Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The majority of TSR doesn't like the idea, so I don't think they should be allowed.

    Do we really believe the leader will put up with all this hatred? The party will obviously be abandoned.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexD14)
    Not to detract from your previous comment, but we have 11 members, with Dave also PMing me this morning about another person having inquired about joining. We have decent numbers; its simply a matter of many of our members having less than 300 posts. Which is unfortunate, but seeing as the BNP group seems to have some considerable momentum, to stop the formation of the party at this stage would simply negate all prior support shown and therefore reduce the chances of us growing into any sizeable political faction in the TSR HOC.
    I think that it is great that you have at least eleven members and i must admit that at first i feared this was a joke thread although i see that you are pretty serious.

    I do however think that the past few posts have made some fair points...

    One being that because your members are either new or not that active, i do think that it is best for you to contribute for the next month or two. You could still get together via PM and operate as an unoficial group.

    Two being that Musty_Elbow is also correct in that the nature of their members should not come into question, if they are sufficient **** to warrant not being able to be in a party, they should not be aloud on TSR at all.

    With likely six months to go until the next election and parliament not reconveining for around another week there should be no rush. The best advice is to recruit members, structure your unoficial party, be active during April and May and then in June, the speaker may see a case for reccomendation to the admins.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    Again, please don't think I'm holding some sort of prejudice against these members because they support the BNP. I'm not. I am not referring to the views these members hold, but how they express and conduct themselves.

    It is the job of the Speaker to act and take decisions that are in the best interests of the House and if I feel the behaviour of certain members would have a negative impact on the House, I will take it into consideration. That doesn't mean that I will necessarily refuse a TSR BNP Party solely on the conduct of its members (and I haven't here), but it would play a part in my decision. Otherwise I would be powerless to stop a group of 10 eligible voters who wished to form and do nothing but troll and disrupt the house.

    BTW, it's now 3 months/150 posts to be an eligible voter.
    I guess we just have a disagreement about the role of Speaker. You do an excellent job, but I disagree with you on this point. The conduct of members should not play a part considering the formation of a party. Your point about 10 active members wishing to form and do nothing but troll doesn't make sense to me. The 10 members can do that whether they form a party or not. Why they would desire a group to do such a thing is beyond me.

    We are here to reflect the RL situation as much as possible. If they meet the requirements of 10 active members (thanks for correcting me on the conditions for this), then I see no justification for the Speaker denying them party status. As I have said already, there are possible ways to get around the admin issue.

    Sorry to bombard you with quotes! What is your opinion of my amendment idea?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sim188)
    The majority of TSR doesn't like the idea, so I don't think they should be allowed.

    It's different from real life.
    Silly point.

    The majority of TSR doesn't like the Conservative Party. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist? Tyranny of the majority arguments always work until you realise that you're a minority yourself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musty_Elbow)
    Silly point.

    The majority of TSR doesn't like the Conservative Party. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist? Tyranny of the majority arguments always work until you realise that you're a minority yourself.
    Yes but are they hated to the extent of the hatred shown on this thread? I don't think cultivating arguments that could spill out into racism should be allowed. It's too dodgy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    I'm not saying people associate morals with and type of government, however the people who are quick to demonise people who have a different opinion to themselves are quick to say they shouldn't stereotype, generalise and judge other people. Bit hypocritical don't you think?

    The ideal structure of government in my opinion.
    Essentially made up of people who worked for the people that voted for them, not people who work hard for votes and then pushed foreward their own agenda. If I were incharge I would propose a law similar to what they have in America, where if any 'important law' was proposed, the public would vote as to whether it was passed or not.
    I agree with the conservative's aims of cutting the deficit, however many millions of pounds could be saved from cutting bureaucracy in public services before hitting frontline services. This is how I would go about it, ie frontline services wouldn't be hit as hard.


    To be honest it is easier for you to ask specific questions...
    I study law and have the sense to realise that the average layman does not have the competence to influence it via voting. It is quite intriguing how everyone flocks towards 'democracy' as if it is a presumption that ordinary people have amazing decision-making skills.

    I acknowledge your point regarding frontline services as I am a Socialist at heart; the government should first exist for the purpose of a welfare state to defend all who are prepared to work and reward merit. The NHS cuts are therefore wrong in my opinion.

    Do you advocate the Western intervention in Libya?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musty_Elbow)
    Silly point.

    The majority of TSR doesn't like the Conservative Party. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist? Tyranny of the majority arguments always work until you realise that you're a minority yourself.
    I would say that TSR as a whole has a shocking amount of Conservative supporters considering that students are supposed to be 'lefty, liberal hippies'.

