[MacDaddi]

Personally I blame big partyitus. The Socialists are getting near enough to no new members thanks to the relative size of Labour in RL, and at the Liber's we are having the same problem with the Conservatives. It is not such a problem yet, however, but it seems to have hit the Socialists hard.

I think it is another time to bring up Party identity and names again.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Personally I blame big partyitus. The Socialists are getting near enough to no new members thanks to the relative size of Labour in RL, and at the Liber's we are having the same problem with the Conservatives. It is not such a problem yet, however, but it seems to have hit the Socialists hard.

I think it is another time to bring up Party identity and names again.

I think it's no so bad for Libers as far as getting members is concerned. Most proper libertarians can tell you what the difference [policy-wise] would be between a libertarian party and a conservative one. It's just that when it comes to elections, we don't do as well as we should because the average person will just vote Tory because they are relatively libertarian in some policies.

It hurts the socialists much more because because most people just equate Labour with socialism, and most left-leaning people will already have an affinity with the Labour party. We still do well enough, considering we are the third biggest party in the House.

[TopHat]

I'd just like to say I'm all in favour of the Parties adopting non-RL-aligned names. Often thought it would be interesting to totally randomize it - so have a random list of 6 colours and a random list of 6 symbols, and get names from that - Blue Star, Green Moon, Yellow Cross, Red Circle, etc.

[JPKC]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Personally I blame big partyitus. The Socialists are getting near enough to no new members thanks to the relative size of Labour in RL, and at the Liber's we are having the same problem with the Conservatives. It is not such a problem yet, however, but it seems to have hit the Socialists hard.

I think it is another time to bring up Party identity and names again.

I agree completely. It makes the system here flawed - the electorate vote here on a FPTP basis when they don't need to. It really wouldn't be hard for Labour and the Tories to change names, there're plenty of alternatives. Likewise, the LDs and UKIP would benefit from changing as well.

[TopHat]

(Original post by TopHat)
I'd just like to say I'm all in favour of the Parties adopting non-RL-aligned names. Often thought it would be interesting to totally randomize it - so have a random list of 6 colours and a random list of 6 symbols, and get names from that - Blue Star, Green Moon, Yellow Cross, Red Circle, etc.

Reposting as it was at the bottom of last page.

[JPKC]

Maybe we should each pick animal emblems.

Oh wait, people would just assume the Tories were the pigs...

[MacDaddi]

I honestly think that they should adopt names for their political stance at the best.

So Libertarians
Conservative (Maybe Capatalist Party or something insteadI don't know)
Liberals
Social Democrats
Socialist
Eurosceptic/National Party

It would benefit the house and would even out hopefully the spread of new members

[TopHat]

No, that'd be unfair - after all, Labour's political stance is to represent labour. We are the heir of the Labour Representation Committee. I'd say if we were going to all change names, everyone would have to pick an apolitical name.

[JPKC]

I think we can easily look at parties in Europe.

Most conservative organisations have "Democrat" or "blah blah Democracy" in them - that would reflect the localism aspect. Labour's easy, Social Democrats would be obvious.

"Liberals" would fit the TSR Lib Dems since the traditional liberal faction seems more prominent in the current party.

(Original post by TopHat)
No, that'd be unfair - after all, Labour's political stance is to represent labour. We are the heir of the Labour Representation Committee. I'd say if we were going to all change names, everyone would have to pick an apolitical name.

The TSR party isn't - several members voted in favour of abolishing union rights a few years ago. Unless you want to completely start mimicking the actual Party in the things you put forward then claiming a shared history is a bit suspect (that's not a dig).

[TopHat]

Well, put it this way: if I were to choose a name, which is allowed to be political, that best reflects the party I am a part of, it would be the Labour Party. If we are sticking to political names, I would not change that. If we are going to adopt names which are not RL-aligned, then for me, they would also have to be apolitical. I would not want to accept a moniker I did not feel fitted me, unless I knew everyone else had to do likewise, thus making it fair.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
Well, put it this way: if I were to choose a name, which is allowed to be political, that best reflects the party I am a part of, it would be the Labour Party. If we are sticking to political names, I would not change that. If we are going to adopt names which are not RL-aligned, then for me, they would also have to be apolitical. I would not want to accept a moniker I did not feel fitted me, unless I knew everyone else had to do likewise, thus making it fair.

How about nobody is allowed to take the name of a major political party and/or which does not exceed 100,000 votes in the last RL General Election.

Labour is not an apt name. I'm not going to go all political about it but you are Social Democrats.

[Rakas21]

Well done to Labour, while the government would have obviously liked to have beaten you over the month i can at least say that you have being active which is good for the House as a whole.

In regards to the Socialists, i do believe that there is a clear difference between them and Labour (the socialists on TSR are actually much more communistic and very liberal hippies) and so i would like to see them stay, also we have seen them come second in the past with reportedly top activity levels.

I oppose any name change (or at least a mandatory one), we saw in the by-election last term and to a degree in the election that TSR does play a role (Lib Dems winning by-election, Libertarians and Socialists doing well), rather i think the ironic problem is that we that we try get as many voters as possible when they likely only pop in once or twice a term.

