The Unofficial TSR Libertarian Party

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I never said that the conditions have been met but defending one parties inactivity while saying a different party who haven't been given a chance wouldn't be active does not seem like a consistent position.

    So we should move further away from what has successfully created parties to a system that hasn't been tried? as Aph has stated the current parties would have struggled to form under the current conditions.
    It seems pretty consistent to me: A party should meet the requirements to be allowed to open and should be closed when the conditions for forced closure are met.

    Aph didn't actually say that. And you are simply decided there's a link where there isn't. Perhaps all the successful parties where formed in a month with an 'r' in it. Maybe those are the only months when parties should be allowed to form. The current system is fine.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It seems pretty consistent to me: A party should meet the requirements to be allowed to open and should be closed when the conditions for forced closure are met.

    Aph didn't actually say that. And you are simply decided there's a link where there isn't. Perhaps all the successful parties where formed in a month with an 'r' in it. Maybe those are the only months when parties should be allowed to form. The current system is fine.
    If it is fine show me proof, from what I have saw it failed with the nat libs they had the required members but it didn't help and the thing what people took away from that is we need to put up a block to new ideas, people who were interested in this project aren't now after they have saw how the deck is stacked against them starting the party.

    "Right now if we were all trying to form it's likely only labour would be allowed and even then that's doubtful." Then explain this.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    If it is fine show me proof, from what I have saw it failed with the nat libs they had the required members but it didn't help and the thing what people took away from that is we need to put up a block to new ideas, people who were interested in this project aren't now after they have saw how the deck is stacked against them starting the party.

    "Right now if we were all trying to form it's likely only labour would be allowed and even then that's doubtful." Then explain this.
    What do you mean the system failed with the Nat Libs?! I personally think it worked fine, considering whilst they had members, their activity dropped to so low, it met the closing requirements.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    If it is fine show me proof, from what I have saw it failed with the nat libs they had the required members but it didn't help and the thing what people took away from that is we need to put up a block to new ideas, people who were interested in this project aren't now after they have saw how the deck is stacked against them starting the party.

    "Right now if we were all trying to form it's likely only labour would be allowed and even then that's doubtful." Then explain this.
    If the Nat Libs is an example of the system failing then it would only prove the system is too lenient. If someone isn't going to get involved because 'the deck is stacked' then I don't see how they'd stay active after a week anyway.

    a) He said Labour would be able to form.
    b) He was talking about presently, you used the past tense.

    This is becoming incredibly tedious. If you'd like to see the rules changed then I'll reconvene this debate once you propose an appropriate amendment. Until then let the proposers follow the rules we'd all have to follow if we wanted to form a new party.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    What do you mean the system failed with the Nat Libs?! I personally think it worked fine, considering whilst they had members, their activity dropped to so low, it met the closing requirements.
    How long did they last?

    Numbers don't = activity
    I went on the green thread I believe they said they have around 20 members 4 who are active, 16 who aren't what's more valuable 1 active member and a new member who wants to be active or 16 who aren't and have MHoC experience? Under the current system the 16 could go set up a new party tonight and have the numbers and experience until it is eventually closed down while the active members who do not feel like they want to be part of one of the current parties have to go it alone or just not bother and leave.
    Personally I would prefer the smaller party being able to form.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    joecphillips, you might not have been around long enough to get a good sense for this, but what happens really often is someone comes along, is active for a couple of weeks then ****s off into nowhere. That's why the 10-member requirement is there - because 10 who have registered interest normally equals about 2-3 who are going to be active.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    joecphillips, you might not have been around long enough to get a good sense for this, but what happens really often is someone comes along, is active for a couple of weeks then ****s off into nowhere. That's why the 10-member requirement is there - because 10 who have registered interest normally equals about 2-3 who are going to be active.
    Normally that is the case but here there is one person who has a history of being active and I think requiring 10 people as a blanket rule is too much, I have admitted that 2 might not be enough but with titan involved I think the number should be reduced and I am considering following rays advice and writing an amendment to reduce the number needed for every previously proven active member involved, would you (or anyone else) consider supporting something like this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Normally that is the case but here there is one person who has a history of being active and I think requiring 10 people as a blanket rule is too much, I have admitted that 2 might not be enough but with titan involved I think the number should be reduced and I am considering following rays advice and writing an amendment to reduce the number needed for every previously proven active member involved, would you (or anyone else) consider supporting something like this?
    Thanks a lot.

