Delete all … insert

I was asked where the “rule” that an amendment cannot be destructive came from. I have to say, that I don’t know but I haven’t read Citrine, so I googled it and came across, “The vest pocket Chairman” by Heathwood and Horseman hosted by libcom.org. They quote Citrine as saying,

Amendment. An amendment should be a proposal seeking to improve a motion—not merely to improve the wording but to propose a better course of action. Amendments should not be negative nor merely destructive.

Lord Citrine, in his A B C of Chairmanship,* divides amendments into five categories. These are :-

(a) Those adding words to the original motion.
(b) Those deleting words from the motion.
(c) Those deleting words and substituting others.
(d) Those deleting most of the motion and substituting a counter-proposal.
(e) Those which amend an earlier amendment.

The rules for moving and discussing an amendment are the same as those for moving and discussing a motion, except that, as a rule, the mover of an amendment has no right of reply to the discussion.

An amendment must be relevant to the terms of the original motion, and must not be frivolous. An amendment should offer a concrete alternative proposal to that contained in the motion.

An amendment should not negative the motion. Anyone wishing to do that can do so simply by voting against the motion.

I have also found the following words,

Direct Negative. An amendment which proposes the direct opposite of a motion is a “Direct Negative” and should not be accepted. The proper course for movers of a direct negative is to oppose the motion.

and

Negative Motion. A motion in the negative cannot be accepted. All motions must be positive.

This article permits omnibus motions.

ooOOOoo

I have uploaded the document here … as my blog seems more long lived that many other web resources. …

Revoke Article 50, a petition

Revoke Article 50, a petition

After May’s speech last night, someone started a petition on the Government’s e-petitions site calling on the Government to Revoke the Article 50 notice to quit the EU.

The growth in signatures has been explosive, hitting the 100,000 in hours, having a rate of 50 minute at 3:30 am and hitting 2,000 a minute in the early morning (100 TPS) and then it crashed. It was restarted early morning and went down again, but is now up and states over ¾m signatures. …  …

Nigel Farage, 4 more years?

And as the odds that the UK will participate in the European Parliament elections shorten, we come to understand why NIgel Farage has launched a Brexit Party. You can’t stand for the European Parliament as an independent and he’s left UKIP which has fallen into the abyss of xenophobic stupidity, although it wasn’t a long drop from Farage’s leadership position. Watch that space! …

What now for Labour?

From Composite 1, #lab16

…. believes that unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election, or a referendum.

This is Labour’s Conference Policy .. frankly I’d take any means of remaining now that we know the only terms available are unacceptable but I believe a lot of people would be very unhappy if Parliament instructed the Government to Revoke the A50 notice without a popular vote despite the fact that this Parliament’s mandate is more recent than the  Referendum. …

Hiring Smart

This passed me by on my LinkedIn feed. They quote Steve Jobs as saying something allegedly wise against micro-management.

I wonder when he said it because I remember saying something similar in the 1990’s (while Jobs was at Next). It’s just as well that I wasn’t blogging or asserting copyright, although I might be richer than I am if I had. (It is however, merely a corollary of the “Theory X, Theory Y” model which was first stated in the “Human Side of Enterprise” by Douglas McGregor, published in 1960, which I commented on here …. , I also comment here … and also here … ) So even I was a bit late.

I was hugely amused by the comment suggesting that Jobs didn’t actually pursue this strategy! …

On Andromeda

Someone made this! He comes to the conclusion that it did. I am finally working myself through whole series having failed to get beyond Series 2 twice. I am finally on S5 on Amazon, and will probably finish it but this guy seems to pretty much have it. Great premise but a story thrown away by no creative vision, as they fired the original creators half way through S2. The author of this video also suggests that the acting was not always the best.

One thing that is missed in this video, is the Fellowship of the Rings homage, the fighters, cleric, thief and techno-mage. It was one of the things that attracted me to the show in the first place. …

Do the right thing!

A new linkedin blog by me on the fine print of the GDPR’s “legitimate interest”. The print is not so fine, and in summary, you don’t need to read the fine print to do the right thing.

When claiming a legitimate interest, the privacy rights of data subjects are established as controlling the legitimate interest by the “fundamental rights and freedoms” of the data subject, just as the public interest is set through each member state’s democratic purpose. The “fundamental rights and freedoms” are defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Due to indirection and thus undocumented nature of the data subject’s consent inherent in legitimate interest, I’d advise finding another lawful purpose. …

Three things about TIG

A couple of thoughts on the new “The INdependent Group of England” (TINGE).

The word Independent has a specific meaning under electoral law and there are no barriers to its use; if they seek to use such a name in a general election they will find the space crowded and there will be restrictions on what they can do.

Much has been made of the argument, “they stood on Labour’s manifesto”, it’s unlikely that the Labour defectors did; there was an ‘shadow’ election address which despite it being blessed by Southside, didn’t mention the manifesto or even the Labour Party.

“The Independent Group” doesn’t say the same as “Social Democratic Party”, Owen Jones looks at the political foundations of the latter and compares it, unfavourably, to today. The vacancy of their ideology and policy portfolio is illustrated in Chris Leslie’s interview in the New Statesman. The arrogance and the politics make it hard to remain disappointed. …