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%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    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.
    No, because not the whole of the government/opposition will ever be onboard with it, there will often be objections. Then when the issue arises in the MHoC, they then debate to convince the opposition. The idea that people make their mind up then shut up is plain wrong. People debate, the sub-forums shape the general idea, then the 5+ viewpoints in the thread discuss it.

    However I do see your point about the chat, by shutting them down we could always take chat off TSR onto Skype etc, damn, perhaps we could move lots of our debate over there while we are at it.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    No, because not the whole of the government/opposition will ever be onboard with it, there will often be objections. Then when the issue arises in the MHoC, they then debate to convince the opposition. The idea that people make their mind up then shut up is plain wrong. People debate, the sub-forums shape the general idea, then the 5+ viewpoints in the thread discuss it.

    However I do see your point about the chat, by shutting them down we could always take chat off TSR onto Skype etc, damn, perhaps we could move lots of our debate over there while we are at it.
    You tend to find a lot of the time that the Government and Opposition on their Bills unite around a common position with any user dissenting told to discuss it in the subforum. That is precisely the problem and shutting down that avenue might force debate into the open.

    Oh please you're twisting my argument. We have the Commons Bar, why do we need an entire subforum for a 'casual chat' as well? To suggest that forcing people to chat via PMs or the Commons Bar means that we might as well have the whole MHoC on Skype vel sim. seems rather ludicrous doesn't it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    You tend to find a lot of the time that the Government and Opposition on their Bills unite around a common position with any user dissenting told to discuss it in the subforum. That is precisely the problem and shutting down that avenue might force debate into the open.

    Oh please you're twisting my argument. We have the Commons Bar, why do we need an entire subforum for a 'casual chat' as well? To suggest that forcing people to chat via PMs or the Commons Bar means that we might as well have the whole MHoC on Skype vel sim. seems rather ludicrous doesn't it?
    Look, we are never going to agree on almost anything. So with the greatest respect to you I am going to stop talking to someone who has never even posted in something he is talking about, I can tell you categorically that this (people being told to talk about it in their own sub-forum) has never happened in my time here in government or opposition.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Look, we are never going to agree on almost anything. So with the greatest respect to you I am going to stop talking to someone who has never even posted in something he is talking about, I can tell you categorically that this (people being told to talk about it in their own sub-forum) has never happened in my time here in government or opposition.
    Fine by me. Just a quick note, I have been in numerous Governments and indeed now in Opposition so I am talking from experience and far greater experience than you. I can assure you on that basis that I do know what I'm talking about. Secondly people being told to talk about Bills in their own subforum has happened and I will happily present evidence of this should you so wish. So with the greatest of respect, no we don't agree on much - that is sad as we both share a desire for reform, but we don't agree. However, please avoid playing the experience card because you won't win on that basis.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Fine by me. Just a quick note, I have been in numerous Governments and indeed now in Opposition so I am talking from experience and far greater experience than you. I can assure you on that basis that I do know what I'm talking about. Secondly people being told to talk about Bills in their own subforum has happened and I will happily present evidence of this should you so wish. So with the greatest of respect, no we don't agree on much - that is sad as we both share a desire for reform, but we don't agree. However, please avoid playing the experience card because you won't win on that basis.
    Reform and devolution are two very different things, this is devolution, whereas I push reform.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Think it all depends on the parties involved. Toronto is right in the sense that it saps all your discussions from your party forum into the Govt one, but I don't see the problem with that.

    I've been in both opposition and government coalitions. Having those unique forums save time with PMs and promote better debate, as members have common themes, but different tastes, so it's a bit more interesting.

    I think both our opposition forum last year with the Greens and our current government subforum have been beneficial as a whole.

    Thus, I completely disagree with removing them. If parties don't want to use them, that is up to them.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It's an interesting question. I think that if the Gov and Opp forums were proposed today, they probably wouldn't have been formed. It'd be very hard to justify their existence. But I think it's important that we have them, even if that's in a diminished form. To be honest, from a moderation perspective, it helps if as much as possible is done on the semi-public forums, rather than through PMs.

