[Metrobeans]

A69 - Party Names Amendment: Proposer: paddy__power, Seconders: Afcwimbledon2, Drogue, lotpp, simontinsley

An amendment to ensure that parties are judged on their merits in elections; not on their names and, by extension, their relationship to RL parties. This assures that the names of parties will be sufficiently disparate to RL ones - judgeable by the speaker.

Changing the names will give all parties greater freedom to develop their own identities instead of riding the identities of their RL partners - which many of them don't share and certainly not closely. This will be more fun and more interesting, which are very positive things.

It's not about what is best for any one party, as it will affect all of us differently, it's about what's best for the house as a whole. We should all be judged on our own merits and, importantly, we should be happy to be! The last election was run with RL names, used mainly on the pretence they would increase activity, but this was not the case. The house slowly dies as activity drops so to ensure the opposite is the case we must be willing to try new things. If it doesn't work, and this is clear, then it can be reversed but I think to dismiss it strait away is unwise.

(1) The following text shall be inserted into the Guiding Document in the section entitled "General Elections" after point 3 and other points renumbered accordingly:
4) The speaker shall reject any manifesto if their Party name can reasonably lead to confusing it with any RL Party; with the exception that
a) The RL party has no MPs/MEPs

(2) The following text shall be inserted into the Guiding Document in the section entitled "General Elections" after point 5:
a) The speaker shall reject any manifesto that contains 'branding' of a counterpart RL party. This includes but is not restricted to logos, images and slogans.

[TheCrackInTime]

No. An amendment such as this, should be a constitutional amendment, rather than a guiding document amendment.

[adamrules247]

Sorry. I jolly well like being a Conservative MP.

[Adorno]

This would be a little odd for Labour. We don't use the RL Logos in our manifesto, we don't parrot RL policies really, and our manifesto for the last election was entirely focused on TSR. Unlike, I really must stress, those of the Lib Dems or the Centre Party both of which are referenced here in this amendment.

The issue that I have is that parties use logos already made for existing political parties (we don't but that's an aside for moment) and they tended to use the previous RL Labour Government as a basis of attack rather than keeping this in TSR world.

So this raises things that are not good for the House: merging RL with TSR election campaigns and hiding behind RL Logos and, yes I suppose, Names. As such I would go further than this amendment in some ways and not quite as far as it does in terms of names. After all, the Shakespearian notion of names and associations is pertinent here. As it is being called Labour or Conservative doesn't do anything but being called Liberal Democrat and using Lib Dem policies culled from RL and using Lib Dem logos does.

Can I suggest we start at the far end of that sentence and work our way back to names?

[Smack]

This bill seems to enjoy support from MPs across a wide range of parties. I didn't used to be for it, but I think I am now, given the strength of the argument put forward.

[Teaddict]

This wouldn't apply to us.

The real life party is the Conservative and Unionist Party... We are called the Conservative Party...
We are fine.

[Smack]

(Original post by Teaddict)
This wouldn't apply to us.

The real life party is the Conservative and Unionist Party... We are called the Conservative Party...
We are fine.

Well L i b seems to refer to you as the Conservative and Unionist Party in the Her Majesty's Government thread.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by Smack)
Well L i b seems to refer to you as the Conservative and Unionist Party in the Her Majesty's Government thread.

Fair enough - Simple name change from Conservative and Unionist Party to the Conservative Party... No Problem!

[Smack]

(Original post by Teaddict)
Fair enough - Simple name change from Conservative and Unionist Party to the Conservative Party... No Problem!

Have you read this properly?

4) The speaker shall reject any manifesto if their Party name can reasonably lead to confusing it with any RL Party

Conservative Party could quite easily lead to confusion with the Conservative and Unionist Party of real life.

[ByronicHero]

Read it properly Teaddict, lol.

Edit: Smack beat me to it.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by Smack)
Have you read this properly?



Conservative Party could quite easily lead to confusion with the Conservative and Unionist Party of real life.

I don't think it is misleading at all... There is a very clear difference. How about the Tory Party...

[Nothos]

I consider this very condescending to the TSR electorate. Basically saying that they don't bother engaging in the election, rather blindly click buttons.

Also, rather funny that the centre party support this

Edited this post to make my argument clearer.

[TheCrackInTime]

(Original post by paddy__power)
qfa

(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
qfa

(Original post by Drogue)
qfa

(Original post by lotpp)
qfa

(Original post by simontinsley)
qfa

How on earth can you justify forcing this through as a guiding document amendment? Something that changes the House this radically should be a Constitutional amendment.

[Adorno]

(Original post by paddy__power)
qfa

Well could you address my points please?

[Smack]

(Original post by Nothos)
Also, rather funny that the centre party support this

No we don't, and why is it funny?

[crazylemon]

Yes from me. Though my avatar will have to change

[simontinsley]

(Original post by aaran-j)
How on earth can you justify forcing this through as a guiding document amendment? Something that changes the House this radically should be a Constitutional amendment.

Why? It is something that needs to leave flexibility to the speaker, and so requires interpretation, and so therefore must not be a constitutional amendment.

[simontinsley]

(Original post by Teaddict)
I don't think it is misleading at all... There is a very clear difference. How about the Tory Party...

Speaker's discretion...

I'd argue that it would lead to reasonable confusion though.

[Nothos]

(Original post by Smack)
No we don't, and why is it funny?

You said it yourself, it has a party-wide consensus.

And it's funny because you'll be one of the parties that benefits from this.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Adorno)
This would be a little odd for Labour. We don't use the RL Logos in our manifesto, we don't parrot RL policies really, and our manifesto for the last election was entirely focused on TSR. Unlike, I really must stress, those of the Lib Dems or the Centre Party both of which are referenced here in this amendment.

Yes but many people will have voted for you just because you're called labour. The fact you don't is a positive as it means you've less to change.

The issue that I have is that parties use logos already made for existing political parties (we don't but that's an aside for moment) and they tended to use the previous RL Labour Government as a basis of attack rather than keeping this in TSR world.

And they wouldn't be able to if there were no RL party copies on here.

So this raises things that are not good for the House: merging RL with TSR election campaigns and hiding behind RL Logos and, yes I suppose, Names. As such I would go further than this amendment in some ways and not quite as far as it does in terms of names. After all, the Shakespearian notion of names and associations is pertinent here. As it is being called Labour or Conservative doesn't do anything but being called Liberal Democrat and using Lib Dem policies culled from RL and using Lib Dem logos does.

Well I disagree at the heart of it here and I'm not sure I exactly understand your objection. How much further would you go?

Can I suggest we start at the far end of that sentence and work our way back to names?