    I also think that it is unfair for the person you quoted to say that considering that there has not been a vote as to whether the party should be allowed to form, i think that he made a gross generalisation.

    I actually think that the current 3 months, 150 posts ruling is a good one and support, though i do agree with you that the nature of members should not come into play. If they troll, they should get banned simple as and not just from the HOC.

    I actually think that this will be a very difficult decision for the speaker and admins because it sets a mark for anybody else who may be inspired to create a party.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musty_Elbow)
    I guess we just have a disagreement about the role of Speaker. You do an excellent job, but I disagree with you on this point. The conduct of members should not play a part considering the formation of a party. Your point about 10 active members wishing to form and do nothing but troll doesn't make sense to me. The 10 members can do that whether they form a party or not. Why they would desire a group to do such a thing is beyond me.

    We are here to reflect the RL situation as much as possible. If they meet the requirements of 10 active members (thanks for correcting me on the conditions for this), then I see no justification for the Speaker denying them party status. As I have said already, there are possible ways to get around the admin issue.

    Sorry to bombard you with quotes! What is your opinion of my amendment idea?
    There have been examples of such parties in the past: the proposed WUM party and the WTF party. The point is, if I think the conduct of members wanting to form a party would have a negative impact on the House, I think it is within my remit to consider that factor and the Guidance Document allows for this. Again, it doesn't mean that party's would be banned from forming solely because of member conduct.

    You mention getting around the Admin issue and If I were to propose the TSR BNP to the Admins and they refused, this is something we could look into.


    RE your amendment: There are pros and cons to reducing the limit, but I haven't seen a convincing argument for changing it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-jc123)
    I study law and have the sense to realise that the average layman does not have the competence to influence it via voting. It is quite intriguing how everyone flocks towards 'democracy' as if it is a presumption that ordinary people have amazing decision-making skills.

    I acknowledge your point regarding frontline services as I am a Socialist at heart; the government should first exist for the purpose of a welfare state to defend all who are prepared to work and reward merit. The NHS cuts are therefore wrong in my opinion.

    Do you advocate the Western intervention in Libya?
    I study mathematics, as is obvious from my username.

    I agree that most ordinary people on the street do not have excellent decision making skills, however lawyers and politicians are not what I would call geniuses either. Also, the law influences how people live their lives etc so I do think that people have a right to vote on it.

    regarding your question about Libya, if we only go in to keep the peace then I am fine with that, however I am quite suspicious that it is more than that. How about you?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexD14)
    Not to detract from your previous comment, but we have 11 members, with Dave also PMing me this morning about another person having inquired about joining. We have decent numbers; its simply a matter of many of our members having less than 300 posts. Which is unfortunate, but seeing as the BNP group seems to have some considerable momentum, to stop the formation of the party at this stage would simply negate all prior support shown and therefore reduce the chances of us growing into any sizeable political faction in the TSR HOC.
    I don't think this has to be the case at all. Remember this thread is barely two days old and even if formed, you wouldn't have MP's for at least another 6 months. I think I'd be willing to look at the situation again a few weeks into the next Parliament.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by failingatm)
    Down with this sort of thing.
    Indeed.



    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    I don't think this has to be the case at all. Remember this thread is barely two days old and even if formed, you wouldn't have MP's for at least another 6 months. I think I'd be willing to look at the situation again a few weeks into the next Parliament.
    I actually asked to join, and I'm dissapointed to be told that it is unlikely to be set up. I don't understand your comment regarding MP's, could you explain that?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    I actually asked to join, and I'm dissapointed to be told that it is unlikely to be set up. I don't understand your comment regarding MP's, could you explain that?
    Even if you were granted permission to set up, you wouldn't be able to stand for for election until the next one in six months time.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Even if you were granted permission to set up, you wouldn't be able to stand for for election until the next one in six months time.
    so you won't be able to be elected until the election...thanks for your input
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I find it funny that people who don't usually get involved in TSR HOC are suddenly giving opinions on this particularly thread because its about the BNP and is bound to be controversial and cause a stir up. We have the Speaker and Musty_Elbow talking about the Guidance Document which I doubt many of the people providing their opinions even know about. All we have is a mess of random people who aren't even interested in TSR HOC jumping on various bandwagons in which they rant and attack the BNP for being racist.

