Perhaps a pass-the-parcel would work where each one is asked a question in turn, making it balanced
I disagree, the PCP for example would be asked about a radical idea of theirs and the rest would probably get asked about education, health care, social issues etc. Therefore, it would be unbalanced.
But if it was a random question, yes this may be better, but that could be done in the independant parties own thread.
I would like too see x amount of questions asked of all parties each week etc and put in a thread to be debated, either by the party leaders or more.
I think I have quite a good question for the PCP which isn't attacking them particularly but does cover the key issue of their quite extreme social values.
Mad pointless. In "the real world", these things are done to condense the months of dry political campaigning, leaflets and manifestos into a nice, digestable TV segment, with the added bonus of showing off how a candidate looks in front of a camera (which is, indeed, quite important). On TSR, this would do the opposite - it's taking the compact and digestable manifestos and elongating them into an arduous and rigorous debate. That's not going to help clear up anyones doubts or change a mind, because I suspect the only people who'd follow it are us. I think it'd purely end up being (and, imo, is being proposed purely as) a vanity project for those involved.
I think if this is to help newcomers decide which party they're interested in, a system where Dayne lets us all know some questions (possibly suggested to him by anyone) and then the parties discuss the questions internally and submit a party answer which is then posted for each party in the thread, and no further debate occurs in the thread. That way they get a good idea of parties' opinions on specific topics, and don't get bogged down in reading arguments (which we can have in 'ask a' threads which they can read if that's what they're looking for)
I know it's not a proper debate system but if the purpose is to help new people I think it'd be better
In a lot of party threads if you ask a question you get a lot of members answers, but its rare you'll find the policy of the whole party, unless they are working on a bill that has to to with the question being asked. This would not only help newcomers, but also aid debate and give each party a more defined political policy in many areas.
How about I take questions from anyone (maybe get more people involved?) And take some questions from question threads and give each party the same question. Each party would get a question each fortnight and the answers would be posted in a 'question time' thread that would be stickied and closed? Obviously the time frame is changeable.
In a lot of party threads if you ask a question you get a lot of members answers, but its rare you'll find the policy of the whole party, unless they are working on a bill that has to to with the question being asked. This would not only help newcomers, but also aid debate and give each party a more defined political policy in many areas.
Yeah, like inviting the BNP onto Question Time was about uncovering their views on policies and things? You know it won't work out like that. It'll be railroaded by the PCP and the Socialists being asked dogmatic questions by the Right and the Left and a few "Tories are pants" jibes thrown in.
Yeah, like inviting the BNP onto Question Time was about uncovering their views on policies and things? You know it won't work out like that. It'll be railroaded by the PCP and the Socialists being asked dogmatic questions by the Right and the Left and a few "Tories are pants" jibes thrown in.
Cyclopsrock speaks the truth... [on this matter]
I would be controling who got what question, and it wouldn't be like that at all. It would be more general policy questions. It would simply be questions sent to each party then the responses posted into a closed thread.
I would be controling who got what question, and it wouldn't be like that at all. It would be more general policy questions. It would simply be questions sent to each party then the responses posted into a closed thread.
If it's going to be like that then why bother at all? Extend the manifesto word limits and allow parties greater freedom to express themselves rather than having this charade because Bagration wants to feel important despite being leader of the pointless party.
If it's going to be like that then why bother at all? Extend the manifesto word limits and allow parties greater freedom to express themselves rather than having this charade because Bagration wants to feel important despite being leader of the pointless party.
My way it wouldn't just be for the leaders, it would be for the whole party to answer and thus gives an idea of where the party as a whole stands on an issue as opposed to what several members think (which often differ). I helps newcomers find out where each party stands on the issues they care about if nothing else.
My way it wouldn't just be for the leaders, it would be for the whole party to answer and thus gives an idea of where the party as a whole stands on an issue as opposed to what several members think (which often differ). I helps newcomers find out where each party stands on the issues they care about if nothing else.
Again, those generally don't give a clear policy. Usually several people give their opinion which is often differing.
Which perhaps suggests that parties don't have coherent policies and that very often the desired coherence is just going to be due to one view being the dominant and assertive one? It's fine for a party such as the Tories which exist for one reason: bash Socialism. However, in parties such as the Socialists and the Centre Party where there are differing viewpoints then I think you're expecting too much.
Which perhaps suggests that parties don't have coherent policies and that very often the apparent coherence is just due to one view being the dominant and assertive one?
Indeed, but a snapshot of a parties policy would be good, and it could lead to some proper debate instead of bickering.
How about Dayne asks people in D&D for questions. He picks a selection of 4 or 5 that are asked to all parties, with responses (say up to 100 words) published like:
What would you do about the war in Afghanistan?
It's not really a debate, but it's one thread, alongside the election thread (ie. in D&D) that gives people more insight into the views of each party/independent on a variety of issues. Many people will vote without reading it, but I think it'd provide some good context for a lot of people, and if kept short and to the point (and topped alongside the election thread), a lot of people will read it. You could even do it before the election gets started and post it as the second post in the election thread, so the first post are the manifestos, the second post are answers to a few questions, then the free for all starts.
I don't think the idea of leader debates would quite work, but some way of creating a slightly more defined picture of what each party things on particular issues might make the place more accessable to a few.
However, this removes one important aspect of the real life house of commons political process, and that is completely misrepresenting other parties points of view .
Seriously, i don't mind either way. I'm not opposed to it, but i'm not sure if there is any method which would work well enough for it to be viable
How about Dayne asks people in D&D for questions. He picks a selection of 4 or 5 that are asked to all parties, with responses (say up to 100 words) published like:
It's not really a debate, but it's one thread, alongside the election thread (ie. in D&D) that gives people more insight into the views of each party/independent on a variety of issues. Many people will vote without reading it, but I think it'd provide some good context for a lot of people, and if kept short and to the point (and topped alongside the election thread), a lot of people will read it. You could even do it before the election gets started and post it as the second post in the election thread, so the first post are the manifestos, the second post are answers to a few questions, then the free for all starts.
I like this, it would be much easier for people with very little knowledge of policies to make quick comparisons between the parties respective stances.
I'm happy to go ahead with that. Parties don't have to become involved, but they will be asked the questions. Its up to them if they decide to respond.
I'm happy to go ahead with that. Parties don't have to become involved, but they will be asked the questions. Its up to them if they decide to respond.
I can't see it lasting long, nor being worth while in the slightest to gain more interest or make it easier for people to understand where parties opinions stand, for them to decide which party to join. Each thread (Q) will just disapear into the hitory of the forum, bringing no use to new users.
A situation where 10 questions being asked of each party on the major issues and answers provided being placed in a sticky would be useful, but in my view and I hope shared with others, this is pointless trying to get a debate and if anything will just kill other sections of the HoC such as the Ask A ... threads.
Those with rational views will not get debated but as soon as the PCP say something even slightly unacceptable it'll just turn in to a which hunt (abit like their Ask a Patriot thread).
TSR's model parliament.
Useful Resources:
Re: Leader debates
.
