Winston Peters to first be ordered to leave the House

Repeat for 18 Feb/3 March/17 March/31 March

Winston Peters to be ordered to leave the House of Representatives by the Speaker or other presiding officer before 31 December 2011


This contract pays $1 if, before 31 December 2011, Winston Peters is ordered to leave the House of Representatives by the Speaker or other presiding officer. Otherwise this contract pays $0.


Judging:
This contract will close at the end of the last session the House is scheduled or expected to sit before the start of 31 December 2011.

This contract refers only to events which occur after this contract’s launch.

This contract is not affected by whether the House is in session.

Dates and times New Zealand time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 01:55AM by admin.

I assume you mean 2012?

"Winston Peters is first ordered to leave the House of Representatives"

Is there some specific terminology here that I'm not aware of? Does "first ordered" mean something special?

If Winston Peters is the 2nd person to be ordered to leave the house, does this contract close at $0? What if two MPs are ordered to leave the house at the same time?

If we're going to do this, I'd suggest excluding anyone ejected for not taking of the oath exactly. Someone will probably do it again - if not Hone Harawira, someone else. (People have in the past taken the oath in Samoan or with other variations, then taken it "correctly" immediately afterwards. Due to Lockwood's stoush with Harawira, anyone trying to do so again will probably be ejected.)

The easiest way would be to refer to the "first sworn-in member to be ordered to leave".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 01:40AM by eeyore.

Ok this is helpful. I think the word "first" is causing confusion. The aim is to ask when Mr Peters, not anyone else, will be asked to leave the House. If it happens, it is intended all contracts in this series that are still open will immediately close at $1. I can see at least three interpretations of "first" here, which is not helpful. Redrafting now.

Have removed 'first' and added that whether the House is in session or not doesn't matter for the contract.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2011 01:57AM by admin.

Can we run a stock on "there to be an incidence of physical violence between MPs in the house".

It's happened in Japanese, Korean and Italian parliaments ...