Hadyn Cutler MYP

Around two and a half weeks ago, the UKYP annual conference occurred. Now, I’m not going to summarise it here (find that post here), instead I’m leaving my opinion on British Youth Council’s handling of the main event: the Big Vote.

Quick disclaimer: I don’t fault anyone specific here and I do think that, given the circumstances, the event worked smoothly and in good manner. This feedback is not meant as a blunt insult, but rather as constructive critisism. Also, not all of my feedback can be solved by BYC, some is up for MYPs to take on themselves. I won’t point out the distinction, but it’ll likely be obvious.

Let’s start with policy motions. I acknowledge it is a terrifically hard task to sort through every MYPs motion, some of whom submitted multiple, however the final product of the combined policy motions contained some serious oversights. For example, my motion (page 55) contained the same proposals as another motion (page 8), however since I used information pertaining more to climate change my policy was listed separately. This doesn’t seem like much of a difference, but it meant that my motion didn’t make it into the debate which gave my policy an inherent disadvantage (or advantage, depending on how confident you are in being able to voice your motion).

But a combined policy isn’t all fun and games either. One colleague of mine told me a story about how they wrote the speech for their combined motion, but the rest of the group (without this person’s knowledge) had decided someone else to speak. This led to my colleague’s speech being taken just before the big vote was scheduled to begin.

My solution is twofold. Firstly, BYC needs more hands on deck to help with policy. Considering they’re a charity, this won’t happen overnight. Therefore, (if you are of appropriate age) consider joining them. Secondly, BYC needs to give more opportunity of members of combined motions to meet under moderated presence, where staff is their to assist with complaints (which also plays into volunteering with them).

Moving on, let’s talk about the rules of the debate. Per the rulebook, “the Vice Chair [is] responsible for recording the region/nation of contributors to ensure the fair balance of speakers.” This, at first, seems just. After all, wouldn’t it be unfair for one region to continually speak whilst another never gets the chance? However, I feel this leads to unproductive and monotonous debate. I found that in most cases, either one person from the region kept speaking or there was no addition to the debate. Let me give two examples to help explain this.

Example 1: No addition to debate

Chair: “Can I have someone from [example region]?”

[No one puts their hand up]

Chair: “Anyone?”

Chair: “The person in the grey top in the top right corner.”

Speaker: “I agree with this motion because I feel it is important.”

[End]

Example 2: Same person every time

Chair: “Can I have someone from [example region]?”

Chair: “The person in the blue hoodie in the bottom left corner.”

Speaker: “[Speech on motion]”

[Time passes, new motion]

Chair: “Can I have someone from [example region] again?”

Chair: “The person in the blue hoodie in the bottom left corner agin please.”

Speaker: “[Speech on motion]”

[Repeat several times]

Whilst these are valid contributions to a debate, the question must be asked on whether they further the conversation. In my opinion, they don’t.

UPDATE

An MYP who wished to remain anonymous, reached out to me on Twitter and their view on the matter is really interesting. They says “As an underrepresented region, we were often pressured to speak on issues that we hadn’t an interest in ‘for numbers’ but were completely ignored (as many other MYPs were, I’m sure) on things which particularly affect us and our constituents which we did request to speak on.”

This is something which I hadn’t even considered, but which is very important. There is no point for BYC to pressure underrepresented regions into speaking if they don’t feel it’ll help their constituents. I’ll simply remind them of something they told us: tokenism doesn’t help.

UPDATE END

So my solution here is twofold again. Firstly, reword the question from “Can I have someone from…” to “Is their anyone who already has their hand up from…” which should avoid the situation from the first example. Secondly, a rule which I’m calling ‘Two goes and a time-out’. This is where if someone has been picked for a specific region twice, an effort should be made to pick someone else. If both of these are implemented successfully, the debate should flow smoothly whlist being representative.

Note – I’m aware that some have called for a complete removal of such a rule, and whilst I acknowledge the system has it’s flaws I disagree with it being canned as such. We should work around such issues to ensure that everyone is equally represented, and not just give up at the first hurdle.

Another fault I have is not with the rules themselves but with their interpretation. Per the rulebook, “The Order of Debate shall be determined by the number of MYPs who proposed each motion.” Now, Scotland’s MYPs jointly submit each motion under the banner of the Scottish Youth Parliament, which should count as a joint motion, right? Wrong. At the Big Vote, they were treated as single person motions and only one Scottish motion was debated in person thanks to the effort of Ruby Cardie, MSYP for Linlithgow, who publically called out BYC on this and managed to get one Scottish motion squeezed in. There’s a simple solution for this one: treat joint SYP motions as combined motions.

A final issue I have isn’t with BYC, it’s with our collective willingness as MYPs with no scrutiny. It seems not enough of us (including myself, this is a learning opportunity for everyone) truly looked in depth at each motion and what it wanted to carry out. We were so easily swayed by the words of a debate that we forgot the consequences of letting a poorly written motion slip through the cracks. Let’s be frank, 107 policies and only one failed? And I urge MYPs not to be led astray by the pressure of not wanting to make the proposer feel rejected or unliked; these are our friends, and friends don’t let each other run wild with ideas that need fixing. So I implore every MYP, the next time you engage in something like this, be critical.

That’ll be it for now, and I wish you all a happy summer. Remember to use suncream, drink plenty of water, observe local hosepipe bans, and campaign for a better climate.

Thanks for reading!