Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Government bills will be shaped by all parties yes, although for a bill to pass it has to have a certain amount of support anyway and the aim to improve the country, sometimes this means exercising some pragmatism. parties are still free, as part of the agreement, to submit a number of bills themselves and PMBs.
    Paddy stop, you're not talking to some bozo off the street. I know the game relatively well and what Labour have done here is to reject everything that has gotten them to the position of having 14 MPs. Talk about a Clause IV moment. In bed with Lib Dems? With UKIP??? Urgh.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Paddy stop, you're not talking to some bozo off the street. I know the game relatively well and what Labour have done here is to reject everything that has gotten them to the position of having 14 MPs. Talk about a Clause IV moment. In bed with Lib Dems? With UKIP??? Urgh.
    How have we? The point should be to effect change which can only be done by passing bills, in government we can exercise more influence over a larger percentage of those votes. We also have vetos and more votes on what is or isn't submitted. The way I see it we have abandoned nothing but have made the right decision. I don't think you are a bozo, and I apologise if it genuinely seems like I'm treating you as such.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The coalition was motivated, from Labour's part, by the position of the majority of those who commented who said they wished to form a Government. This was the most workable option to achieve this, and we've done a lot of work to ensure flexibility in coalition, based on the experience of our more senior members.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    How have we? The point should be to effect change which can only be done by passing bills, in government we can exercise more influence over a larger percentage of those votes. We also have vetos and more votes on what is or isn't submitted. The way I see it we have abandoned nothing but have made the right decision. I don't think you are a bozo, and I apologise if it genuinely seems like I'm treating you as such.
    We'll see but this is just an initial reaction. I may see it better in the next few days but the reality as it is now makes me very sad to see Labour drift away from its real place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    UKIP is not very different on TSR to the other two parties to be honest.
    Really? I'll admit that I haven't been active in TSR politics in years, but I find it very hard to believe that UKIP is on a similar platform to the Centre Party and the Lib Dems.

    (Original post by paddy__power)
    How have we? The point should be to effect change which can only be done by passing bills, in government we can exercise more influence over a larger percentage of those votes. We also have vetos and more votes on what is or isn't submitted. The way I see it we have abandoned nothing but have made the right decision. I don't think you are a bozo, and I apologise if it genuinely seems like I'm treating you as such.
    But there is no point to being in government! It is a critical question IRL, but not here, because everyone can submit bills.

    If you are in a coalition then this means that you are willing to compromise on what you believe in order to get bills through. Fact. What you have to decide is whether your bills (and I presume that you know exactly what they are) are important enough to the country that you can face having some bills from UKIP and the others going through that you wouldn't have otherwise voted for. You are allowing in legislation that is alien to your principles in order to cram yours into law. I'd hate to make that kind of call.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    Really? I'll admit that I haven't been active in TSR politics in years, but I find it very hard to believe that UKIP is on a similar platform to the Centre Party and the Lib Dems.
    Paddy went from leader of UKIP to leader of Labour in quite a small timeframe IIRC.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It would appear that the motivation to form a Government was based on populist tendencies, more than anything else.

    Ideology was thrown out of the window simply to keep the Conservative Party out. Compromises were made to keep the Conservative Party out. That's what populism does to you.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    We'll see but this is just an initial reaction. I may see it better in the next few days but the reality as it is now makes me very sad to see Labour drift away from its real place.
    I do understand how it looks, and I can see why your initial reaction is what it is but a lot of work has gone into making the coalition very flexible such that it provides a vehicle for making changes necessary for gaining support from the people who are, for Labours part, more likely to be persuaded than the right. I think a lot can be achieved this way and a lot of good things because we have avoided the rigidity that can stagnate governments.

    Only time will tell, but all we, and by extension I, can do is our best and see how it goes. Many people wanted to be in government and the vote in favour of the coalition was strong as people recognise that it shouldn't (hopefully) be a negative thing for the party.

    If this turns out not to be the case then I will be the first to admit it but for my party I will be putting my energy into making it work
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    It would appear that the motivation to form a Government was based on populist tendencies, more than anything else.

    Ideology was thrown out of the window simply to keep the Conservative Party out. Compromises were made to keep the Conservative Party out. That's what populism does to you.
    I don't know about the others but that never entered our discussions. Well, the Tory part did, but not the populism bit.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by ukebert)
    Really? I'll admit that I haven't been active in TSR politics in years, but I find it very hard to believe that UKIP is on a similar platform to the Centre Party and the Lib Dems.
    They are.

    But there is no point to being in government! It is a critical question IRL, but not here, because everyone can submit bills.
    The government forum provides a forum for lengthy debate and adjustment to bills not afforded by the house in general.

    If you are in a coalition then this means that you are willing to compromise on what you believe in order to get bills through. Fact. What you have to decide is whether your bills (and I presume that you know exactly what they are) are important enough to the country that you can face having some bills from UKIP and the others going through that you wouldn't have otherwise voted for. You are allowing in legislation that is alien to your principles in order to cram yours into law. I'd hate to make that kind of call.
    I agree, but I am always willing to think about that sacrifice. It is a case of finding the balance - some positive change that will pass is better than no positive change that won't. Submitting bills we know have no chance of passing is an exercise in vanity, and in the context of the game, I feel that has little place. I try to view it as I would in RL. Am I willing to compromise to effect change? Yes, and I don't think this is necessarily a negative thing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    Paddy went from leader of UKIP to leader of Labour in quite a small timeframe IIRC.
    ...Interesting.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by cambo211)
    Paddy went from leader of UKIP to leader of Labour in quite a small timeframe IIRC.
    I guess.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I do understand how it looks, and I can see why your initial reaction is what it is but a lot of work has gone into making the coalition very flexible such that it provides a vehicle for making changes necessary for gaining support from the people who are, for Labours part, more likely to be persuaded than the right. I think a lot can be achieved this way and a lot of good things because we have avoided the rigidity that can stagnate governments.

