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%

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    The poll is ridiculous because it will be exactly those unable to fill the seats, regularly missing votes, etc. who will be in support of at least two thirds of the options.
    Public poll, therefore it'll be clear if that is the case (so far it doesn't look that way).



    Alternatively, the people who never vote may not vote in this either haha
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Never been in one, so i have no idea what they do to parties, so for that reason, i won't vote on this.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Scrap the MP review and scrap/mixup the bill challenge. Also as O113 said 'I'd support the prohibition of opposition coalitions. The Official Opposition should be the biggest party not in government.'

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The idea of Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet sub-fora instead of Gov/Opp sub-fora is intriguing. Ministers do tend to be the most vocal members of their respective parties however they can also (perhaps) be trusted to carry their debates onto their respective party forums.

    I wholly agree that we should strengthen the identities of our parties. It'd lead to a more meaningful, multi-faceted debate than simply left and right raging against each other. I also don't think dissolving the fora would be so detrimental for our coalition anyway.
    I think that O113 is right about the Opposition coalition - it's an idea which I've always found bizarre because surely it makes sense to be the biggest party not in Government. On the basis of O113's comment, I see no need for a shadow cabinet subforum, but the Cabinet subforum is an idea which I've mulled over a bit and quite like.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I think that O113 is right about the Opposition coalition - it's an idea which I've always found bizarre because surely it makes sense to be the biggest party not in Government. On the basis of O113's comment, I see no need for a shadow cabinet subforum, but the Cabinet subforum is an idea which I've mulled over a bit and quite like.
    Perhaps that should be the bill.
    (though bills that reform the MHoC itself get a little confusing)
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Perhaps that should be the bill.
    (though bills that reform the MHoC itself get a little confusing)
    You'd write an amendment instead of a Bill for this kind of thing.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I think that O113 is right about the Opposition coalition - it's an idea which I've always found bizarre because surely it makes sense to be the biggest party not in Government. On the basis of O113's comment, I see no need for a shadow cabinet subforum, but the Cabinet subforum is an idea which I've mulled over a bit and quite like.
    My worry with a cabinet subforum instead of a government subforum is that discussion of bills are likely to remain on the cabinet SF, which makes these debates less accessible to backbenchers and non-MPs, which means they are less likely to contribute.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    You'd write an amendment instead of a Bill for this kind of thing.
    Ahhh of course, slipped my mind that.

    I'd be interested in writing that actually. Perhaps you'd be as well. It effects everyone (to an extent) so cross-party seems like the best way to go.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Perhaps that should be the bill.
    (though bills that reform the MHoC itself get a little confusing)
    I think, that this was being put up, to make sure there was strong interest before a amendment was released. Things can get overly formal and forces very strong opinions to be set in stone when it's written up formally.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by talentedlobster)
    I think, that this was being put up, to make sure there was strong interest before a amendment was released. Things can get overly formal and forces very strong opinions to be set in stone when it's written up formally.
    Yeah but this poll doesn't offer the option for abolishing only opposition sub-forums and then replacing government sub-forums with cabinet ones haha

    As such I haven't vote because none of it really appeals to me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    My worry with a cabinet subforum instead of a government subforum is that discussion of bills are likely to remain on the cabinet SF, which makes these debates less accessible to backbenchers and non-MPs, which means they are less likely to contribute.
    I concur, I'd rather have the current arrangement than a cabinet-only forum.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    My worry with a cabinet subforum instead of a government subforum is that discussion of bills are likely to remain on the cabinet SF, which makes these debates less accessible to backbenchers and non-MPs, which means they are less likely to contribute.
    That's my worry, but I can understand having a cabinet subforum. However, if people are happy to be rid of both, then I'd support that.


    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Ahhh of course, slipped my mind that.

