Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !Laxy!)
    But under current proposals it could never get any bigger!!!
    Ive made it clear that these are open to change if the circumstances dictate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miles)
    I haven't read this thread properly, but am I right in saying members of a political party have privileges to post in the house of commons (ie 55 in the case of labour) and the members part of the MP usergroup will only be voting MPs. or will the 55 be MPs and voting willl be public (with the non-voting MPs just told not to take part in polls)?
    NVMPs should be allowed to post in debates. They and the VMPs will make a party membership. The NVMPs wont be voting obviously, but how we deal with this depends on the technical limitations of the forum.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    Yet you have 60. And Labour came second. Have you more work to do, or is "proportionality" out of the window now?

    I was under the impression that the election would at least have some sort of bearing on the number of MPs.
    You're right, i imagine Vienna will be instructing Labour what reductions to make then..

    You currently have almost twice as many members as the Conservatives, to make further reductions on my part would be absurd. The lib dems got just 10% more votes in the election than the Conservatives did, yet you have about 90% more seats.

    Of course, the original proposals that i PMed to you would have made more sense, but you chose to reject them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    No, what i want to do is keep house of commons PURELY for voting MPs - thats all set up alreay, no point changing that.
    The house of commons is for debate. I dont see whats wrong with letting party members air their views. I was of the impression that this was the consensus.

    Why not increase the number of voting MPs, thus we have a great deal more opportunity for exciting ballots and we get to clearly clarify who is allowed to post where.

    And can someone tell me where the list of Party members is?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The house of commons is for debate. I dont see whats wrong with letting party members air their views. I was of the impression that this was the consensus.

    Why not increase the number of voting MPs, thus we have a great deal more opportunity for exciting ballots and we get to clearly clarify who is allowed to post where.

    And can someone tell me where the list of Party members is?
    well vienna its like this. we either have all stuff for votes sticking in house of commons but no debating in there - debating occuring in this forum which will be postable to all members of political parties) or we have to create ANOTHEr sub forum within house of commons for voting mps to vote in, OR we make all polls visible in house of commons and manually disclude any who arent eligible to vote.

    i guess its upto you guys to decide which one you want
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    well vienna its like this. we either have all stuff for votes sticking in house of commons but no debating in there - debating occuring in this forum which will be postable to all members of political parties) or we have to create ANOTHEr sub forum within house of commons for voting mps to vote in, OR we make all polls visible in house of commons and manually disclude any who arent eligible to vote.

    i guess its upto you guys to decide which one you want
    Im favouring the following,

    a) a sensible reduction and management of party members(NVMPs and VMPs) who can both post in the HoC. This seems to have been established already.

    b) Ballots that are only open to a VMPs, I imagine a subforum exclusively for this would be feasible.

    c) The number of voting MPs is increased.

    d) The number of VMPs is fixed and may not change. The number of NVMPs is open to change, providing the speaker is notified and accepts the addition.

    A simple yes or no would be useful here.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    or we have to create ANOTHEr sub forum within house of commons for voting mps to vote in
    This proposal makes the most sense.

    Vienna, you can view Party members here
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    You are the 4th party, i would find it unacceptable for you to take almost as many MPs to Parliament as the second party.

    The Lib Dems have sacrificed 75 members, and the conservatives 40. I don't think asking for the Greens to make reductions of around 13 is asking much!
    I said I would reduce membership by 5. This would eliminate 5 members who are no longer active whilst allowing currently active members to be a member of the party.

    So, is it okay to reduce membership by 5 to 45 and settle for that? Come on guys i'm trying to compromise!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Im favouring the following,

    a) a sensible reduction and management of party members(NVMPs and VMPs) who can both post in the HoC. This seems to have been established already.

    b) Ballots that are only open to a VMPs, I imagine a subforum exclusively for this would be feasible.

    c) The number of voting MPs is increased.

    d) The number of VMPs is fixed and may not change. The number of NVMPs is open to change, providing the speaker is notified and accepts the addition.

    A simple yes or no would be useful here.
    a) see post above

    b) Yes

    c) No

    d) No
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !Laxy!)
    I said I would reduce membership by 5. This would eliminate 5 members who are no longer active whilst allowing currently active members to be a member of the party.

    So, is it okay to reduce membership by 5 to 45 and settle for that? Come on guys i'm trying to compromise!
    Thats a very poor compromise.
    Current losses:
    Conservatives- 40 members
    Lib Dems- 75 members
    Labour (will be)- 30 members
    Greens- 5?!?!

    5 is not a compromise, and it will leave you with a far greater amount of MPs than your mandate would legitimise.

    Reduce MPs to -40 (Party loss of around 10) and i'll be satisfied.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Why not increase the number of voting MPs, thus we have a great deal more opportunity for exciting ballots and we get to clearly clarify who is allowed to post where.
    Because more people don't want to participate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Thats a very poor compromise.
    Current losses:
    Conservatives- 40 members
    Lib Dems- 75 members
    Labour (will be)- 30 members
    Greens- 5?!?!

    5 is not a compromise, and it will leave you with a far greater amount of MPs than your mandate would legitimise.

    Reduce MPs to -40 (Party loss of around 10) and i'll be satisfied.
    But we have less to lose. 5 is a compromise as we currently have 50. We will still have a lot less than other parties.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !Laxy!)
    But we have less to lose. 5 is a compromise as we currently have 50. We will still have a lot less than other parties.
    Do you honestly think that 45 Greens are going to participate in the debates? I don't think I've seen a dozen Greens participate in this forum, let alone 40 or 45.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Do you honestly think that 45 Greens are going to participate in the debates? I don't think I've seen a dozen Greens participate in this forum, let alone 40 or 45.
    So what is the problem then????????
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !Laxy!)
    But we have less to lose. 5 is a compromise as we currently have 50. We will still have a lot less than other parties.
    The Conservatives, who got 3 times as many votes as you in the election, will only have 15 members more.

    As i said, make the reductions 10 or more and we've got a deal.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !Laxy!)
    So what is the problem then????????
    Why are you referring to 45 "active members" that you don't want to reduce, when a vast majority of them are not active?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Why are you referring to 45 "active members" that you don't want to reduce, when a vast majority of them are not active?
    Active on TSR.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    The Conservatives, who got 3 times as many votes as you in the election, will only have 15 members more.

    As i said, make the reductions 10 or more and we've got a deal.
    Ok, i say 45, you say 40. Lets meet half way and say 43. That is my final offer.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !Laxy!)
    Active on TSR.
    How many of them have any intention of participating in this parliament?

    According to this thread, it's just you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    How many of them have any intention of participating in this parliament?

    According to this thread, it's just you.
    That thread is out of date. If you care to check we have filled our allocation of 4 voting seats

    I am unsure how many will participate, though I imagine most will at some point.
 
 
 

1,176

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.