Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Petition: Remove unnecessary barriers to new parties

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Fair enough,
    To add, having a guidance document that says five may prove counterproductive because retarded people like internetguru will assume that it is a rule, rather than something that is down to an individuals subjective opinion. It was quite clear that internetguru thought that creating a party automatically made him leader from his posts, and that the speaker would have no input into his party so he could create a constitution which made him undefeatable, which he explicitly stated. We should be moving the guidance document to make it clear it is a subjective decision that has to be made by someone we decide to be responsible and wise enough to make it, rather than keep changing the guidelines to make it even more confusing for the speaker and prospective members. We should remind people that creating a party is not a right, but a privilege, and they have to do more than what is outlined in the guidance document; it is like extra curricular activities at on a CV, doing the bare minimum is not enough, you have to exceed the guidelines and prove yourself to others not just demand it and moan when you fail.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    To add, having a guidance document that says five may prove counterproductive because retarded people like internetguru will assume that it is a rule, rather than something that is down to an individuals subjective opinion. It was quite clear that internetguru thought that creating a party automatically made him leader from his posts, and that the speaker would have no input into his party so he could create a constitution which made him undefeatable, which he explicitly stated. We should be moving the guidance document to make it clear it is a subjective decision that has to be made by someone we decide to be responsible and wise enough to make it, rather than keep changing the guidelines to make it even more confusing for the speaker and prospective members. We should remind people that creating a party is not a right, but a privilege, and they have to do more than what is outlined in the guidance document; it is like extra curricular activities at on a CV, doing the bare minimum is not enough, you have to exceed the guidelines and prove yourself to others not just demand it and moan when you fail.
    So you believe democracy is a privilege not a right wow I think we may have a young Stalin in the making here. Subjectivity is what leads to the corruption and destruction of democracies. When you give those in power the ability to decide who can and cannot stand based on their own opinion it is no longer a democracy.
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    So you believe democracy is a privilege not a right wow I think we may have a young Stalin in the making here. Subjectivity is what leads to the corruption and destruction of democracies. When you give those in power the ability to decide who can and cannot stand based on their own opinion it is no longer a democracy.
    :rofl:

    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    :rofl:

    What?
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    What?
    You.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    So you believe democracy is a privilege not a right wow I think we may have a young Stalin in the making here. Subjectivity is what leads to the corruption and destruction of democracies. When you give those in power the ability to decide who can and cannot stand based on their own opinion it is no longer a democracy.
    I can see your view that subjectivity could mean that there is an element of risk but it is very difficult to imagine any speaker offering a veto on the formation of a political party purely on the basis of what that party stands for unless it was in an extreme circumstance. Any speaker seen to be violating democracy through rejecting a party because of opinions they disagree with would probably quickly find themselves out of office.

    My initial concern's have been addressed now.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    I can see your view that subjectivity could mean that there is an element of risk but it is very difficult to imagine any speaker offering a veto on the formation of a political party purely on the basis of what that party stands for unless it was in an extreme circumstance. Any speaker seen to be violating democracy through rejecting a party because of opinions they disagree with would probably quickly find themselves out of office.

    My initial concern's have been addressed now.
    I disagree there seems to be a herd mentality on MHoC where if certain people dislike the individuals involved in these new parties everyone will back the decision by the speaker.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nope- personally feel the current set up works well.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eff01)
    Nope- personally feel the current set up works well.
    How are you measuring its success?
    How would lowering it to 5 make it work less well?
    Don't you think having a large number of members means several will be left disappointed when they do not attain a seat in MHoC? ultimately forcing new users to leave MHoC for good.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Petitions were not designed to discuss House procedure and I therefore consider this to be an improper use of a petition and so while it is a discussion worth having, I personally wouldn't allow this to go to vote. That decision may not be in my hands as of tomorrow though!
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Perhaps the requirement should be tied in some way to the number of votes required to win a seat at the last election.
    Or, on these lines, an independent MP (which will have already secured votes based on their manifestos) has less stick requirements to form a party (e.g. 5 active members who are active with similar views to the independent).

    I agree with paperclip as well, that they are ofcourse guidelines and can be broken by the speaker - but I don't see why the guidance can not be changed for a good reason if people agree - the guidance should reflect the views of the house so the speaker can keep that in mind when deciding.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: August 2, 2012
New on TSR

What is sixth form like?

Share your story!

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.