    On the voting reviews, in almost a year of having this system in place, this is the first time it's ever actually gone to a by-election. I'm confident that the system works: the whole point of it is that we have it so that we need never use it. The idea isn't to replace MPs with by-elections, it's to scare parties into taking action earlier on. If anyone's concerned about them though then an alternative is to cap the number of by-elections a term at one, and then if any extra seats need to be removed after that election happens, we can just remove them completely, that is, without replacement. In fact, that'd work even better as an incentive.
    It seems to me though that the only time the system has "broken" is when it's concerned an independent MP, where there is no party to take action.

    The bill and motion challenge is something I've never really paid attention to really, as much as I don't like to admit it. It is a nice way of getting to know how everyone's doing, but it's not something I look at very often.

    Anyway, I voted status quo because I think things largely work as they are, but a bit of casual tweaking wouldn't hurt.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    It's an interesting question. I think that if the Gov and Opp forums were proposed today, they probably wouldn't have been formed. It'd be very hard to justify their existence. But I think it's important that we have them, even if that's in a diminished form. To be honest, from a moderation perspective, it helps if as much as possible is done on the semi-public forums, rather than through PMs.

    On the voting reviews, in almost a year of having this system in place, this is the first time it's ever actually gone to a by-election. I'm confident that the system works: the whole point of it is that we have it so that we need never use it. The idea isn't to replace MPs with by-elections, it's to scare parties into taking action earlier on. If anyone's concerned about them though then an alternative is to cap the number of by-elections a term at one, and then if any extra seats need to be removed after that election happens, we can just remove them completely, that is, without replacement. In fact, that'd work even better as an incentive.
    It seems to me though that the only time the system has "broken" is when it's concerned an independent MP, where there is no party to take action.

    The bill and motion challenge is something I've never really paid attention to really, as much as I don't like to admit it. It is a nice way of getting to know how everyone's doing, but it's not something I look at very often.

    Anyway, I voted status quo because I think things largely work as they are, but a bit of casual tweaking wouldn't hurt.
    The main change that would occur with the abolition of those forums would be that items would be discussed within individual parties, with feedback being given then between most likely party leaders via PM. I honestly wouldn't think there's going to be much going on there that'd require moderator intervention, unless a coalition is going so badly the leaders decide to start throwing insults at each other
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with all the proposals here, so have voted to keep things as they are. Point by point:

    Opposition and coalition forums are useful for planning legislation, writing Budgets and I do not feel they hugely impact wider activity.

    I do not see any reason to drop the Bill and Motion challenge.

    The MP review is important, keeps activity consistent and eliminates MPs who cannot be bothered to participate long-term.

    Finally, I'm not sure I see the point in 'limiting' the forum. How would this be achieved and why is it necessary?

    Of course we should encourage and reward good debating - that's why I support relaunching monthly HOC awards.

    But I also believe we need to have ways of monitoring activity. We have a finite amount of MP seats and many more wanting to take part. It's a matter of basic fairness that we have ways to remove lazy/inactive members and give active, passionate newbies a chance instead.

    TLDR: It's a no from me.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    The main change that would occur with the abolition of those forums would be that items would be discussed within individual parties, with feedback being given then between most likely party leaders via PM. I honestly wouldn't think there's going to be much going on there that'd require moderator intervention, unless a coalition is going so badly the leaders decide to start throwing insults at each other
    It's not that the stuff needs mod intervention (the less legwork I have to do for this place, the better ) but I prefer as much content to be on the public forums as possible, more activity is good, and PMs just take away from that activity. If it actually did lead to more just going on in the individual forums then that would be good, and it's help re-introduce the parties' individuality, but I wouldn't be 100% certain that it would have that effect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    It's not that the stuff needs mod intervention (the less legwork I have to do for this place, the better ) but I prefer as much content to be on the public forums as possible, more activity is good, and PMs just take away from that activity. If it actually did lead to more just going on in the individual forums then that would be good, and it's help re-introduce the parties' individuality, but I wouldn't be 100% certain that it would have that effect.
    I think it'd be worth a trial for next term. I think the PMs would be used quite sparingly really, it'd only be so Bills could be sent between parties etc as they'll never be a viable platform for actual debates, which is the activity we really want rather than just a spam of Ayes and Nays
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If enough leftists think that it is a good idea, then I invite them not to use them next term.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    If enough leftists think that it is a good idea, then I invite them not to use them next term.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Apart from myself the only others supporting this so far are tehFrance, Indievertigo and toronto none of whom I would exactly label as 'leftists'
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    None of the above. Status Quo are a band from the 1970s- I'm not going to maintain them, they have enough money as it is. I'd keep the motion and bill challenge as it's about the best chance of winning in this Parliament.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Despite the clear result in favour of maintaining the status quo, I would like to point out that it was indeed those with poor voting performance who voted for the change, as predicted. I simply took all party members who voted in the poll and divided them according to whether they want to stop the MP review or maintain the status quo, took the mean of their turnout percentage from the latest two voting reviews, and subtracted a hundred if they belonged to a party whose seats had been highlighted for removal. Therefore, I obtained a voting coefficient for each of those members and compared those according to which option they supported.