    Only time will tell, but all we, and by extension I, can do is our best and see how it goes. Many people wanted to be in government and the vote in favour of the coalition was strong as people recognise that it shouldn't (hopefully) be a negative thing for the party.

    If this turns out not to be the case then I will be the first to admit it but for my party I will be putting my energy into making it work
    But what the **** do you agree on?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I don't know about the others but that never entered our discussions. Well, the Tory part did, but not the populism bit.
    You don't have to explicitly talk about negating the core values of the Labour Party for it to happen. And in this case, it clearly happened.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    But what the **** do you agree on?
    We will have to find out
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    We will have to find out
    Then all of the fears that the Socialists expressed about travelling along the road least travelled with Labour and its partners may well hold true. How can you enter coalition without having an idea about what unites you beyond your desire to stop a Tory / Liber coalition?

    Labour + UKIP on Europe? Nope
    Labour + Centre on the Economy? I should bloody hope not.
    Labour + Centre on Education? Ish
    Labour + Lib Dems on Foreign Policy? Nope.

    It does not make for a happy marriage / foursome.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    They are.
    Then, to be honest, they shouldn't be called UKIP.

    The government forum provides a forum for lengthy debate and adjustment to bills not afforded by the house in general.
    There's a government forum now? God that dates me :p: Even so, nonsense. The whole point about the House is that it is a forum for debate. If your party isn't capable of putting together a well thought out bill on their own then that's their problem and inter-party collaboration is accepted if you aren't in government. I remember the education bill, which was the best piece of legislation that I had seen (although I had gone inactive even before that) and which was submitted jointly afaik.

    I agree, but I am always willing to think about that sacrifice. It is a case of finding the balance - some positive change that will pass is better than no positive change that won't. Submitting bills we know have no chance of passing is an exercise in vanity, and in the context of the game, I feel that has little place. I try to view it as I would in RL. Am I willing to compromise to effect change? Yes, and I don't think this is necessarily a negative thing.
    Some positive change at the expense of some negative change, don't forget. If you think that all the bills in a coalition agreement are positive ones then there is no need for a coalition. My question to you is, do you think that your electorate were aware that you were willing to compromise on the ideology that they voted for in order to fulfil your own goals?

    As a slight aside, speaking as a Socialist, I object to you saying that submitting bills that will not pass is an exercise in vanity. If we submit a bill then it shouldn't pass! We are a radical left wing party and that is what people vote for. We are betraying our electorate and going against their wishes if we dumb down what we stand for just in order to get a few bills passed. That's Labour's job (only half meant as a joke). We are (or should be) consistent with the ideology that we portray to the voters in presenting a radical alternative to the house. Sometimes bills pass, which is fine and is a triumph, but bills shouldn't be designed to pass. That applies to all parties. Bills should be designed to accurately follow what you set out in your manifesto, both in terms of policy objectives and manifesto ideals. They should be designed to be right and good, not pandering to popularist views. We've had the popularity contest, that was the election. The outcome of an election should make no difference to the policies of an individual party, just their amount of votes. Anything else is breaking an implicit promise in election.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Very interesting that it's such a broad coalition - I suppose that at the time Labour didn't know that the Tories and Libertarians chose not to attempt to form a coalition for this term, and to work as separate parties, whilst working together where it seems both parties can benefit, rather than attempting to on everything.

    I certainly didn't see it coming - I thought it would be Labour + 1 other, but not a 4 way coalition, very interesting. It seems as though this was specifically created in order to breach the 20 seat mark in order to beat the theoretical Tory/Liber coalition - which we didn't even attempt to form, brilliant.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Then all of the fears that the Socialists expressed about travelling along the road least travelled with Labour and its partners may well hold true. How can you enter coalition without having an idea about what unites you beyond your desire to stop a Tory / Liber coalition?

    Labour + UKIP on Europe? Nope
    Labour + Centre on the Economy? I should bloody hope not.
    Labour + Centre on Education? Ish
    Labour + Lib Dems on Foreign Policy? Nope.

    It does not make for a happy marriage / foursome.
    I have faith that common ground can be found on a variety of issues. We have 6 months to work out what they are and where they come from. I would, for my part, prefer we be judged on what we achieve - and if this includes improvements to the country then people should look past the superficial.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Very interesting that it's such a broad coalition - I suppose that at the time Labour didn't know that the Tories and Libertarians chose not to attempt to form a coalition for this term, and to work as separate parties, whilst working together where it seems both parties can benefit, rather than attempting to on everything.

    I certainly didn't see it coming - I thought it would be Labour + 1 other, but not a 4 way coalition, very interesting. It seems as though this was specifically created in order to breach the 20 seat mark in order to beat the theoretical Tory/Liber coalition - which we didn't even attempt to form, brilliant.
    And to create a situation where the support of the government en masse will mean a bill passes
 
 
 
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.