Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A85 - Ballot Naming Amendment
    Proposer: CLS94
    Seconders: nixonsjellybeans, JPKC, miser, nmac94


    To add the following provisions to the 'General Elections' section of the Guidance Document:

    12) Parties must refrain from using any name, logo or nickname on the ballot (or in their manifestos) that associate themselves or any other parties contesting the election with any real-life political party that won 0.1% or more of the vote at the previous UK general election.
    a) "Nickname" is defined as any term which the Speaker judges would be recognisable to a majority of the electorate as a specific real-life political party.
    13) Names used by any party which took part in the election to Parliament XVI, or any similar variation thereof, are also to be forbidden from use in any manifesto or ballot until the general election to Parliament XX
    And to add the following provision to the 'By-Elections' section of the Guidance Document:

    15) Individuals, whether running under party banners or otherwise, must refrain from using any name, logo or nickname on the ballot (or in their manifestos) that associate any parties whose banner is being used to contesting the election with any real-life political party that won 0.1% or more of the vote at the previous UK general election.
    a) "Nickname" is defined as any term which the Speaker judges would be recognisable to a majority of the electorate as a specific real-life political party.
    16) Names used by any party which took part in the election to Parliament XVI, or any similar variation thereof, are also to be forbidden from use in any manifesto or ballot until the first by-election following the general election to Parliament XX
    Offline

    2
    Is this different enough? I thought you couldn't submit 'the same' thing twice - which this essentially is.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Is this different enough? I thought you couldn't submit 'the same' thing twice - which this essentially is.
    Its provided clarity as people objected to the previous one on the basis that it was effectively a half complete bill.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    'No'.

    1) Yet again you have left the Socialists and Libertarians free from any change

    2) Why on earth would you do this for the by-election, there's no real problem there
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    'No'.

    1) Yet again you have left the Socialists and Libertarians free from any change

    2) Why on earth would you do this for the by-election, there's no real problem there
    1) Doesn't the proposal for 13 address that?

    2) Individuals can receive party endorsements.


    However, I agree with you. No.

    On two occasions in the past six weeks or so has this House debated the issue. On both occasions it has not received the support necessary for a change. Why should it be allowed to be resubmitted again and again until the 'right' result is achieved
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    aye

    as I said before CLS, im happy to second this as well :yy:
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Individuals can receive party endorsements.
    That's not a problem.

    Three by-elections have produced 3 different winners, i'd say that's a sign of a healthy system. At the last by-election Jpkc pointed out that the right had secured over 55% of the vote in the second by-election in comparison to 40% of the vote in the last general election so clearly there's less of an RL bias already.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Is this different enough? I thought you couldn't submit 'the same' thing twice - which this essentially is.
    Yes, it is - otherwise I wouldn't expect it to produce a different result anyway! The premise is the same, but many smaller points picked up on by voters have been addressed - I'm hoping this can achieve the small turnaround we need.
    1) Nicknames are included, so we will not see the Conservatives on the ballot as "The Tories".
    2) The word "explicit" has been removed: therefore, things like Rakas mentioned (the Tory tree logo in a different colour) would not longer be permitted.
    3) Clause 13 has been added, which in effect means this will also effect the Socialists and Libertarians. I didn't go for a permanent ban as these are both ideologies that could be feasible party names if not for the fact some feel their MHoC history gives them an advantage: thus, they cannot be used for the next 3 elections.
    4) By-Elections are now included in this.
    5) Parties can no longer name other parties in their manifestoes. This means that we can't see a situation, for instance, where Labour say "don't vote for the Yellows: it's the backstabbing Lib Dems in disguise!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    'No'.

    1) Yet again you have left the Socialists and Libertarians free from any change
    Not true - read 13)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    aye

    as I said before CLS, im happy to second this as well :yy:
    Cool! Got a bit confusing trying to get this organised and I just wanted the minimum number to have this up ASAP, but I'll add you and any others who wish to the list for any second reading/vote.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Would the thinking of the authors be that the TSR Liberal Democrats couldn't use "TSR Liberal Party" to stand in elections?