    And even if this fails, I'm glad that I made enough noise to get people looking
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Normally that is the case but here there is one person who has a history of being active and I think requiring 10 people as a blanket rule is too much, I have admitted that 2 might not be enough but with titan involved I think the number should be reduced and I am considering following rays advice and writing an amendment to reduce the number needed for every previously proven active member involved, would you (or anyone else) consider supporting something like this?
    It's not a hard 10 which is required, it's left up to the Speaker's judgment. Personally I'd say with Titan and this new bloke, maybe 7 others would be a suitable number?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It's not a hard 10 which is required, it's left up to the Speaker's judgment. Personally I'd say with Titan and this new bloke, maybe 7 others would be a suitable number?
    The nat libs only had 7 members when they formed. What's written in the GD is guidance, at the time they seemed like they'd be active.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So you need a lot more to form than some active parties actually have at the moment.
    I've been around long enough to be able to tell you that all the parties alive today have met the requirements in the last ten terms, parties often see peaks and troughs.

    From the 15-19th parliament the Tories utterly crushed everybody in output and general activity. Indeed i believe it's probably responsible for more or less killing the Kippers (pre-Adam) and Libertarians.

    From the 20th parliament or so Labour have reluctantly kept a consistent level of above average activity.

    In the 16th parliament (once Faland became C1) the Socialists became so active that they were occupying 10 MP seats and almost managed to effectively take over Labour although the period between Republic and TDA was a pretty bad one for them.

    The Kippers had their peak activity just a few terms ago with Adam and Nige.

    The Liberals have always kept a reasonable level of activity.

    The Greens under Cheese were magnificent as far as lefty parties go. They had some of the most reasonable intellectual capital in the House, they were soft-left so very reasonable and they took a broad, pragmatic approach which meant they maintained great relations with most parties. They were the only party i ever considered a threat in the House (Labour were only a really a threat due to RL influencing elections), needless to say they had plenty of activity.

    So far.. this movement has 1 bill, 1 well known member and 1 newbie.

    (Original post by Aph)
    Actually iirc none of the current parties had to fulfill the requirements we currently have.
    The Greens and Libertarians were splinter parties formed by some of the well known members in the House. Few original parties have ever made it off the drawing board.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    If in 3 months' time you have a subforum, 4 or more active members and are producing at least one item of legislation per week, then I'll publicly retract and apologise for those words.
    (Original post by RomanBowling33)
    I'll hold you to it
    Well it looks like I have to concede defeat already.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RomanBowling33)
    Well it looks like I have to concede defeat already.
    Don't give up just yet - it is achievable
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Actually iirc none of the current parties had to fulfill the requirements we currently have.
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Really? Fair enough. Though I expect that at the point when they formed the Greens at least would have met the current requirements. They've led governments after all.
    The Greens absolutely had to fulfill the exact same requirements. I should know, I was a founding member and it only succeeded after several failed attempts at creation beforehand and a lot of support (it could be viewed as a split from the Lib Dems - the majority of their social-democrat faction at the time quit to help form the Greens - so very different to this proposal).
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    The Greens absolutely had to fulfill the exact same requirements. I should know, I was a founding member and it only succeeded after several failed attempts at creation beforehand and a lot of support (it could be viewed as a split from the Lib Dems - the majority of their social-democrat faction at the time quit to help form the Greens - so very different to this proposal).
    No, you were founded with 5 members according to ByronicHero
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, you were founded with 5 members according to ByronicHero
    The Libertarians still don't have 5 well known people though.

    If memory serves it all came about because Thunder Chucky and Birch were contesting the leadership (Birch was viewed as more Tory friendly) and then one or two spat their dummies out and a couple just joined out of interest.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The Libertarians still don't have 5 well known people though.

    If memory serves it all came about because Thunder Chucky and Birch were contesting the leadership (Birch was viewed as more Tory friendly) and then one or two spat their dummies out and a couple just joined out of interest.
    A lot has changed around here since I last popped in!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, you were founded with 5 members according to ByronicHero
    Possibly for the initial start of the thread? There were absolutely more than five by the time the subforum launched and we were an official party.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Possibly for the initial start of the thread? There were absolutely more than five by the time the subforum launched and we were an official party.
    Well either he remembers wrong or you do because he said that the party was officially approved with only 5 members.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The Libertarians still don't have 5 well known people though.

    If memory serves it all came about because Thunder Chucky and Birch were contesting the leadership (Birch was viewed as more Tory friendly) and then one or two spat their dummies out and a couple just joined out of interest.
    I thought the greens were initially a labour split not liberal split?! That supprised me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Well either he remembers wrong or you do because he said that the party was officially approved with only 5 members.


    I thought the greens were initially a labour split not liberal split?! That supprised me.
    As Rakas said - definitely a Liberal split.
 
 
 
Write a reply… 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. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 23, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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