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

Opposition & Coalition forums Watch

  • View Poll Results: If we were to change something brought up in this topic, what should we do?
    Remove the Opposition and Coalition forums
    24.00%
    Stop the bill/motion challenge
    32.00%
    Stop the MP review
    32.00%
    --------On a trial basis for next term
    32.00%
    --------Permanently
    16.00%
    Limit the forum/s to a few standard policy, bills & stickied threads
    8.00%
    Maintain the status quo
    48.00%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    Let's have a scenario where RayApparently (to take a random Labourite) wants to see what the Green Party think of a bill he has written. Under the current system Ray uploads the bill to the government subforum and the Greenies can look over it next time they're online.

    Under your system, Ray has to PM his bill to TBM to get the Labour seal of approval, then TBM has to PM it to SU17 to get him to put it on the Green subforum. The Greens then debate this on their party subforum, where Ray and the rest of the Lab/Soc MPs can't see what is being said, and in maybe a week's time SU17 reports back with the highlights of what the Greens have said to TBM, who posts this to the Labour subforum. Because this then requires Labour to debate the potential Green amendments then the thread must remain open on the Labour subforum for a good few days. Then we bring in the Socialists...
    Plus, I like the ability to post a poll to judge government support for an idea.
    It's not my system, it's the way things were once. And yep you're pretty much right with that being how it could work - Have you been around for a while? (name change?), seems like you're talking from experience there lol. Creates a much more political environment - parties can discuss their own agendas on bills without getting disrupted from their political ideologies by other parties, and they can then form their stance before taking to the other party.

    Again on the poll front, I would suggest we have too many polls these days on whether bills are supported or not - it fosters participation/support by ballot rather than participation or support by actively discussing on bills. How many bills have you seen voted on where there's just votes and little in the way of constructive discussion? I've certainly seen plenty.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    To even my own surprise I find myself in tentative support of this proposal.
    Surprise is the best form of attack
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    It's not my system, it's the way things were once. And yep you're pretty much right with that being how it could work - Have you been around for a while? (name change?), seems like you're talking from experience there lol. Creates a much more political environment - parties can discuss their own agendas on bills without getting disrupted from their political ideologies by other parties, and they can then form their stance before taking to the other party.

    Again on the poll front, I would suggest we have too many polls these days on whether bills are supported or not - it fosters participation/support by ballot rather than participation or support by actively discussing on bills. How many bills have you seen voted on where there's just votes and little in the way of constructive discussion? I've certainly seen plenty.
    No, I've only been around for a few months. This is my imagined scenario for what it would be like and it sounds like chaos.

    It's important to remember that parties do not necessarily have a common political position on everything. We've had numerous instances of bills on the government SF where members of the same party have not agreed on legislation.

    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    I think they have done so every now and then, including during the war. But your point is a good one - coalitions are far too commonplace on this forum, again I suggest that is because of these sub fora. There have been minority governments in the past with parties refusing to go into coalitions - in general my stance would be if in doubt go it alone - it's more important to maintain the identity of a party than jump into bed with rival parties. And yes I class the libertarians/conservatives/UKIP and the socialist/Labour/liberals as rival parties within both factions. The amount of seats stolen from Cons/Lab by the other parties is testament to the fact that, ultimately they should be considered rivals.
    I don't know what so many Brits have against coalition government. It's nice to have multiple ideologies working together, particularly in the current government where there is a surprisingly large amount of consensus.

    Having said that, I do like the system currently operating here in Wales, where Labour don't quite have a majority, so each time they want to pass legislation they have to get one of the other parties' support. I'd probably rather a coalition with the LDs though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    No, I've only been around for a few months. This is my imagined scenario for what it would be like and it sounds like chaos.
    Ah ok. Well take it from someone who has been around for years that it's not chaos and it's better than what we have just now

    It's important to remember that parties do not necessarily have a common political position on everything. We've had numerous instances of bills on the government SF where members of the same party have not agreed on legislation.
    I'd not say anyone's forgotten that - and that's not the point here that I was making - the entire nature of discussion because of these sub-fora is what I'm suggesting is lacking.

    You only have to take a look at bills/motions that have been posted - scroll down their pages and you'll mostly see "Aye." or "Nay." as people's contribution, both within sub-fora and in the house. Go search bills from 6,7 terms ago and you'll not see anyone posting one word responses - and those that did would have been rightly chastised by other members.