    Yes I agree the BNP are racist but I feel they have a democratic right to hold a place in TSR HOC provided they reach the requirements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    so you won't be able to be elected until the election...thanks for your input
    That was the point Metrobeans raised.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    so you won't be able to be elected until the election...thanks for your input
    The TSR HOC holds a general election every six months (though the governing party could choose to do so at their discretion before then).

    An election is being held right now which the BNP are too late to join and as such it is likely that you will not have a chance to be elected for another six months.

    As the speaker has said, you and your party can still comment on bills and if you can prove that you have been actively engaging in TSR politics by doing so then in a few weeks Metrobeans has said that he will consider asking admin to grant you party status.

    You can still do everything you would have been able to do without an MP, you just do not get your own sub-forum or official staus until such time as the admins grant it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The TSR HOC holds a general election every six months (though the governing party could choose to do so at their discretion before then).

    An election is being held right now which the BNP are too late to join and as such it is likely that you will not have a chance to be elected for another six months.

    As the speaker has said, you and your party can still comment on bills and if you can prove that you have been actively engaging in TSR politics by doing so then in a few weeks Metrobeans has said that he will consider asking admin to grant you party status.

    You can still do everything you would have been able to do without an MP, you just do not get your own sub-forum or official staus until such time as the admins grant it.
    you realise this is just an internet chat forum for students right? And that people with similar views would just like a group to debate etc?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    I didn't highlight the word British in my previous post to highlight being 'more British', rather to highlight the fact that the BNP will stand up for anyone who is British regardless of disability, race, etc.

    Please tell me one of their policies that is based on race and xenophobia.

    You say "Only a party as "respectable" as the BNP would refer to ethnic minorities regardless of them being 2nd or 3rd or dare I even say it, 4th generation British born and raised as "permanent guests" I have no idea what your point here is I'm afraid, please elaborate.

    I don't have a miserable life and havn't fallen down, I'm a able university student who will speak the truth and won't panzy around issues in the name of political corrctness and offending someone (the translation of 'offence' these days ofcourse being 'I don't like the fact that I'm hearing the truth').

    If you spent seven seconds looking at the thread which I provided a link to, then you clearly didn't read anything I wrote in it.

    lastly, you say "And if you seriously think that what you and the BNP speak is "the truth" as you put it then you seriously are deluded.".
    What I suggest is this, it isn't the people willing to stand up and say "I've had enough, I'm going to vote for someone else" who are deluded. It is the people who are being manipulated by society to continue to vote for the same people regardless of what happens and what they do, and are being tossed back and forewards between cons, libs and labour, and are in belief of the lie that if you do stand up and say "I've had enough" then you must be deluded. My advice is therefore this: open your eyes, and think for yourself - I don't suspect you will fully appericiate that, but you will.
    My comment about permanent guests is a term used by the BNP in their policies time and time again. If I had the time I would find mountains of evidence to show that the BNP hold racist views. Let's not forget, they only changed their rules on membership because they were forced to do so. Not because they themselves accepted their previous policy was wrong.

    My eyes are wide open and yes I do think for myself thanks. Why would I ever want to support a party whose very foundation and principles were based on racism and some warped idea that the "British White Race" is being subjected to a genocide by other ethnic minorities? Why would I want this beautiful country to be run by a bunch of knuckle-dragging thugs who haven't got a clue about how run and govern a society and would guarantee economic meltdown by their narrow minded policies?

    Nobody "eroded" British culture or values. Let's be fair what exactly is British culture and values? Getting drunk and shouting abuse? Starting fights in the streets?

    I could go on forever about how and why the BNP and their views are flawed on so many levels but I frankly don't have the time.

    Also in response to a comment you made in another post about why I was opposed to a BNP soc when Labour and the Tories have one here on TSR; I wasn't. I'm all for freedom of speech and more than happy to listen to the views of others whether I agree with them or not.

    However if you are going to adopt far-right policies and the BNP want to engage in a "public debate" then you have be ready to answer your critics and endure the backlash. You have a freedom to express yourselves but the great British public also have a right of reply and it seems that for so long, the public have made it quite clear that they detest everything the BNP stands for and that you do not represent the views, ideals, morals and aspirations of the vast majority of British people.

    Also for someone so proud to be "British", your grasp of your native language leaves a lot to be desired for. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    you realise this is just an internet chat forum for students right? And that people with similar views would just like a group to debate etc?
    If you just want a group/society for debate then you do not need to do it through the TSR HOC.

    The creator of this thread was asking to join the TSR HOC with a political party and 'play the game' so to speak.
 
 
 

1,776

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.