Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think all party members should be MPs, since we should not restrict the interested from taking part.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Are you suggesting that TSR's legislative body should meet in private? What of democracy? :p:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH)
    Are you suggesting that TSR's legislative body should meet in private? What of democracy? :p:
    All should be able to view the forum but only the MPs should be able to post and debate issues.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !Laxy!)
    The house of commons should only be accessible to voting MPs. Maybe set up a seperate forum where all can have access.
    Members of the public can view or follow debate in the House of Commons. Its called democracy. Everyone on the forum should be allowed to watch, all MPs should be allowed to take part, voting MPs to vote on bills.

    Having said that, it would be sensible to find an upper limit on the number of MPs if it looked like it was getting out of hand.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Members of the public can view or follow debate in the House of Commons. Its called democracy. Everyone on the forum should be allowed to watch, all MPs should be allowed to take part, voting MPs to vote on bills.
    I agree. The last thing we want is a mimic of the US legislature and various EU bodies. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Members of the public can view or follow debate in the House of Commons. Its called democracy. Everyone on the forum should be allowed to watch, all MPs should be allowed to take part, voting MPs to vote on bills.

    Having said that, it would be sensible to find an upper limit on the number of MPs if it looked like it was getting out of hand.
    Does being a member of the Party constitute being an MP?

    We obviously can't just chuck everyone in who belongs to a Party, and thus Party leaders are currently trying to come up with a fair sollution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Does being a member of the Party constitute being an MP?

    We obviously can't just chuck everyone in who belongs to a Party, and thus Party leaders are currently trying to come up with a fair sollution.
    Yes, I see your point. In that case, being a member of the Party constitutes being an MP and this number is fixed for each party in accordance with their number of voting MPs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe we should allow for a number of non-voting MPs for the many others that would've liked to participate. Then just let the other party members be able to view just like the rest of the public.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that everyone should have the ability to view the forum, non-voting and voting MPs should have the right to post and voting MPs have the right to vote. As to the numbers of non-voting MPs, take the party's number of voting MPs and multiply by two. So, the Conservatives would have 22 non-voting MPs as a result of having 11 voting ones. That should give the opportunity for all those party members who wish to take part to do so. And it doesn't matter if not all of the non-voting positions are taken up, since they don't influence the vote in the end.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    I think that everyone should have the ability to view the forum, non-voting and voting MPs should have the right to post and voting MPs have the right to vote. As to the numbers of non-voting MPs, take the party's number of voting MPs and multiply by two. So, the Conservatives would have 22 non-voting MPs as a result of having 11 voting ones. That should give the opportunity for all those party members who wish to take part to do so. And it doesn't matter if not all of the non-voting positions are taken up, since they don't influence the vote in the end.
    Sounds like a good idea... who are the non-voting MPs by the way?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, guys, I want to be able to post in the HoC. I understood from the conception of the Parliament idea that non-voting members would have the right to take part in the debates. I would be quite disappointed, as many other party members, not to be able to contribute.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Yeah, guys, I want to be able to post in the HoC. I understood from the conception of the Parliament idea that non-voting members would have the right to take part in the debates. I would be quite disappointed, as many other party members, not to be able to contribute.
    I am trying to argue for a system where along with the voting MPs, a similar amount of non-voting MPs are allowed in aswell. Meaning, for example, there would be 22 Conservatives: 11 Voting, 11 non-voting.
    After looking at all of the other different compositions, this is the most fair.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    I am trying to argue for a system where along with the voting MPs, a similar amount of non-voting MPs are allowed in aswell. Meaning, for example, there would be 22 Conservatives: 11 Voting, 11 non-voting.
    After looking at all of the other different compositions, this is the most fair.
    Might as well take this into the forums proper...

    My opinion is that yet another level of hierarchy is unnecessary and counterproductive. The entire idea of having TSR politics was that the entire forum would be able to participate, and this idea brings us yet further from that ideal. Obviously, we have to make the voting in some way proportional to the vote in elections, but that does not have to be the case with debates. Ideally, this should be something that one can move in and out of easily without having to climb the hierarchy each time.

    To use an extreme example: if John Stuart Mill rose from the dead tomorrow and asked for a place in the Lib Dems, I'd have to say, "Sorry, sir: loved On Liberty, but that doesn't cut the mustard here. You still have a postcount of 2, and you'll have to wait for someone to resign as an MP before I put you anywhere. And it'll be longer before you have voting rights. I hope you enjoy your stay. Oh, wait, you've gone already".

    Put in short: we're losing the fun factor in hierarchy and patronage, people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    Might as well take this into the forums proper...

    My opinion is that yet another level of hierarchy is unnecessary and counterproductive. The entire idea of having TSR politics was that the entire forum would be able to participate, and this idea brings us yet further from that ideal. Obviously, we have to make the voting in some way proportional to the vote in elections, but that does not have to be the case with debates. Ideally, this should be something that one can move in and out of easily without having to climb the hierarchy each time.

    To use an extreme example: if John Stuart Mill rose from the dead tomorrow and asked for a place in the Lib Dems, I'd have to say, "Sorry, sir: loved On Liberty, but that doesn't cut the mustard here. You still have a postcount of 2, and you'll have to wait for someone to resign as an MP before I put you anywhere. And it'll be longer before you have voting rights. I hope you enjoy your stay. Oh, wait, you've gone already".