    I don't know what so many Brits have against coalition government. It's nice to have multiple ideologies working together, particularly in the current government where there is a surprisingly large amount of consensus.
    Nothing against them in moderation, but on this forum there's a coalition every term nearly - and that results in parties losing their identity. I mean can you really tell me what Labour on this forum stand for that is different from the socialists? The number of members who have multi-party status is equally shocking and only strengthens the point I'm making of lack of identity - Although, I have a feeling that I & TCIT may have inadvertently kick started that once upon a time when I agreed to his dual party status with Libertarians/Conservative.

    Having said that, I do like the system currently operating here in Wales, where Labour don't quite have a majority, so each time they want to pass legislation they have to get one of the other parties' support. I'd probably rather a coalition with the LDs though.
    Minority governments are interesting beasts in their own right.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    It's definitely a bigger problem than just forums, it's the culture that has been bred as a result of having these sub forums. It's not an overnight fix granted, but given time it can return to the community it once was. I can see a lot less interest from new members, and that's over a period of time, because the place is almost primarily just about producing bills and numbers of bills. It's not all about numbers of posts and bills, the place should be about politics which is what it once was. Now it's by elections here, there, suggestions that seats be swapped from one party to the other; parties have hardly any identity any longer and that has been driven by these sub fora.
    I think this is the problem with the MP review and also the Motion/ Bill Challenge in that what they're encouraging is activity yes, but the wrong form of activity almost. Both simply encourage people to play the game as a numbers game. The emphasis I feel is too much in simply voting and producing, but not defending legislation and winning the numbers game. As I've said on another thread, we either need to deepen the review to include debating or, as I'm suggesting for the first time here, removing the review and Motion/ Bill challenge and focus on what this House should be about - debate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I think this is the problem with the MP review and also the Motion/ Bill Challenge in that what they're encouraging is activity yes, but the wrong form of activity almost. Both simply encourage people to play the game as a numbers game. The emphasis I feel is too much in simply voting and producing, but not defending legislation and winning the numbers game. As I've said on another thread, we either need to deepen the review to include debating or, as I'm suggesting for the first time here, removing the review and Motion/ Bill challenge and focus on what this House should be about - debate.
    Yep - I'd agree about removing both. I don't want to detract from the original conception or reasoning behind them, (not really familiar with the reasons behind the review though) certainly for the bill challenge when Nick started that a while ago the reasoning was sound and it did it's job and was a bit of fun. But it's now become a sort of institutionalised performance metric that parties put all their focus on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Yep - I'd agree about removing both. I don't want to detract from the original conception or reasoning behind them, (not really familiar with the reasons behind the review though) certainly for the bill challenge when Nick started that a while ago the reasoning was sound and it did it's job and was a bit of fun. But it's now become a sort of institutionalised performance metric that parties put all their focus on.
    If there were to be an amendment scrapping, for now at least, the coalition subfora as well as the Bill & Motion Challenge and those damned awful "Voting Reviews" I'd be happy to give it my support
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Yep - I'd agree about removing both. I don't want to detract from the original conception or reasoning behind them, (not really familiar with the reasons behind the review though) certainly for the bill challenge when Nick started that a while ago the reasoning was sound and it did it's job and was a bit of fun. But it's now become a sort of institutionalised performance metric that parties put all their focus on.
    I think that the original reason for the challenge was laudable, but now it seems to be the be all and end all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    If there were to be an amendment scrapping, for now at least, the coalition subfora as well as the Bill & Motion Challenge and those damned awful "Voting Reviews" I'd be happy to give it my support
    Cool, I think it would probably be best if we keep them as separate motions? As some people might disagree with one but agree with the other and I wouldn't want either being voted down on the basis of folk not agreeing with the other.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Nothing against them in moderation, but on this forum there's a coalition every term nearly - and that results in parties losing their identity. I mean can you really tell me what Labour on this forum stand for that is different from the socialists? The number of members who have multi-party status is equally shocking and only strengthens the point I'm making of lack of identity
    Of course there is a clear difference between socialists and labour on here. There are many items of disagreement, including the labour led VONC last term if you remember. The same applies to the Greens, no identity is being lost by the parties on the left I assure you. Whether you are losing yours is a different question.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Of course there is a clear difference between socialists and labour on here. There are many items of disagreement, including the labour led VONC last term if you remember. The same applies to the Greens, no identity is being lost by the parties on the left I assure you. Whether you are losing yours is a different question.
    Really? When we have have an explicitly socialist and pacifist Labour Party, a Green Party that seems no more radical on the environment than even the Liberals, and a Socialist Party that is increasing interested in governing and passing acts than standing by its radical routes, I find it hard to agree with you on that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Really? When we have have an explicitly socialist and pacifist Labour Party, a Green Party that seems no more radical on the environment than even the Liberals, and a Socialist Party that is increasing interested in governing and passing acts than standing by its radical routes, I find it hard to agree with you on that.
    Yeah of course, we all have different degrees and views. I think the Greens and Labour don't go far enough in some of their suggestions. The Greens have shipped out a fair few environmental bills in their time though, a load more than us socialists who've usually concentrated around human rights etc. As for the ditching of the radical roots by taking part in this democracy, you know its always been an issue. Members have left because they felt the game environment too limiting for socialists. Of course we're similar but that doesn't mean we don't have separate identities.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    It's definitely a bigger problem than just forums, it's the culture that has been bred as a result of having these sub forums. It's not an overnight fix granted, but given time it can return to the community it once was. I can see a lot less interest from new members, and that's over a period of time, because the place is almost primarily just about producing bills and numbers of bills. It's not all about numbers of posts and bills, the place should be about politics which is what it once was. Now it's by elections here, there, suggestions that seats be swapped from one party to the other; parties have hardly any identity any longer and that has been driven by these sub fora.
    That's true but I feel that's perhaps a failure within the leaderships. As an optimist i'm a great believer that one can have their cake and eat it and in that same vein I don't think we need to abolish government and opposition (though I did personally fancy opposition alone - that's not for activity reasons though, I just feel it detracts from the 'importance' (or not) of government). I think it's upto the leadership (and wider party) to try come up with ideas that generate some activity within the party sub-forums.