[TopHat]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
How about nobody is allowed to take the name of a major political party and/or which does not exceed 100,000 votes in the last RL General Election.

Still includes some parties which would definitely gain from RL affiliation - English Democrats and Respect for example. Also, it would still allow loopholes - for example, Socialist Labour came in at under 100,000. Would you let us call ourselves the Socialist Labour Party?

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
Well, put it this way: if I were to choose a name, which is allowed to be political, that best reflects the party I am a part of, it would be the Labour Party. If we are sticking to political names, I would not change that. If we are going to adopt names which are not RL-aligned, then for me, they would also have to be apolitical. I would not want to accept a moniker I did not feel fitted me, unless I knew everyone else had to do likewise, thus making it fair.

A party is defined by what it believes in, not its name. The title only ever influences the party externally, in elections etc, as opposed to policies and such like. It's pure symbolism - what does "Labour" actually mean? Ultimately, not much. It is only emotive when it represents the sum of its past, which it doesn't in TSR Labour since you don't specifically share anything with the outside party, other than a few overlaps in certain policies. It would be no great crime to have Labour and the Tories disown their RL namesakes, especially when you consider the problems the current situation incurs for the MHoC.

How about we just say no elected party in the UK (excluding councillors)?

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by TopHat)
Still includes some parties which would definitely gain from RL affiliation - English Democrats and Respect for example. Also, it would still allow loopholes - for example, Socialist Labour came in at under 100,000. Would you let us call ourselves the Socialist Labour Party?

You get what I mean, I just plucked that number from the air.

No parties with any RL affiliation or very little at the minimum.

The only party I feel sorry for are the Tory's in this scenario - as they represent conservatism which is a completely different ideology in itself - so they would probably come off worst.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by JPKC)
A party is defined by what it believes in, not its name. The title only ever influences the party externally, in elections etc, as opposed to policies and such like. It's pure symbolism - what does "Labour" actually mean? Ultimately, not much. It is only emotive when it represents the sum of its past, which it doesn't in TSR Labour since you don't specifically share anything with the outside party, other than a few overlaps in certain policies. It would be no great crime to have Labour and the Tories disown their RL namesakes, especially when you consider the problems the current situation incurs for the MHoC.

How about we just say no elected party in the UK (excluding councillors)?

Wanna co-write a motion or something with me, but I think there might have been one of these last term.

[TopHat]

(Original post by JPKC)
A party is defined by what it believes in, not its name. The title only ever influences the party externally, in elections etc, as opposed to policies and such like. It's pure symbolism - what does "Labour" actually mean? Ultimately, not much. It is only emotive when it represents the sum of its past, which it doesn't in TSR Labour since you don't specifically share anything with the outside party, other than a few overlaps in certain policies. It would be no great crime to have Labour and the Tories disown their RL namesakes, especially when you consider the problems the current situation incurs for the MHoC.

Thing is, the Social Democrat Party wouldn't be acceptable - that was, even if only for a while, a prominent force in British politics, but not one I would want to be associated with. We are most definitely not the SDP. Additionally, every single one of the 6 parties in the MHoC has a real life equivalent. It seems only fair to cut everyone's ties, rather than just ours.

The one way I'd accept political names while enforcing a name change was if we all found names which were not registered as currently existing parties - and that rule applied to everyone, from the Libertarians to the Socialists to us.

[toronto353]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
I honestly think that they should adopt names for their political stance at the best.

So Libertarians
Conservative (Maybe Capatalist Party or something insteadI don't know)
Liberals
Social Democrats
Socialist
Eurosceptic/National Party

It would benefit the house and would even out hopefully the spread of new members

Not at all. The House should not decide for party members whether they want to change their name. We have discussed this in UKIP before and we have rejected it and I am determined to ensure that it doesn't happen for UKIP at the very least.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
Thing is, the Social Democrat Party wouldn't be acceptable - that was, even if only for a while, a prominent force in British politics, but not one I would want to be associated with. We are most definitely not the SDP. Additionally, every single one of the 6 parties in the MHoC has a real life equivalent. It seems only fair to cut everyone's ties, rather than just ours.

What ties? Like I say, realistically, the only ones in place are shared titles, and only four parties have that (in practical terms).

The one way I'd accept political names while enforcing a name change was if we all found names which were not registered as currently existing parties - and that rule applied to everyone, from the Libertarians to the Socialists to us.

That would require a lot of creativity - it would also be quite unfair on the Libertarians, who don't really have a current alternative, in spite of one being registered.

Just thought, Labour could become the Fabian Party. That'd be brill.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
That would require a lot of creativity - it would also be quite unfair on the Libertarians, who don't really have a current alternative, in spite of one being registered.

Just thought, Labour could become the Fabian Party. That'd be brill.

Yes, but then it's not fair to force other parties to change their name and not for the Libertarians to do the same. As I say, I hate the suggestion and it won't be happening for TSR UKIP. Our members have rejected the suggestion of a name change and it isn't for the House to decide whether a party changes it name, it's for the party members to decide whether they want to put in an application to do so.