Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    A lot of MPs simply vote and do little else. 9 can't even be bothered to do that. Of course we could just distribute according to activity, but that would a) be very difficult to calculate (what do you define as activity? How do you quantify it?) and b) remove the point of and need for elections (at which point, you've basically killed the place). I think that a smaller core of 40 MPs is what's needed and the statistics of today's review seems to suggest that would be an almost ideal number.
    We want to be making this place bigger and better, not smaller less active and decrepit. We should continue with elections (obviously), however if a party cannot fill their seats then they should put partisan politics aside and lend them to another party, any other party that can fill them. If every seat highlighted was offered to the Tories/Liberals I am 90% sure that we could fill them, and the new MPs would contribute outside the opposition and party sub-forums as well. Even if someone is just a voting machine, at least they are participating, and will most likely start contributing after a term or so.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    we will happily loan you players until you can find UKIP members to fill them.
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    If a party cannot fill their seats, they should do the honourable thing and loan them out to other parties.
    Nice one :lol: That can be read two ways. The first suggests we borrow players from you but the second suggests we give the seats to you

    (Original post by toronto353)
    There never has been in TSR UKIP and that's even when you go way back to the start of the party. My feeling is that it might be worth looking at reducing the size of the House, perhaps to 40 MPs, for the time being.
    I noticed that. The forum is 10 pages of incoherent ideas and dribble. Nothing seems to come together. Even now, the 'Party Position' thread consists of the odd idea with no formal strategy, defined position or policy.


    I found it best to never to start being a spectator in the first place. I jumped right in and stared debating, and putting stuff forward.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Nice one :lol: That can be read two ways. The first suggests we borrow players from you but the second suggests we give the seats to you
    .
    Same thing, you would always keep control of the seats, and could boot the MPs out whenever you liked/ wanted to install UKIP members. So basically, we put them on ice for you, and prevent them from being given away.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    I noticed that. The forum is 10 pages of incoherent ideas and dribble. Nothing seems to come together. Even now, the 'Party Position' thread consists of the odd idea with no formal strategy, defined position or policy.
    That is because his UKIP used to be overly democratic so that he would get re-elected. Seriously, the party needs a stronger set of policies and a serious leadership.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    We want to be making this place bigger and better, not smaller less active and decrepit. We should continue with elections (obviously), however if a party cannot fill their seats then they should put partisan politics aside and lend them to another party, any other party that can fill them. If every seat highlighted was offered to the Tories/Liberals I am 90% sure that we could fill them, and the new MPs would contribute outside the opposition and party sub-forums as well. Even if someone is just a voting machine, at least they are participating, and will most likely start contributing after a term or so.
    Sometimes you have to go backward to go forwards though. Consolidating what we do have seems to make more sense than having a House of 50 MPs when term after term around 10% or more fail this review. With regard to transferring seats, yes in reality you could do that, but then does that not also make elections pointless - for example vote Labour, get a Conservative MP? I think that reducing the House and consolidating what we've got makes more sense.

    If they're a voting machine, they're not participating really. Yes they're clicking a few buttons, but they're not debating or creating legislation. In fact, it could be argued that this review needs to be widened and take into account legislation drafting because at the moment it only encourages people to be voting machines. I think that 40 MPs and a deeper review process makes more sense than keeping 50 seats when we don't have enough activity to fill 50 seats.


    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    I noticed that. The forum is 10 pages of incoherent ideas and dribble. Nothing seems to come together. Even now, the 'Party Position' thread consists of the odd idea with no formal strategy, defined position or policy.
    I'm sure that will change under bun's leadership.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    That is because his UKIP used to be overly democratic so that he would get re-elected. Seriously, the party needs a stronger set of policies and a serious leadership.
    I don't think that I can be blamed for all 10 pages. Did you never look back to the start of the party? It was even worse back then.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Why? There are easily 50 'active' members, just the seats seem to be distributed in the worst way possible.

    If a party cannot fill their seats, they should do the honourable thing and loan them out to other parties.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As a purist I oppose A83 for the most part and would rather slaughter all in a by-election for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Same thing, you would always keep control of the seats, and could boot the MPs out whenever you liked/ wanted to install UKIP members. So basically, we put them on ice for you, and prevent them from being given away.
    Under whose party whip would they fall? Now that is the question. I think we will take you up on that offer.

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    That is because his UKIP used to be overly democratic so that he would get re-elected. Seriously, the party needs a stronger set of policies and a serious leadership.
    A leadership election is fine but an election for anything else needs to be stopped. Only I have put forward a chuck of policy that is feasible. There's lots of calls for "lower taxes" - but to what level? The detail is non-existent. It can hardly go towards a manifesto.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What is people's obsession with by-elections? We can't have endless elections, they become a bit boring.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Nice one :lol: That can be read two ways. The first suggests we borrow players from you but the second suggests we give the seats to you

    I noticed that. The forum is 10 pages of incoherent ideas and dribble. Nothing seems to come together. Even now, the 'Party Position' thread consists of the odd idea with no formal strategy, defined position or policy.

    I found it best to never to start being a spectator in the first place. I jumped right in and stared debating, and putting stuff forward.
    The best way to think of it is renting. Because with A83 Tory MP's don't have to join Ukip there's no real involvement beyond taking up vacant space and perhaps negotiating a couple of Ayes on a bill or two or using it as a good will gesture to foster a closer alliance. Of course one can have dual membership but after Bun running for your leadership I'm heavily, heavily opposed to that albeit I think Bun's a perfectly capable leader and great guy and I can't really blame him for taking advantage of a situation given that I exploited a bad situation to rise myself.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    Sometimes you have to go backward to go forwards though. Consolidating what we do have seems to make more sense than having a House of 50 MPs when term after term around 10% or more fail this review. With regard to transferring seats, yes in reality you could do that, but then does that not also make elections pointless - for example vote Labour, get a Conservative MP? I think that reducing the House and consolidating what we've got makes more sense.