    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    I think they have done so every now and then, including during the war. But your point is a good one - coalitions are far too commonplace on this forum, again I suggest that is because of these sub fora. There have been minority governments in the past with parties refusing to go into coalitions - in general my stance would be if in doubt go it alone - it's more important to maintain the identity of a party than jump into bed with rival parties. And yes I class the libertarians/conservatives/UKIP and the socialist/Labour/liberals as rival parties within both factions. The amount of seats stolen from Cons/Lab by the other parties is testament to the fact that, ultimately they should be considered rivals.
    In terms of government on here the only lone minority was the 19th parliament (actually that had no government), however the numbers of parties in coalition has certainly increased (the historical norm to the 16th was 2 parties). I completely agree with you with regards to them being rivals and I've always taken the view that it's in the Tory interest for the Libertarian/Ukip parties to exist and take the more extreme new members but that we should attempt to take the better members and take seats from them in a by-election. Sadly though we have right now a hippie atmosphere about helping other parties (whatever happened to good old Tory ideas like 'individual responsibility' ).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think I can see the argument for removing the opposition SF, especially given that it'll probably not survive past an election to form a government. But I'm yet to be convinced that removing the government's one makes any sort of sense.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Again on the poll front, I would suggest we have too many polls these days on whether bills are supported or not - it fosters participation/support by ballot rather than participation or support by actively discussing on bills. How many bills have you seen voted on where there's just votes and little in the way of constructive discussion? I've certainly seen plenty.
    I'm undecided surrounding polls. Having taken both the decisive route after consultation at first and then taking Ukip's idea of internal bill polling i'm not sure there's any more or less internal discussion around a bill draft although once in the House it certainly leads to a chorus of 'Aye's'. I certainly think there are things internally that should be done directly rather than via polls though, indeed ex-Ukip members tend to pretty much all say that Ukip was too beaurocratic and every decision was voted on.

    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Yep - I'd agree about removing both. I don't want to detract from the original conception or reasoning behind them, (not really familiar with the reasons behind the review though) certainly for the bill challenge when Nick started that a while ago the reasoning was sound and it did it's job and was a bit of fun. But it's now become a sort of institutionalised performance metric that parties put all their focus on.
    Having pioneered the MP review I don't agree per say. The reasoning for both is sound in that we had bills with less than <30 votes while parties had surplus members wanting to become MP's and equally we were going weeks without bills. The principal was that a bit of competition would generate more activity which it seems to have done with bills and that party leaders would finally act if they were going to lose seats. Now I agree that there's too big a focus on the numbers for bills (though an abolition could well lead to the same decline in activity we've seen prior) but with the MP reviews I think they work as they should and for all the whining from some people, we've never had more than 1 by-election a parliament. I also disagree with reducing the size of the House because there's no guarantee that the MP that remains will be the most valuable one (it could be the one who votes or simply the one with the best manifesto).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That's true but I feel that's perhaps a failure within the leaderships. As an optimist i'm a great believer that one can have their cake and eat it and in that same vein I don't think we need to abolish government and opposition (though I did personally fancy opposition alone - that's not for activity reasons though, I just feel it detracts from the 'importance' (or not) of government). I think it's upto the leadership (and wider party) to try come up with ideas that generate some activity within the party sub-forums.
    Disagree with this here, all leaders can't have failed and brought this administrative task driven atmosphere. The fault lies entirely in the system - yep, we've all created this system and it takes a fair whack of humility to admit we might have got things slightly wrong, but I definitely don't think the fault is with the people who have led. You're making a case for the status quo and at the same time recognising there's serious failings with the status quo. Well as you're someone who's a believer of not having your cake and eating it... make your mind up son!

