[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
Nothing in the Constitution states that and so your conclusion is baseless.

Well of course it doesn't because there's been no attempt to amend it yet! You're not stupid Toronto, don't act like it. If an amendment to the constitution was successful, and UKIP somehow violated it voluntarily then it would theoretically be the Speaker's task to dissolve you. It's no good making empty threats to flout any amendments because you simply wouldn't be able to - it's not that complicated in all honesty.

Nice to see that you raising the big issue over in PMQs. Stay classy TSR UKIP!

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
Well of course it doesn't because there's been no attempt to amend it yet! You're not stupid Toronto, don't act like it. If an amendment to the constitution was successful, and UKIP somehow violated it voluntarily then it would theoretically be the Speaker's task to dissolve you. It's no good making empty threats to flout any amendments because you simply wouldn't be able to - it's not that complicated in all honesty.

Nice to see that you raising the big ssue over in PMQs. Stay classy TSR UKIP!

It simply doesn't give the Speaker that power. You would have to draft an Amendment in addition to the Names Amendment to give the Speaker that power. TSR UKIP will not be changing its name.

I'm wondering if the reason you're so doggedly pursuing this is out of some kind of jealousy for the fact that others have managed to form parties (including the MRLP and Plaid though both are waiting for approval) yet you never managed to form your own party and so you've simply decided to punish other parties for your failure. Just sayin'.

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
It simply doesn't give the Speaker that power. You would have to draft an Amendment in addition to the Names Amendment to give the Speaker that power. TSR UKIP will not be changing its name.

It would literally only take one amendment: "5.3.5.the party shares a name with a real registered political party". That would give the Speaker the authority to close any party that refused - you see?

I'm wondering if the reason you're so doggedly pursuing this is out of some kind of jealousy for the fact that others have managed to form parties (including the MRLP and Plaid though both are waiting for approval) yet you never managed to form your own party and so you've simply decided to punish other parties for your failure. Just sayin'.

It's much harder to form and maintain parties that don't have real life equivalents, as the Libers and Socialists' experience shows. I've mostly given up on the idea for the moment, though am pleased to read that the Speaker and admins are considering a reduction in the qualification number. When trying to form the Progressive Party I had 5 active members pledge their support, and several more interested, which gives me confidence that I could reach the required minimum number of supporters or even surpass it if people like my record in the House this term.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
It would literally only take one amendment: "5.3.5.the party shares a name with a real registered political party". That would give the Speaker the authority to close any party that refused - you see?

How is that at all democratic? It would lead this House to become more authoritarian by interfering and micromanaging parties. Parties should be free to decide their own name with no interference from the House.

It's much harder to form and maintain parties that don't have real life equivalents, as the Libers and Socialists' experience shows. I've mostly given up on the idea for the moment, though am pleased to read that the Speaker and admins are considering a reduction in the qualification number. When trying to form the Progressive Party I had 5 active members pledge their support, and several more interested, which gives me confidence that I could reach the required minimum number of supporters or even surpass it if people like my record in the House this term.

I think that the Libertarians are doing very well. The Socialists have always shied away from involvement in the House. If that were due to party names and membership, then the Libertarians also wouldn't be a highly active party. Why are you pursuing this policy?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by toronto353)
How is that at all democratic? It would lead this House to become more authoritarian by interfering and micromanaging parties. Parties should be free to decide their own name with no interference from the House.

I think that the Libertarians are doing very well. The Socialists have always shied away from involvement in the House. If that were due to party names and membership, then the Libertarians also wouldn't be a highly active party. Why are you pursuing this policy?

Well because it sets our the terms of the 'game'. Currently elections are meaningless because of the ties to name, if not in policy or ability, to real life political parties. Labour cruise to 14 seats on the back on national dissatisfaction at RL Conservatives, not on the back of anything done in this house. If we want elections to mean anything - then we need to disassociate the names, or, we could scrap elections.

You're also being a bit dense here, stating that UKIP will carry on. The amendment will merely not allow anyone to stand in elections with a certain name. You may carry on as members in the House - but the Party would have 0 seats.

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
How is that at all democratic? It would lead this House to become more authoritarian by interfering and micromanaging parties. Parties should be free to decide their own name with no interference from the House.

It would prevent parties misleading the electorate with their names - why should Labour, for instance, have an association with the UK Labour Party if they are different polities. The same goes for TSR UKIP who have decided, as a Party, to use all the logos, slogans, names of RL UKIP without taking on board any of the central policies held by the party other than its euroscepticism. This is a bigger distortion of the democratic process in the MHoC. Parties should be able to decide their names provided that what they choose doesn't contravene the House's overall interests.

I think that the Libertarians are doing very well. The Socialists have always shied away from involvement in the House. If that were due to party names and membership, then the Libertarians also wouldn't be a highly active party. Why are you pursuing this policy?

