years ago
#5
Hmm, I can see the point of this - but surely it is a benefit of the government to be able to call elections when they want ?
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 years ago
#6
Has an election ever been called early in the TSR HoC?
0
Nothos
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 10 years ago
#7
this does not interfere with the government's ability to call elections, but gives mps the ability to have some say over how soon after the election is called the actual process starts. The government still has overall control of the rough timeframe.
0
daniel_williams
Badges: 15
#8
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#8
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Has an election ever been called early in the TSR HoC?
not by any great margin, few days to a week early but nothing majorly early. most are pretty much to the line, and some occasionally run over!
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 years ago
#9
(Original post by daniel_williams)
not by any great margin, few days to a week early but nothing majorly early. most are pretty much to the line, and some occasionally run over!
That's what I thought. So then the complaints about the government needing the right to call an election when they want kind of ring hollow imo.
0
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#10
Report 10 years ago
#10
My input to this bill was that it should be made up of three parties, since in these weak coalitions a requirment of onlt two parties would mean that coalition struggling, like the present government, "buy time" to save themselves if they expect a defeat at the next general election.

I cant see a government using this to call an election early, I see this bill to make it difficult for a weak government to buy time through using this very good bill for their own use. - Thats why three parties are needed - At least 1MP from the opposition is likely to be needed
Nothos
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 10 years ago
#11
(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
My input to this bill was that it should be made up of three parties, since in these weak coalitions a requirment of onlt two parties would mean that coalition struggling, like the present government, "buy time" to save themselves if they expect a defeat at the next general election.

I cant see a government using this to call an election early, I see this bill to make it difficult for a weak government to buy time through using this very good bill for their own use. - Thats why three parties are needed - At least 1MP from the opposition is likely to be needed
Erm, it does say that three parties are required. I got the speaker to change it since it was discussed...
0
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#12
Report 10 years ago
#12
(Original post by BruceTaylor)
Erm, it does say that three parties are required. I got the speaker to change it since it was discussed...
I did notice Bruce, and I think the Three party requirement - It is something that I think will thwart a failing governments attempts to extend their lifetime in government.
Kyalimers
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
#13
Report 10 years ago
#13
3 parties is a good idea however only 7 MP's?? I'd say a few more are needed.

Also, the problem seems to be that the 6 month election was started during exam period hence the fact every election will be during an exam period. Can we not arrange a vote whereby the next government gets either 2 or 8 months in power. Therefore this amendment would not be then needed.

However in the meantime, if the 7 is increased, I'm all for it.
Nothos
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 10 years ago
#14
(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
I did notice Bruce, and I think the Three party requirement - It is something that I think will thwart a failing governments attempts to extend their lifetime in government.
Sigh, now I feel a complete prat. I read the tense of your post wrong, I thought you said "my input is" not "was".

Sincerest apologies
0
Nothos
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 10 years ago
#15
(Original post by sohanshah)
3 parties is a good idea however only 7 MP's?? I'd say a few more are needed.

Also, the problem seems to be that the 6 month election was started during exam period hence the fact every election will be during an exam period. Can we not arrange a vote whereby the next government gets either 2 or 8 months in power. Therefore this amendment would not be then needed.

However in the meantime, if the 7 is increased, I'm all for it.
Please note that seven are only needed for there to be a vote, not to postpone the election, it'll show that at least 14% of MPs from at least 43% of the parties/independents in parliament would like a vote on the issue. I consider that to be an adequate number to simply trigger the vote.

EDIT: I would also like to add that this is a lot more than is required to call a motion of confidence vote in the commons, which only needs two MPs, so it'd actually be easier for MPs to force a vote on whether there should be an election than whether a called election should be postponed.

That's not exactly relevant, but I just wanted to point it out
0
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#16
Report 10 years ago
#16
Sohan

When the bill was originally proposed it was to be 5 from Two, An offer for 10 from 2 parties was negotiated between Bruce and myself that it be seven from three, remember that the seven have to come from three parties - so Ideally one from opposition.

If you want to solve the problems about clashes with exams for the general election then I'd recommend that either go for an early election, e.g. October, or go for an extension under the this system going for the election in December, there you dont get an exam clash. - That said I have exams in April, ;l
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#17
Report 10 years ago
#17
(Original post by BruceTaylor)
Sigh, now I feel a complete prat. I read the tense of your post wrong, I thought you said "my input is" not "was".

Sincerest apologies

Never mind, lets work on getting this passed
Kyalimers
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
#18
Report 10 years ago
#18
Ok. Last point. If there is only one part in government, is it not unfair that they need to persuade members from 2 other parties to get a vote whereas a government such as the one now only has to persuade one person from one other party?

Do you think that the Bill should be changed so it says something like:

"Atleast one member from an opposition party should be included in the public request."
Nothos
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 10 years ago
#19
(Original post by sohanshah)
Ok. Last point. If there is only one part in government, is it not unfair that they need to persuade members from 2 other parties to get a vote whereas a government such as the one now only has to persuade one person from one other party?

Do you think that the Bill should be changed so it says something like:

"Atleast one member from an opposition party should be included in the public request."

Now see, I disagree. If an election is called it's because the government wants it to happen. If they really wanted an extension before hand they'd have passed a motion in the commons. As it stands, I think the majority of people for a postponement will be opposition anyway.
0
Kyalimers
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 21
#20
Report 10 years ago
#20
(Original post by BruceTaylor)
Now see, I disagree. If an election is called it's because the government wants it to happen. If they really wanted an extension before hand they'd have passed a motion in the commons. As it stands, I think the majority of people for a postponement will be opposition anyway.
Yeah but that's your personal view. I don't think the proposition as it stands is totally fair.
X
new posts
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

Do you like exams?

Yes (130)
18.6%
No (422)
60.37%
Not really bothered about them (147)
21.03%

Watched Threads

View All