    Put in short: we're losing the fun factor in hierarchy and patronage, people.
    As leader of the liberal Democrats, this is exactly the kind of response i expected.
    What confuses me is that the Liberal Democrats support Proportional Representation, yet you want to allow some 200 lib dems into Parliament, many with no interest in politics whatsoever, totally overshadowing the opposition Parties, with no mandate.

    Both the Conservatives and Labour oppose this idea, following consultation.

    When you join a Party, 5, you do not immediately stroll into Parliament, you work your way in gradually.

    The system should be proportional, allowing each party to admit as many debators as their mandate permits.
    My position is clear, and so is Labours. We want a system that is fair and proportional, not a huge pit full of lib dems.
    Could you at least come offer a compromise?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    am too tired to deal with this now, but it would be wise to point out that of the 200 hundred memebers i would warrant that few have ever posted before in paarliment forum, and of those that have few have returned.
    politics forum is and will continue to be open top all.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    am too tired to deal with this now, but it would be wise to point out that of the 200 hundred memebers i would warrant that few have ever posted before in paarliment forum, and of those that have few have returned.
    politics forum is and will continue to be open top all.
    A few inactive members isn't going to buy you a mandate.




    Yes, i'm also too tired to deal with this, but there is NO WAY the lib dems are taking 200 members to Parliament with them.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    As leader of the liberal Democrats, this is exactly the kind of response i expected.
    What confuses me is that the Liberal Democrats support Proportional Representation, yet you want to allow some 200 lib dems into Parliament, many with no interest in politics whatsoever, totally overshadowing the opposition Parties, with no mandate.

    Both the Conservatives and Labour oppose this idea, following consultation.

    When you join a Party, 5, you do not immediately stroll into Parliament, you work your way in gradually.

    The system should be proportional, allowing each party to admit as many debators as their mandate permits.
    My position is clear, and so is Labours. We want a system that is fair and proportional, not a huge pit full of lib dems.
    Could you at least come offer a compromise?
    It IS proportional, because only the voting really counts!

    Okay. Potential compromise. Each person hoping to debate will have to join the MP usergroup, membership of which will be controlled by all of the party leaders. If they spam, we can kick them out, simply enough. This gets rid of those without an interest, as they will have to sign up in the first place, and it removes the spam. But I'm still not prepared to tell anyone that they cannot debate because we've reached a set quota within the party. Everyone should have the right to participate in this.

    If this was realistic, we would have a parliamentary majority. But it's clearly not realistic (ie, it uses List-PR), and party lines will be far less defined than under the UK FPTP system. I can't help but feel that you're just fussing about nothing, as there really is not as much rivalry between the parties any more as you're making out. Also, is a comment from a few extra Lib Dems really going to turn the tide of debate so far against you?

    (NB: The Lib Dems support the Single Transferable Vote. It is more proportional than FPTP, but not entirely so. Research has shown that in the 1997 election, Labour would have had a majority of around 30 despite no majority in the popular vote. So we don't support a system that is entirely proportional.)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    It IS proportional, because only the voting really counts!

    Okay. Potential compromise. Each person hoping to debate will have to join the MP usergroup, membership of which will be controlled by all of the party leaders. If they spam, we can kick them out, simply enough. This gets rid of those without an interest, as they will have to sign up in the first place, and it removes the spam. But I'm still not prepared to tell anyone that they cannot debate because we've reached a set quota within the party. Everyone should have the right to participate in this.

    If this was realistic, we would have a parliamentary majority. But it's clearly not realistic (ie, it uses List-PR), and party lines will be far less defined than under the UK FPTP system. I can't help but feel that you're just fussing about nothing, as there really is not as much rivalry between the parties any more as you're making out. Also, is a comment from a few extra Lib Dems really going to turn the tide of debate so far against you?

    (NB: The Lib Dems support the Single Transferable Vote. It is more proportional than FPTP, but not entirely so. Research has shown that in the 1997 election, Labour would have had a majority of around 30 despite no majority in the popular vote. So we don't support a system that is entirely proportional.)
    Clearly your Party is not the slightest bit disciplined, and you are not willing to make a realistic compromise.
    You have already stated in a PM to me the real reason is that you can't be bothered selecting members again.

    Mods: Just let in all the Party usergroup members in, neither I, nor Labour agree with this move but i can't be bothered debating it with someone who is not willing to negotiate.
    We'll see how it goes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We should have a propotional system as beekeeper has said. Its absurd to allow 200 or so Lib Dems into parliament. Also JS Mill would not ask to join the lib dems, they are worse than New Labour.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Clearly your Party is not the slightest bit disciplined, and you are not willing to make a realistic compromise.
    You have already stated in a PM to me the real reason is that you can't be bothered selecting members again.

    Mods: Just let in all the Party usergroup members in, neither I, nor Labour agree with this move but i can't be bothered debating it with someone who is not willing to negotiate.
    We'll see how it goes.
    I said that that's one reason. There's no real way to do it on an internet forum.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

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.