    (Original post by Jarred)
    x
    Though I guess this falls under your discretion?
    Offline

    15
    Yes, No, Maybe, I don't care... seriously, I don't see an issue with parties changing their names or how they do it, I just want the matter to be laid to rest.

    In other words my vote is for sale
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by CLS94)
    x
    The premise is the same, I appreciate that there is no permanent ban because officially no name has a permanent ban on them. Parliament 20 is chosen I presume on the basis that that is due to be the lead up parliament to the 2015 uk general?

    The point I'd raise with that however is that we're six months off the calendar already. Meaning that the RL election would make it for the 22nd parliament rather than the 21st. Assuming the election is held on 7th May 2015.

    Is it fair to say this is trying to be rushed through purely because there is an election due next week
    Offline

    12
    *Checks Libertarian Party in the 2010 general election*

    Great amendment!

    Nope, turns out we're screwed as well
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    Would the thinking of the authors be that the TSR Liberal Democrats couldn't use "TSR Liberal Party" to stand in elections?


    Though I guess this falls under your discretion?
    I wouldn't think it would: they only achieved 0.035% in 2010, and I doubt most people would shorten "Liberal Democrats" to "Liberals" rather than the far more conventional "Lib Dems". However, on issues like this, I would appreciate the Speaker's input (as well as those of highly successful former Speakers ) so that I can get a full idea of how this would likely be interpreted and any changes that may be needed prior to this going to a vote.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    I wouldn't think it would: they only achieved 0.035% in 2010, and I doubt most people would shorten "Liberal Democrats" to "Liberals" rather than the far more conventional "Lib Dems". However, on issues like this, I would appreciate the Speaker's input (as well as those of highly successful former Speakers ) so that I can get a full idea of how this would likely be interpreted and any changes that may be needed prior to this going to a vote.
    I ask out of curiosity as I think the issue was raised in a previous thread on this topic and it would be good to have some clarity on the matter before people vote on this amendment. It doesn't really bother me either way and I think I'd allow it too, but it just came to mind now.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    *Checks Libertarian Party in the 2010 general election*

    Great amendment!
    Sorry, but I'm struggling to tell if this was sarcastic or not... Just to claify, under clause 13, as the Libertarian Party used that name to enter the last TSR (not general) election, they would need a different ballot name until Parliament XX.

    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    The premise is the same, I appreciate that there is no permanent ban because officially no name has a permanent ban on them. Parliament 20 is chosen I presume on the basis that that is due to be the lead up parliament to the 2015 uk general?

    The point I'd raise with that however is that we're six months off the calendar already. Meaning that the RL election would make it for the 22nd parliament rather than the 21st. Assuming the election is held on 7th May 2015.

    Is it fair to say this is trying to be rushed through purely because there is an election due next week
    That is a coincidence, I didn't even think of it in those terms: simply as a reasonable gap after which the makeup of the TSR electorate would have changed enough that parties calling themselves Socialists or Libertarians would be at no advantage. What stage would you suggest, out of interest? I'm more than happy to listen to any potential improvements.

    And I reject that notion. I had written the basis of this in advance in case the amendment failed, as anyone in the Socialist sub-forum will tell you considering how quickly it was posted. It would obviously be ideal, however, should it be in place in time, hence why it was submitted so soon after the previous one
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Sorry, but I'm struggling to tell if this was sarcastic or not... Just to claify, under clause 13, as the Libertarian Party used that name to enter the last TSR (not general) election, they would need a different ballot name until Parliament XX
    Screw that we've just invested in a new logo! Stupid amendment.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    Screw that we've just invested in a new logo! Stupid amendment.
    Without knowing the nature of the new logo, would it be possible to simply change the name displayed on it? And that coincidence doesn't make this stupid - there is widespread support for the measures proposed across all sides of the House, and hopefully people wouldn't deny a bright future for the entire House for the sake of having to edit a logo.
 
 
 
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 24, 2013
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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

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