The Libers are doing well in spite of their handicap. I support the policy because, like the others here who agree, the election system is flawed when people vote for real life parties instead of the policies that we debate over here in the MHoC - last election, the Tories were damaged by their brand being associated with the outside party. The namesake parties will be advantaged/disadvantaged according to the situation in Westminster, when that should ideally be irrelevant to the goings on in this House.

[xXedixXx]

Brilliant work by Labour yet again

Also congratulations and fair dos to most of the other parties; this is a brilliantly active term so far!

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Well because it sets our the terms of the 'game'. Currently elections are meaningless because of the ties to name, if not in policy or ability, to real life political parties. Labour cruise to 14 seats on the back on national dissatisfaction at RL Conservatives, not on the back of anything done in this house. If we want elections to mean anything - then we need to disassociate the names, or, we could scrap elections.

You're also being a bit dense here, stating that UKIP will carry on. The amendment will merely not allow anyone to stand in elections with a certain name. You may carry on as members in the House - but the Party would have 0 seats.

That's all well and good, but would the Libertarians be changing their name because, if not, then that isn't fair that you guys keep your name, but all other parties can't. Yet you'll argue that it isn't fair that you should change your name because you currently aren't related to any RL party. That's the problem with this suggestion and while the status quo may not be great in some peoples' eyes, it's the best solution that there is because any other solution has problems for one or more parties.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by toronto353)
That's all well and good, but would the Libertarians be changing their name because, if not, then that isn't fair that you guys keep your name, but all other parties can't. Yet you'll argue that it isn't fair that you should change your name because you currently aren't related to any RL party. That's the problem with this suggestion and while the status quo may not be great in some peoples' eyes, it's the best solution that there is because any other solution has problems for one or more parties.

It's not the best solution. What you're doing is fighting to keep an unfair advantage from being associated to a RL party and thus the name recognition. Correcting this unfairness isn't unfair in itself.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
It would prevent parties misleading the electorate with their names - why should Labour, for instance, have an association with the UK Labour Party if they are different polities. The same goes for TSR UKIP who have decided, as a Party, to use all the logos, slogans, names of RL UKIP without taking on board any of the central policies held by the party other than its euroscepticism. This is a bigger distortion of the democratic process in the MHoC. Parties should be able to decide their names provided that what they choose doesn't contravene the House's overall interests.

Yes, but that is how UKIP is under my leadership. My successor (whenever that eventuality may occur) may align TSR UKIP more with RL UKIP so you can't really use that as an argument. I don't get how UKIP's membership choosing the party's name contravenes the House's interests.

The Libers are doing well in spite of their handicap. I support the policy because, like the others here who agree, the election system is flawed when people vote for real life parties instead of the policies that we debate over here in the MHoC - last election, the Tories were damaged by their brand being associated with the outside party. The namesake parties will be advantaged/disadvantaged according to the situation in Westminster, when that should ideally be irrelevant to the goings on in this House.

You'll get that anyway though. A lot of voters don't read the manifestos and so, instead of the party brand, they'll vote according to ideology rather than actually reading the policies and following the goings on in the House. Your solution doesn't solve the problem it just moves it from party brands to ideology. The voters still won't follow the goings on in the House. So, if you remove the brand and presumably references to ideologies to be fair and to avoid misleading the voters, voting turnout will sharply decrease because voters won't know what the parties stand for and many won't read the manifestos. How do you solve those problems then?

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
It's not the best solution. What you're doing is fighting to keep an unfair advantage from being associated to a RL party and thus the name recognition. Correcting this unfairness isn't unfair in itself.

I am fighting based on my party's views. Would the Libertarians be changing their name then?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by toronto353)
I am fighting based on my party's views. Would the Libertarians be changing their name then?

I don't see that we would be, unless we are required to. I don't see that we should be given that the relevant political party has no elected representatives in the UK - hardly any media coverage and garnered 182 votes at the last General Election (with a maximum vote share of 0.3% in any constituency) - whilst we got 125 in April 2011 on TSR.

If you wish to make an argument that we gain from any association with the Party, go for it. It's simply not there though.

I think if a party has either elected MPs or MEPs, we can consider them a mainstream party, and thus gaining from RL association, otherwise, I think not.

[JPKC]

That makes a lot of sense.

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
I don't see that we would be, unless we are required to. I don't see that we should be given that the relevant political party has no elected representatives in the UK - hardly any media coverage and garnered 182 votes at the last General Election (with a maximum vote share of 0.3% in any constituency) - whilst we got 125 in April 2011 on TSR.

If you wish to make an argument that we gain from any association with the Party, go for it. It's simply not there though.

I think if a party has either elected MPs or MEPs, we can consider them a mainstream party, and thus gaining from RL association, otherwise, I think not.

Yes, but then consider it from my perspective. Why is it fair that you get to keep your name and the brand that you've built up on here, but we don't get to keep our name and our brand?

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by toronto353)
Yes, but then consider it from my perspective. Why is it fair that you get to keep your name and the brand that you've built up on here, but we don't get to keep our name and our brand?

Very very true.

