[MacDaddi]

The Libertarian Party got 182 votes at the last election

[TopHat]

In fairness, it would be up for the House to decide if it passed an amendment on the matter - it could passing an amendment forcing non-RL-alignment. I'd be open to one if the names were entirely apolitical. As it is, I agree with you that it's not fair to force other parties to change their name and not for the Libertarians to do the same. As far as I'm concerned, it's all or nothing. We can't be uneven in our treatment.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
In fairness, it would be up for the House to decide if it passed an amendment on the matter - it could passing an amendment forcing non-RL-alignment. I'd be open to one if the names were entirely apolitical. As it is, I agree with you that it's not fair to force other parties to change their name and not for the Libertarians to do the same. As far as I'm concerned, it's all or nothing. We can't be uneven in our treatment.

I completely disagree. If a party has chosen to keep their name, then that should be respected by this House. Forcing a name change against the will of each party's membership is undemocratic and I and TSR UKIP will not be adhering to that particular Amendment should the House pass it.

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
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.

Toronto, with respect, I'm sure that if TSR UKIP didn't benefit from keeping the current voter association it has with RL UKIP you'd fully support the measures proposed by some here.

The interests of UKIP members does not outweigh that of the House as a whole, and we cannot be limited to doing just what pleases you guys.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
Toronto, with respect, I'm sure that if TSR UKIP didn't benefit from keeping the current voter association it has with RL UKIP you'd fully support the measures proposed by some here.

The interests of UKIP members does not outweigh that of the House as a whole, and we cannot be limited to doing just what pleases you guys.

I am opposing these measures because my party has had a consultation and vote and said 'no we don't want a name change'. My role as leader is to protect the interests of my party and so, and I stress that I agree with my party colleagues, I will be opposing these measures as they don't listen to the concerns of my party's membership. We may get a few votes, but I think that the majority of votes come from UKIP's membership.

Not at all, you do what you want, but I and TSR UKIP won't be complying with unnecessary meddling from the House and will keep our name.

[TopHat]

(Original post by JPKC)
Toronto, with respect, I'm sure that if TSR UKIP didn't benefit from keeping the current voter association it has with RL UKIP you'd fully support the measures proposed by some here.

The interests of UKIP members does not outweigh that of the House as a whole, and we cannot be limited to doing just what pleases you guys.

Can't agree with you more. I'd gladly forego the advantage the tag "Labour" gives us, if all the other parties do otherwise. We're all big boys (and girls, meenu!), we can stand on our own without having to be propped up by RL events.

[MacDaddi]

Amazed the Lib Dems haven't changed their name yet

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
I am opposing these measures because my party has had a consultation and vote and said 'no we don't want a name change'. My role as leader is to protect the interests of my party and so, and I stress that I agree with my party colleagues, I will be opposing these measures as they don't listen to the concerns of my party's membership. We may get a few votes, but I think that the majority of votes come from UKIP's membership.

By all means oppose any suggestions, but don't say that it's not for the House to decide, because it is in all honesty.

Not at all, you do what you want, but I and TSR UKIP won't be complying with unnecessary meddling from the House and will keep our name.

If you don't get your way you'll take your ball home?

[Rakas21]

If Labour wishes to change its name, i have no objection but i will ardently oppose any mandatory name changes.

The fact is that the Libertarians are polling at around 15% despite only a vague political presence in RL (they are effectively a wing of the Tories), if they can do that well then whist it may be unfair that they have to work harder to win, their win when it comes (and i believe it will if they keep up what they do at some point) it will be much more deserved.

There is the prospect of mergers at some point, i recall the last time we were in coalition with the Libertarians that we were so similar at the time that there were calls for a merger, i believe that one of the candidates who ran with Indie for Tory leadership actually advocated this (i opposed this as i am not a Libertarian fully, just socially liberal).

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
By all means oppose any suggestions, but don't say that it's not for the House to decide, because it is in all honesty.

It isn't for the House to decide how UKIP runs its affairs and what it calls itself. The House should focus on other business and not on micromanaging.

If you don't get your way you'll take your ball home?

Call it what you will, but if the House passes this amendment, then by all means let the other parties change their names, but TSR UKIP will be staying as TSR UKIP.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by toronto353)
It isn't for the House to decide how UKIP runs its affairs and what it calls itself. The House should focus on other business and not on micromanaging.

Call it what you will, but if the House passes this amendment, then by all means let the other parties change their names, but TSR UKIP will be staying as TSR UKIP.

[toronto353]

(Original post by MacCuishy)

Damn straight .

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for your party because you have to work a bit harder, but I don't support the House forcing parties to change their names against the party's wishes.

[JPKC]

The MHoC's decisions supersedes those made by UKIP members, it would be a shame if UKIP felt they could no longer continue if a House-interest amendment were to be passed - I ask that you don't use the prospect of your dissolution to distort the honest debate needed on the issue of party naming.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
The MHoC's decisions supersedes those made by UKIP members, it would be a shame if UKIP felt they could no longer continue if a House-interest amendment were to be passed - I ask that you don't use the prospect of your dissolution to distort the honest debate needed on the issue of party naming.

TSR UKIP isn't dissolving. If the House votes for this Amendment, then TSR UKIP will still remain in this House post-Amendment as TSR UKIP. The party has voted to remain as TSR UKIP, case closed. There shouldn't be any more discussion on this matter. The House has no right to dictate to parties what they can call themselves.

[DebatingGreg]

Well done all for an active first month

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
TSR UKIP isn't dissolving. If the House votes for this Amendment, then TSR UKIP will still remain in this House post-Amendment as TSR UKIP. The party has voted to remain as TSR UKIP, case closed. There shouldn't be any more discussion on this matter. The House has no right to dictate to parties what they can call themselves.

Obviously if the amendment was to the constitution then by contravening it you'd be acting unconstitutionally and so be dissolved. Just sayin'.

The House has no right to dictate to parties what they can call themselves.

[Keckers]

(Original post by JPKC)
Just thought, Labour could become the Fabian Party. That'd be brill.

I'd look forward to the debates concerning their eugenics bills that's for sure.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Keckers)
I'd look forward to the debates concerning their eugenics bills that's for sure.

If the LDs become the 'Liberals' then they could co-sponsor them - Keynes, Beveridge, Darwin (jr.) were all big proponents. Eugenics had widespread political appeal before the Nazis went and ruined it for everyone. I mean, as a left-winger, I read this and think "golly, couldn't that knowledge be used for the good of man?" The aims of eugenics are, almost by definition, noble; once again, the problem lies in its implementation. Should a woman be allowed to abort a child because it has Down's syndrome? Yes. Should they if their child is likely destined to be a psychopath? Yes. What about if they'll be prone to neurosis, anger, depression? Yes. When we - as a species - can foresee, through science, what our offspring will become, and can control whether we let them exist, eugenics seems like an intuitive approach to reproduction.

[barnetlad]

I'm happy at the support I have had for some of the motions, especially for the 99p coin.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
Obviously if the amendment was to the constitution then by contravening it you'd be acting unconstitutionally and so be dissolved. Just sayin'.

Nothing in the Constitution states that and so your conclusion is baseless. Just sayin'.

We should agree to disagree. I'm just stating what will happen should this Amendment be created and pass.