    If they're a voting machine, they're not participating really. Yes they're clicking a few buttons, but they're not debating or creating legislation. In fact, it could be argued that this review needs to be widened and take into account legislation drafting because at the moment it only encourages people to be voting machines. I think that 40 MPs and a deeper review process makes more sense than keeping 50 seats when we don't have enough activity to fill 50 seats.

    I'm sure that will change under bun's leadership.
    The first thing I did when I became leader is sack MP's who were voting but not writing bills with precisely the same intent and i'm afraid that failed miserably (well not totally - you saw our activity in the 15th parliament coalition). Some members like to vote, some like to debate, some like to write bills. Its your choice what mix you want but if you were to get rid of everybody not writing bills you'd cut the house in half.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mechie)
    What is people's obsession with by-elections? We can't have endless elections, they become a bit boring.
    We've not had one in about 9 months. And it's politking.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Under whose party whip would they fall? Now that is the question. I think we will take you up on that offer.

    A leadership election is fine but an election for anything else needs to be stopped. Only I have put forward a chuck of policy that is feasible. There's lots of calls for "lower taxes" - but to what level? The detail is non-existent. It can hardly go towards a manifesto.
    Tory whip plus Aye to all Ukip bills seems most appropriate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We've not had one in about 9 months. And it's politking.
    We've had a general election since then, though. But it seems to be the stock idea here, inactivity - let's have a BY-ELECTION!! As if they're the cure for all that's wrong with the house, when I feel too many elections lead them to become stale and not particularly interesting.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The first thing I did when I became leader is sack MP's who were voting but not writing bills with precisely the same intent and i'm afraid that failed miserably (well not totally - you saw our activity in the 15th parliament coalition). Some members like to vote, some like to debate, some like to write bills. Its your choice what mix you want but if you were to get rid of everybody not writing bills you'd cut the house in half.
    People solely voting don't add a great deal to the House and the review is flawed in that in gives the impression that people are contributing, but the story is that some people are simply here to make up the voting numbers and we need to find a way to look at the whole picture - debating and writing legislation - when doing this review and not just are they voting. To truly make this House active, we have to deepen the review and identify not only those who don't vote, but also those who do nothing, but vote because they contribute just as little to the House as those who don't vote do.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mechie)
    We've had a general election since then, though. But it seems to be the stock idea here, inactivity - let's have a BY-ELECTION!! As if they're the cure for all that's wrong with the house, when I feel too many elections lead them to become stale and not particularly interesting.
    This is precisely why I feel that the mock EU elections fell flat as well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    This is precisely why I feel that the mock EU elections fell flat as well.
    To be honest, I hardly remember the mock EU election. Totally meaningless. We need to make sure that elections are big events in the house calendar, rather than having one every 5 minutes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Champagne Supernova pisses me off, so does Faland, and Jarred to a far lesser extent. They both seem to constantly be kissing her arse. They all complain about the level of debate in this house but have they read the D&CA fora recently? It's even worse than here. People here use a range of facts, insults and emotion to make a convincing argument. Personal ideology shines through too. Outside of this house it's full of emotion, half-facts and is mainly incoherent.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The best way to think of it is renting. Because with A83 Tory MP's don't have to join Ukip there's no real involvement beyond taking up vacant space and perhaps negotiating a couple of Ayes on a bill or two or using it as a good will gesture to foster a closer alliance. Of course one can have dual membership but after Bun running for your leadership I'm heavily, heavily opposed to that albeit I think Bun's a perfectly capable leader and great guy and I can't really blame him for taking advantage of a situation given that I exploited a bad situation to rise myself.

    Tory whip plus Aye to all Ukip bills seems most appropriate.
    Very true. TSR UKIP is a weird one. We all compared to backbench RL Tory MP's like Dominic Raab. It would be quite easy for us to work closely with the Conservatives to push bills through or write them, however, TSR Conservatives are more left-wing than their RL counterparts so are probably nearer TSR Labour or the Libertarians.

    The differences above mean some bills by UKIP pushing for things most RL Tories want are being voted against by TSR Tories.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This house can be improved by having cross party boards and committees for things. Have a stronger like with MUN too. Negotiations with American college websites to implement a similar thing with Congress could work. Imagine that, international virtual politics It's either extremely sad or extremely brilliant.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Champagne Supernova pisses me off, so does Faland, and Jarred to a far lesser extent. They both seem to constantly be kissing her arse. They all complain about the level of debate in this house but have they read the D&CA fora recently? It's even worse than here. People here use a range of facts, insults and emotion to make a convincing argument. Personal ideology shines through too. Outside of this house it's full of emotion, half-facts and is mainly incoherent.

    Very true. TSR UKIP is a weird one. We all compared to backbench RL Tory MP's like Dominic Raab. It would be quite easy for us to work closely with the Conservatives to push bills through or write them, however, TSR Conservatives are more left-wing than their RL counterparts so are probably nearer TSR Labour or the Libertarians.

    The differences above mean some bills by UKIP pushing for things most RL Tories want are being voted against by TSR Tories.
    The TSR Tories are certainly more liberal on the whole but economically we're as far right as you'd expect. So there probably is a libertarian flavour in some aspects.

    That's generally true of Conservative Future though from my limited experience, much more liberal and Euro-skeptic than the RL variant.

    We are nowhere close to TSR Labour though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Under whose party whip would they fall? Now that is the question. I think we will take you up on that offer.
    What Rakas said . No problem.
 
 
 
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.

Updated: July 6, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.