    The best score (active MP from a party without any seats for removal) is represented by 100 while the worst score would be 0 minus 100, ergo -100 (a non-voting MP from a party with seats for removal). Some of the voters were not included in the voting reviews (they were not MPs) and are represented by 0, unless they come from a party with seats for removal, in which case it is -100.

    Briefly, the higher the number, the more active, and the lower the number, the more desperate to save their buttocks by canceling the MP review. Yeah, too much work and too many words for an obvious point. :rolleyes::laugh:

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Despite the clear result in favour of maintaining the status quo, I would like to point out that it was indeed those with poor voting performance who voted for the change, as predicted. I simply took all party members who voted in the poll and divided them according to whether they want to stop the MP review or maintain the status quo, took the mean of their turnout percentage from the latest two voting reviews, and subtracted a hundred if they belonged to a party whose seats had been highlighted for removal. Therefore, I obtained a voting coefficient for each of those members and compared those according to which option they supported.

    The best score (active MP from a party without any seats for removal) is represented by 100 while the worst score would be 0 minus 100, ergo -100 (a non-voting MP from a party with seats for removal). Some of the voters were not included in the voting reviews (they were not MPs) and are represented by 0, unless they come from a party with seats for removal, in which case it is -100.

    Briefly, the higher the number, the more active, and the lower the number, the more desperate to save their buttocks by canceling the MP review. Yeah, too much work and too many words for an obvious point. :rolleyes::laugh:

    PRSOM, but very telling information.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Despite the clear result in favour of maintaining the status quo, I would like to point out that it was indeed those with poor voting performance who voted for the change, as predicted. I simply took all party members who voted in the poll and divided them according to whether they want to stop the MP review or maintain the status quo, took the mean of their turnout percentage from the latest two voting reviews, and subtracted a hundred if they belonged to a party whose seats had been highlighted for removal. Therefore, I obtained a voting coefficient for each of those members and compared those according to which option they supported.

    The best score (active MP from a party without any seats for removal) is represented by 100 while the worst score would be 0 minus 100, ergo -100 (a non-voting MP from a party with seats for removal). Some of the voters were not included in the voting reviews (they were not MPs) and are represented by 0, unless they come from a party with seats for removal, in which case it is -100.

    Briefly, the higher the number, the more active, and the lower the number, the more desperate to save their buttocks by canceling the MP review. Yeah, too much work and too many words for an obvious point. :rolleyes::laugh:

    There should be lines at the top and bottom to highlight highest and lowest figures. (Not surprising really, but it's nice to have a bit of data in front of you)
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    That's hilarious though obviously most of us backing the status quo are open to tweaking the system so anybody with other ideas, don't be discouraged.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    There should be lines at the top and bottom to highlight highest and lowest figures. (Not surprising really, but it's nice to have a bit of data in front of you)
    What do you mean? It is a standard box plot with individual data points plotted over it.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    What do you mean? It is a standard box plot with individual data points plotted over it.
    Box plots are supposed to have lines at the top and bottom, not dots. Representing the highest and lowest figures.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_plot
 
 
 
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
    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.