    I'd be interested in writing that actually. Perhaps you'd be as well. It effects everyone (to an extent) so cross-party seems like the best way to go.
    I'd be happy to help, but it's worth noting that I'm not an MP so won't count as a seconder.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I'd be happy to help, but it's worth noting that I'm not an MP so won't count as a seconder.
    Ah yes, being Deputy Speaker and all.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    That's my worry, but I can understand having a cabinet subforum. However, if people are happy to be rid of both, then I'd support that.
    I'm not. I will vote against any attempt to remove the government subforum.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    I'm not. I will vote against any attempt to remove the government subforum.
    This is why I think that we need to make incremental reform. As I've said before, I can sort of see the point of the Government subforum, but the Opposition subforum is one which I've always found bizarre.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    This is why I think that we need to make incremental reform. As I've said before, I can sort of see the point of the Government subforum, but the Opposition subforum is one which I've always found bizarre.
    It only came about because the guidance document specifically endorsed coalitions of opposition parties, and so it does make sense under the rules. Which in all fairness were probably written by someone who only intended to have governing coalitions and didn't phrase it very well back in 2005
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    It only came about because the guidance document specifically endorsed coalitions of opposition parties, and so it does make sense under the rules. Which in all fairness were probably written by someone who only intended to have governing coalitions and didn't phrase it very well back in 2005
    On that basis yes, but in reality it seems bizarre.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The whole bidding process is logical, the biggest coalition gets govt. and the 2nd largest gets opposition. Logic. Furthermore govt. and opp. increase activity as members can get involved with a wider range of people and foster links. It is also good because it provides a coherent second choice to the government .

    Also cabinet sub-forums is a horrible, elitist, exclusive and unworkable (due to the extra user groups for no benefit) idea.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    The whole bidding process is logical, the biggest coalition gets govt. and the 2nd largest gets opposition. Logic. Furthermore govt. and opp. increase activity as members can get involved with a wider range of people and foster links. It is also good because it provides a coherent second choice to the government .

    Also cabinet sub-forums is a horrible, elitist, exclusive and unworkable (due to the extra user groups for no benefit) idea.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I disagree - what you end up with is two large blocs with only one or two smaller parties actually providing that variety needed for debate. If members want to foster links, then by all means collaborate via PM, but I don't see why we need a whole subforum for the Opposition at all. The Government I can sort of see more of a need for, but having an Opposition coalition basically merges several parties into one meaning that there's a little less variety in the debate.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I disagree - what you end up with is two large blocs with only one or two smaller parties actually providing that variety needed for debate. If members want to foster links, then by all means collaborate via PM, but I don't see why we need a whole subforum for the Opposition at all. The Government I can sort of see more of a need for, but having an Opposition coalition basically merges several parties into one meaning that there's a little less variety in the debate.
    No, it is variety, it is nice to have a civilised casual chat with people that you share some political ideas with, outside your normal circle. With the whole 'merging the parties together' *******s, it is exactly that, the Tories and Liberals have very distinct, different ideas, and the opposition forum is a way to share and collaborate together. However on the subject of parties being merged, the Socialists are so dominant in Labour, they could combine easily, and the greens wouldn't have a problem fitting in either. When parties have distinct ideologies and no member crossover, they ware really useful. But when there is a massive amount of crossover, with parties who have the same ideas, they are pointless.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    No, it is variety, it is nice to have a civilised casual chat with people that you share some political ideas with, outside your normal circle. With the whole 'merging the parties together' *******s, it is exactly that, the Tories and Liberals have very distinct, different ideas, and the opposition forum is a way to share and collaborate together. However on the subject of parties being merged, the Socialists are so dominant in Labour, they could combine easily, and the greens wouldn't have a problem fitting in either. When parties have distinct ideologies and no member crossover, they ware really useful. But when there is a massive amount of crossover, with parties who have the same ideas, they are pointless.
    The Commons Bar and PMs are the place to chat - you don't need a whole subforum for that. With regard to the merging them together and the whole separate identities issue. Let me perhaps put it this way - you draft a Bill in the Conservatives and it's put in the Opposition forum. The Liberals debate a bit, but agree to support it. By the time that it comes to the House, one side of the debate, the Liberals, has already shaped the Bill so barring saying yes, can't really debate. Assume then that the Government talk about it in their subforum and decide put forward broadly similar reasons for opposing it in the first and subsequent reasons. You've then merged three more distinct viewpoints (if I'm allowed to model it so simplistically) into one so you've gone from five different perspectives (again very simplistic I know) to two. The only parties actually bringing any distinct perspective then ends up being UKIP and the Libertarians. In short collaboration is great, but debate is moving from the main House to subforums - we need to reverse that and removing, at the very least the Opposition subforum, will help with that.
 
 
 
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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.