[Mr Dangermouse]

^ Love it.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
qfa

Nick, could we have temporary sub-forums for the Monarchist and Republican groups so we can co-ordinate our campaigns? I think this is an absolutely amazing opportunity to show off the House, and that means making these campaigns as slick as possible, with high-quality debates and well-presented arguments. That requires a lot of co-ordination, and a sub-forum for each of the two sides would help that amazingly.

Also, I think a formal debate thread would be excellent. Say, the day before the referendum, open a thread, let the Yes side leader type an opening comment, then let the No side leader have a response, then let the Yes side deputy type a response, than the No side deputy type their response, and then one Yes "backbencher" type a conclusion, and one No "backbencher" type a conclusion, then lock the thread. A formally, one post each high quality debate would really impress I think.

[Birchington]

(Original post by TopHat)
Nick, could we have temporary sub-forums for the Monarchist and Republican groups so we can co-ordinate our campaigns? I think this is an absolutely amazing opportunity to show off the House, and that means making these campaigns as slick as possible, with high-quality debates and well-presented arguments. That requires a lot of co-ordination, and a sub-forum for each of the two sides would help that amazingly.

Also, I think a formal debate thread would be excellent. Say, the day before the referendum, open a thread, let the Yes side leader type an opening comment, then let the No side leader have a response, then let the Yes side deputy type a response, than the No side deputy type their response, and then one Yes "backbencher" type a conclusion, and one No "backbencher" type a conclusion, then lock the thread. A formally, one post each high quality debate would really impress I think.

A great idea.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
Nick, could we have temporary sub-forums for the Monarchist and Republican groups so we can co-ordinate our campaigns? I think this is an absolutely amazing opportunity to show off the House, and that means making these campaigns as slick as possible, with high-quality debates and well-presented arguments. That requires a lot of co-ordination, and a sub-forum for each of the two sides would help that amazingly.

Also, I think a formal debate thread would be excellent. Say, the day before the referendum, open a thread, let the Yes side leader type an opening comment, then let the No side leader have a response, then let the Yes side deputy type a response, than the No side deputy type their response, and then one Yes "backbencher" type a conclusion, and one No "backbencher" type a conclusion, then lock the thread. A formally, one post each high quality debate would really impress I think.

Too many problems with the subforums. It means that the admins have to approve them which they probably won't do for a short time period. Also, because whole parties may be split, you can't just transfer membership like with the Government subforum, but everyone will have to apply manually to join. Just two of many problems with the idea. I like what you're saying, but my feeling is that it will be a no.

[TopHat]

We can at least ask for them.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
We can at least ask for them.

Oh yes of course, but I'm saying don't get your hopes up.

[internetguru]

Now too small god damn it.

[paperclip]

(Original post by TopHat)
Nick, could we have temporary sub-forums for the Monarchist and Republican groups so we can co-ordinate our campaigns? I think this is an absolutely amazing opportunity to show off the House, and that means making these campaigns as slick as possible, with high-quality debates and well-presented arguments. That requires a lot of co-ordination, and a sub-forum for each of the two sides would help that amazingly.

Also, I think a formal debate thread would be excellent. Say, the day before the referendum, open a thread, let the Yes side leader type an opening comment, then let the No side leader have a response, then let the Yes side deputy type a response, than the No side deputy type their response, and then one Yes "backbencher" type a conclusion, and one No "backbencher" type a conclusion, then lock the thread. A formally, one post each high quality debate would really impress I think.

Good idea, too bad it won't happen.

If the mods do say no, is there any possibility for the leader of each campaign to be granted forum assistant powers? This is so they can communicate with their respective sides without the restrictions on mass PMs regular users face. I know people could just buy subs, but that might not be financially viable for all.

I'm not gonna be a leader, by the way. Although i do have some ideas for the republicans

[Rakas21]

Both sides need to switch their answers..

The question is.. "Do you wish to retain the monarchy of the United Kingdom?" so a Yes vote is for the staus-quo, a no vote is for a Republic.

[Rakas21]

As for what will happen afterward, technically nothing initially however we would then decide what model we want to adopt.

As an aside Tophat, the speaker of the HOC could not be head of state as the head of state is leader of the upper house (hence we would only elect a president if we got the TSR HOL) but it just means that we get to alter the constitution and decide an official democratic model (and stop having to reference the dam queen in every bill at the top).

[TopHat]

(Original post by Rakas21)
As an aside Tophat, the speaker of the HOC could not be head of state as the head of state is leader of the upper house (hence we would only elect a president if we got the TSR HOL) but it just means that we get to alter the constitution and decide an official democratic model (and stop having to reference the dam queen in every bill at the top).

The head of state doesn't have to be the leader of the upper house. Many heads of state are executives in systems with true separation of powers, meaning they're not even from the legislature at all. :P

[Rakas21]

(Original post by TopHat)
The head of state doesn't have to be the leader of the upper house. Many heads of state are executives in systems with true separation of powers, meaning they're not even from the legislature at all. :P

Any examples?

From what i was aware of it was either the leader of the upper House or in their absence, the leader of the lower house (me).

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Any examples?

From what i was aware of it was either the leader of the upper House or in their absence, the leader of the lower house (me).

Most presidential systems have a head of state who is completely separate from the legislature, easy example being the US president, the German head of state and, coincidentally, the UK's head of state.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by D.R.E)
Most presidential systems have a head of state who is completely separate from the legislature, easy example being the US president, the German head of state and, coincidentally, the UK's head of state.

I was under the impression that the US President is leader of the senate (i.e. he still goes and votes) though i could well be wrong.

The German Head of state is a president elected by the upper house.

Monarchy, not democratic.

[Left Hand Drive]

No Monarchy, No problem.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Rakas21)
I was under the impression that the US President is leader of the senate (i.e. he still goes and votes) though i could well be wrong.

That's the Vice President rather than the President.

[Bellissima]

OMG you suck i thought this was real... :/

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Rakas21)
I was under the impression that the US President is leader of the senate (i.e. he still goes and votes) though i could well be wrong.

The German Head of state is a president elected by the upper house.

Monarchy, not democratic.

No, he doesn't vote at all. The only part in the legislative process the US president plays is signing bills into law or, on occasion, vetoing bills. And while the German president is elected by the upper house, he is not part of it once he takes up his role as head of state. The current UK system is not much different to the German one in practice, it's just that our system is not formally codified, but Parliament can still decide who becomes the monarch.

This is why I'm abstaining. Removing the monarchy isn't a very important, although I'm not exactly in love with the monarchy either.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Bellissima)
OMG you suck i thought this was real... :/

Well in TSR land it is

[internetguru]

(Original post by D.R.E)
No, he doesn't vote at all. The only part in the legislative process the US president plays is signing bills into law or, on occasion, vetoing bills. And while the German president is elected by the upper house, he is not part of it once he takes up his role as head of state. The current UK system is not much different to the German one in practice, it's just that our system is not formally codified, but Parliament can still decide who becomes the monarch.

This is why I'm abstaining. Removing the monarchy isn't a very important, although I'm not exactly in love with the monarchy either.

Most of the bills that the house faces are unimportant. Just go into the division lobby and tell me 50% of those bills make any difference.