Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A131 - Number of MPs Amendment watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    If Party's lost points for poor spelling/grammar, I think everyone would be ****ed.
    Lol


    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Yes, that's a shame. Perhaps there should be a MHoC marketing campaign. ☺
    Yes
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Yes, that's a shame. Perhaps there should be a MHoC marketing campaign. ☺
    Maybe you and cranbrook_aspie could show us all how it's done and draw half the site here?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Maybe you and cranbrook_aspie could show us all how it's done and draw half the site here?
    If I had the time or the skills to do that, I would be doing something more productive with it. It is something that could be raised with the CT by/on behalf of the whole House though, would be nice if we could get something for even a day in the sidebar.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    If I had the time or the skills to do that, I would be doing something more productive with it. It is something that could be raised with the CT by/on behalf of the whole House though, would be nice if we could get something for even a day in the sidebar.
    I am sure there are lots of people out there who would enjoy the MHoC but simply do not know about it, like me a few months ago for example.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I am sure there are lots of people out there who would enjoy the MHoC but simply do not know about it, like me a few months ago for example.
    Unless you used to be here on a different account, that's hardly surprising...

    And there have been 'marketing' ploys in the past which haven't really helped.
    I think you overestimate the number of people who give a ****.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    If Party's lost points for poor spelling/grammar, I think everyone would be ****ed.
    I'm presuming the slip is deliberate.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I'm presuming the slip is deliberate.
    It's not a slip when it's deliberate.

    Yes, though! I would never make a grammatical error otherwise!
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Well, I generally try to have at least relatively good spelling and grammar, and do have an excuse for why it could be bad!
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Nevertheless, having more seats means more people are likely to join and stick around, increases the chances of by-elections and ensures each party can atleast be adequately represented in Parliament (given the formation of the Nat-Libs).
    I keep seeing the NatLibs being mentioned. I do not think the addition of a 7th Party (noting that there has been a 7th Party for much of the MHoCs existence) justifies this amendment - especially when said party hasn't put forward a single item since their formation.

    Carry on.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I keep seeing the NatLibs being mentioned. I do not think the addition of a 7th Party (noting that there has been a 7th Party for much of the MHoCs existence) justifies this amendment - especially when said party hasn't put forward a single item since their formation.

    Carry on.
    partisan :fuhrer:
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I keep seeing the NatLibs being mentioned. I do not think the addition of a 7th Party (noting that there has been a 7th Party for much of the MHoCs existence) justifies this amendment - especially when said party hasn't put forward a single item since their formation.

    Carry on.
    I would point out that more seats might well equal more parties. Parties like the BNP, SNP, RESPECT. at the start ended up dying due to a lack of seats. If we can make smaller parties more likely to win seats then we can create a more vibrant and enjoyable house which is both more dynamic and active. Surely as speaker that is something you agree we should strive for.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If it's not a perma I personally would be happy to have her in the socialists but would obviously have to check with other party members first.
    I wouldn't mind THAT much, tbf having a dupe account in the Libs is a lot like the Americans having spies in Ireland - not much point since there's not much of a threat.

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I thought the wet dream of socialism doesn't allow cheaters who misuse the system for their own advantage so I'm quite surprised you're fine with it. It wasn't even brief cheating of a bored no-lifer like in the case of JPKC but a deliberate and lengthy attempt to influence two rather important parties and gain considerable advantages over the opponents, i.e. us when it was able to negotiate this government with Liberals while knowing their reactions first-hand!

    If you allow the cheater to join your party, I will urge the House to condemn you on moral grounds.
    Seriously?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I would point out that more seats might well equal more parties. Parties like the BNP, SNP, RESPECT. at the start ended up dying due to a lack of seats. If we can make smaller parties more likely to win seats then we can create a more vibrant and enjoyable house which is both more dynamic and active. Surely as speaker that is something you agree we should strive for.
    I do not want the BNP Party to be let back anywhere near the MHoC. They do not deserve to be called a political party - they are just a group of racists.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I do not want the BNP Party to be let back anywhere near the MHoC. They do not deserve to be called a political party - they are just a group of racists.
    Oddly enough they did better then UKIP when the two were both active...

    Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you should stop their voice. You should battle their ignorance with true and proper debate and not pohabition which only breads discontent.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    I would point out that more seats might well equal more parties. Parties like the BNP, SNP, RESPECT. at the start ended up dying due to a lack of seats. If we can make smaller parties more likely to win seats then we can create a more vibrant and enjoyable house which is both more dynamic and active. Surely as speaker that is something you agree we should strive for.
    The fact that parties disappear because they don't have seats doesn't mean parties will appear because more are available.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The fact that parties disappear because they don't have seats doesn't mean parties will appear because more are available.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, but it means that smaller parties that wouldn't have had seats and thus would have disbanded would then not disband. It also means that people who are perhaps upset at their current parties direction would be more likely to try and form parties of their own since they would know they would be more likely to grin seats.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, but it means that smaller parties that wouldn't have had seats and thus would have disbanded would then not disband. It also means that people who are perhaps upset at their current parties direction would be more likely to try and form parties of their own since they would know they would be more likely to grin seats.
    Perhaps, but it seems a tenuous justification.

    It seems odd that you should tout people being able to leave their parties to form new ones as a positive thing. They would still need to meet the requirements of part formation. Which MHoC parties could survive almost 10 members leaving? Which MHoC parties have such a large faction with a distinctly different political ideology to the party's main one (thus justifying a separate party)? And if there was a group within a party large enough to be a party of its own then surely it could sway the 'direction' if that was an issue?

    And besides, getting a seat for 2% of the vote is not unreasonable. Independents tend to do ok after all. And under this amendment one would need 1.7% which is not much less.

    I can accept the argument that this amendment might protect the smaller parties (though the one with the least seats atm appears to be highly active) and that it would encourage more independants but not that we'd see more parties. The barrier to party formation is the formation requirements not the number of seats in the House. And even when a party meets said requirements there's no guarantee they'll be active (as we are currently seeing).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, but it means that smaller parties that wouldn't have had seats and thus would have disbanded would then not disband. It also means that people who are perhaps upset at their current parties direction would be more likely to try and form parties of their own since they would know they would be more likely to grin seats.
    How many fewer seats should we have if the socialists disbanded, or the greens, or both?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    How many fewer seats should we have if the socialists disbanded, or the greens, or both?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We shouldn't. You are misconstruing my words
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Perhaps, but it seems a tenuous justification.

    It seems odd that you should tout people being able to leave their parties to form new ones as a positive thing. They would still need to meet the requirements of part formation. Which MHoC parties could survive almost 10 members leaving? Which MHoC parties have such a large faction with a distinctly different political ideology to the party's main one (thus justifying a separate party)? And if there was a group within a party large enough to be a party of its own then surely it could sway the 'direction' if that was an issue?
    I'm sorry, what exactly does the bold mean?
    The requirements are only a guideline. 10 isn't fixed. The greens were created with 5 members and were very active.

    Also I would suggest that a Libertarian revival, BNP (UKIP of the left), Respect party, MRLP, SNP/Celtic alliance, Center/facist party are all holes which could be filled in the house. That is at least 6 new parties which could be formed.

    And besides, getting a seat for 2% of the vote is not unreasonable. Independents tend to do ok after all. And under this amendment one would need 1.7% which is not much less.
    actually it isn't 2%. Due to the bias in D'hondt it is between 2.1-2.5% to get a seat. Depending on the way the votes are dished out.

    I can accept the argument that this amendment might protect the smaller parties (though the one with the least seats atm appears to be highly active) and that it would encourage more independants but not that we'd see more parties. The barrier to party formation is the formation requirements not the number of seats in the House. And even when a party meets said requirements there's no guarantee they'll be active (as we are currently seeing).
    And with all due respect, you have the power to remove the requirements if you belive a party would be active. The Nat Libs might become active once they have a seat and I belive that people would be more willing to take the leap if they had a better shot at getting a seat.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Seriously?
    Seriously. What's so unbelievable about that, comrade?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Seriously. What's so unbelievable about that, comrade?
    Please call him by his full name - Comrade Comradeson.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: March 7, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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

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