    In terms of government on here the only lone minority was the 19th parliament (actually that had no government), however the numbers of parties in coalition has certainly increased (the historical norm to the 16th was 2 parties). I completely agree with you with regards to them being rivals and I've always taken the view that it's in the Tory interest for the Libertarian/Ukip parties to exist and take the more extreme new members but that we should attempt to take the better members and take seats from them in a by-election. Sadly though we have right now a hippie atmosphere about helping other parties (whatever happened to good old Tory ideas like 'individual responsibility' ).
    I was quite active when you first started here if you recall, so my powers of logic tell me that you can't possibly have always taken the view that we should attempt to take the better members in a by-election, because the by-elections have not always been around in the time that you have I'd say it's not in our interests for UKIP to exist, and in fact we put quite a bit of effort to get them to disband including poaching someone from their leadership and trying to get him to bring all the members with him lol.

    On the whole, I think you agree with me here but are a typical old blue blooded tory that's reluctant to change :P
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Meltwater)
    I think I can see the argument for removing the opposition SF, especially given that it'll probably not survive past an election to form a government. But I'm yet to be convinced that removing the government's one makes any sort of sense.
    I'd support the prohibition of opposition coalitions. The Official Opposition should be the biggest party not in government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Meltwater)
    I think I can see the argument for removing the opposition SF, especially given that it'll probably not survive past an election to form a government. But I'm yet to be convinced that removing the government's one makes any sort of sense.
    I suppose I would say what's the difference you see between the two forums?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Disagree with this here, all leaders can't have failed and brought this administrative task driven atmosphere. The fault lies entirely in the system - yep, we've all created this system and it takes a fair whack of humility to admit we might have got things slightly wrong, but I definitely don't think the fault is with the people who have led. You're making a case for the status quo and at the same time recognising there's serious failings with the status quo. Well as you're someone who's a believer of not having your cake and eating it... make your mind up son!

    I was quite active when you first started here if you recall, so my powers of logic tell me that you can't possibly have always taken the view that we should attempt to take the better members in a by-election, because the by-elections have not always been around in the time that you have I'd say it's not in our interests for UKIP to exist, and in fact we put quite a bit of effort to get them to disband including poaching someone from their leadership and trying to get him to bring all the members with him lol.

    On the whole, I think you agree with me here but are a typical old blue blooded tory that's reluctant to change :P
    Have the cake and eat it in terms of keeping the sub-forums but generating internal activity too. I'd also question whether all parties suffer for the same reason though, even when active the Libertarians struggled to fill their seats as historically have the socialists which makes me think that for them it may be simply be a case of the non-RL affiliation hurting them.

    The first by-election I recall was after the collapse of the center party around the time I became leader. Back when I first came around (about 2 months before your election) the party was infested with libertarians (I recall the DL Cambo suggesting this may not be the party for me) and indeed I recall that one of the reasons I voted for you is because you objected to the idea of a merger which had been floating around. Certainly since the collapse of the center party I've supported such a stance though.

    *I meant take seats in a by-election, poach their members (as we've done successfully before).

    I agree with the jist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Have the cake and eat it in terms of keeping the sub-forums but generating internal activity too. I'd also question whether all parties suffer for the same reason though, even when active the Libertarians struggled to fill their seats as historically have the socialists which makes me think that for them it may be simply be a case of the non-RL affiliation hurting them.
    The libertarians of old when they couldn't fill their seats were, in terms of actual activity (debate) always one of the more active parties. Sure they couldn't fill their seats, but they had a concentrated focus on libertarianism that drew in active, articulate and passionate members. I am in no way suggesting that the existing members do not have this, but I am suggesting the system has resulted in the efforts being put into things which on the whole are less important. That the libertarians couldn't fill their seats was actually the reason dual membership began, and on reflection I think it was the wrong call at the time to allow that to happen.
 
 
 
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 15, 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.