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
Yes, but that is how UKIP is under my leadership. My successor (whenever that eventuality may occur) may align TSR UKIP more with RL UKIP so you can't really use that as an argument. I don't get how UKIP's membership choosing the party's name contravenes the House's interests.

It's in the interests of the House that the outside political situation does not influence events inside the House - using the name 'UKIP' means that when people vote for you they expect RL UKIP policies, and may support you based on perceived flaws in other RL right-wing parties like the Tories - you probably did well in this last election precisely for that reason: disillusionment with Cameron.

You'll get that anyway though. A lot of voters don't read the manifestos and so, instead of the party brand, they'll vote according to ideology rather than actually reading the policies and following the goings on in the House. Your solution doesn't solve the problem it just moves it from party brands to ideology. The voters still won't follow the goings on in the House. So, if you remove the brand and presumably references to ideologies to be fair and to avoid misleading the voters, voting turnout will sharply decrease because voters won't know what the parties stand for and many won't read the manifestos. How do you solve those problems then?

How will they know the ideology if they don't read the manifesto or recognise the party's brand? Taking the party name out of the mix ensures that ideology is more focused on, which is exactly what we want. At the moment voters just assume that one parties ideology is indistinct from the party that they share a name with.

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Very very true.

Very very not true, actually. The parties that should change their names have gained from the RL association with parties that they do not represent - selecting a new name is no great task.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by toronto353)
Yes, but then consider it from my perspective. Why is it fair that you get to keep your name and the brand that you've built up on here, but we don't get to keep our name and our brand?

Because your name and brand isn't one 'built up' here, it's one from the RL association. I don't wish for the amendment to be partisan, and if there happens to be a Libertarian Party in RL that in the future gets an elected representative to Parliament or Europe, then so be it, we'll be more than happy to change our name. It's the interests of the House at stake, not partisan politics.

If it doesn't pass, we'll just beat everyone anyway, by carrying on being awesome - no problem.

[D.R.E]

I'm open to this idea. It would make elections much more useful (and interesting) for the House.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
It's in the interests of the House that the outside political situation does not influence events inside the House - using the name 'UKIP' means that when people vote for you they expect RL UKIP policies, and may support you based on perceived flaws in other RL right-wing parties like the Tories - you probably did well in this last election precisely for that reason: disillusionment with Cameron.

How is it in the interests of this House that this House micromanages parties? How? The House should focus on legislation and debating legislation and that is it.

How will they know the ideology if they don't read the manifesto or recognise the party's brand? Taking the party name out of the mix ensures that ideology is more focused on, which is exactly what we want. At the moment voters just assume that one parties ideology is indistinct from the party that they share a name with.

If you choose any name which relates to ideology in any way, then of course they will recognise the ideology and vote with regards to ideology. People won't read the manifestos and so you'll see turnout fall. This in turn will see fewer people actually finding out about the House.

Very very not true, actually. The parties that should change their names have gained from the RL association with parties that they do not represent - selecting a new name is no great task.

Wrong. Let me explain how. The Libertarians have spent several years building up a brand on TSR. Your amendment will see parties with RL associations lose their name. Let's take that as fine for a minute. So at the next election, we will have five parties let's say with new names and no brand identity, but the Libertarians will have several years of brand identity. That is completely unfair on the parties forced to change their name. How do you solve that issue because, on the other hand, if you force the Libertarians to change their name, you're going against the reason for this proposal. The whole issue doesn't need to be addressed because there isn't a problem there.

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Because your name and brand isn't one 'built up' here, it's one from the RL association. I don't wish for the amendment to be partisan, and if there happens to be a Libertarian Party in RL that in the future gets an elected representative to Parliament or Europe, then so be it, we'll be more than happy to change our name. It's the interests of the House at stake, not partisan politics.

If it doesn't pass, we'll just beat everyone anyway, by carrying on being awesome - no problem.

The problem is that you will have an unfair advantage by having that brand identity. You have five parties with new names and the Libertarians with their brand identity. That is a completely unfair advantage. All parties have built up brand identities on here and so we may as well keep those identities and those names. Forcing five parties to change their names, but allowing the Libertarians to keep their name isn't fair either. As I say, there's no need to change the situation.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by toronto353)
The problem is that you will have an unfair advantage by having that brand identity. You have five parties with new names and the Libertarians with their brand identity. That is a completely unfair advantage. All parties have built up brand identities on here and so we may as well keep those identities and those names. Forcing five parties to change their names, but allowing the Libertarians to keep their name isn't fair either. As I say, there's no need to change the situation.

I don't believe there's a 'Socialist Party' with an MP or MEP either. So your solution is to continue to let 4 parties live off RL association, making elections completely meaningless and making the whole house allocation of seats and thus the game a total sham, to avoid us having a 'brand identity' (which is, in fact, total *******s to anyone outside of the MHoC itself), which even if I were to agree is a temporary problem. This is your idea of 'fair'? Riiiight.

I need say no more.