Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by CLS94)
    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.
    I don't know the font :mad:

    I'm being semi-serious here but here's what I think.

    Why is this needed in all seriousness, and how will this not prevent parties from just reverting back in the future?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacDaddi)
    I don't know the font :mad:

    I'm being semi-serious here but here's what I think.

    Why is this needed in all seriousness, and how will this not prevent parties from just reverting back in the future?
    It is needed because many members, quite legitimately, feel that beforehand yourself and the Socialist Party would have an unfair advantage in elections. Whilst others would be forced to change the name they enter under, these two parties who are not named after real-life counterparts would be able to more effectively attract voters based on their previous MHoC achievements. Thus, we've added this clause, putting them on an equal footing with other parties.

    The parties will be more than welcome to revert back in future: specifically, after the election to Parliament XX, at which stage in all likelihood the history will out-date the accounts of most of the voters and hence have no impact; this is both intended and desirable. Also note that, like the previous attempt, this amendment only effect ballots and manifestos. When members are joining, you are submitting bills, in your signatures and all other contexts bar manifestos and ballots, you can continue to call yourself whatever you please, including after real parties. This dispels most negatives of the scheme whilst still giving us the fairer elections we desperately need.
    Online

    2
    (Original post by CLS94)
    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.
    Parliament 21 (assuming we don't get the schedule back onto May-Nov which unless the remaining parliaments went 5 months or an amendment was made to extend the 'extension period') Would mark the 2015 RL election which could essentially mean a new set of parties all under the 0.1% marker.

    I'm opposed to this idea that parties can get an injunction against their or their former names being identified by themselves or other parties. Parties I don't think should be allowed to ******** essentially and say, they've got nowt to do with us, when it's clear that they play upto that parties RL image in terms of belief, and ideology.

    Election rules should be set in stone. Not open to interpretation. That way, every election everyone knows precisely where they stand.

    Leaving it open to interpretation makes it unworkable for me. A blanket ban on any name which has a RL counterpart would potentially solve the problem (not that I'm advocating that) however that would mean what is a legal name today could be illegal within 24 hours making it an undesirable alternative.


    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
    Fair enough, however don't you think the House has indicated it's general lack of the support for the idea in not endorsing it twice that it is becoming a waste of the House's time and that the general consensus should be accepted rather than tweaking it each week.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    So by not calling ourselves by our real names on the ballot what are talking.. party 1, party 2 ect...

    Forget nickname (subjective) and just go by any political party in the UK over the last 200 years (that should encompass Whigs, Tories and Liberals among others).

    Given that the previous by-elections have produced a range of results (i think most people would call it a healthy system) why are you seeking to change the process for the by-elections.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    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
    It's not an issue of whether they do or not, it's an issue of them being forced to even for a small time.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Parliament 21 (assuming we don't get the schedule back onto May-Nov which unless the remaining parliaments went 5 months or an amendment was made to extend the 'extension period') Would mark the 2015 RL election which could essentially mean a new set of parties all under the 0.1% marker.

    I'm opposed to this idea that parties can get an injunction against their or their former names being identified by themselves or other parties. Parties I don't think should be allowed to ******** essentially and say, they've got nowt to do with us, when it's clear that they play upto that parties RL image in terms of belief, and ideology.

    Election rules should be set in stone. Not open to interpretation. That way, every election everyone knows precisely where they stand.

    Leaving it open to interpretation makes it unworkable for me. A blanket ban on any name which has a RL counterpart would potentially solve the problem (not that I'm advocating that) however that would mean what is a legal name today could be illegal within 24 hours making it an undesirable alternative.
    You're right there, I agree that after the next General Election when available names change would be a more sensible time to allow the Libertarian/Socialist tags to be used again. Assuming no-one particularly opposes it and the seconders support it, this should be changed for when this goes to vote. Thanks for the idea!

    You would still be allowed to debate that should you wish in the election thread: for example, you could ask (whatever Labour call themselves) about their policy on immigration, in the light of what the real-life party did in Government. They however may take a completely different view of it to the real party, and shouldn't be punished for it before they can defend themselves. Right now, people generally don't read the election thread: they see "Labour" and think "ooh, they let all the Poles in, idiots, I'm voting UKIP!!!". That obviously isn't desirable - it is akin to putting parties on trial without a lawyer to defend them.

    I don't think there's much in here up to interpretation: what situation do you foresee that isn't clearly on one side of these rules or the other?


    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Fair enough, however don't you think the House has indicated it's general lack of the support for the idea in not endorsing it twice that it is becoming a waste of the House's time and that the general consensus should be accepted rather than tweaking it each week.
    Last time, this failed by 1 votes: even 1 abstain rather than a No would have seen this in the GD. In combination with the many comments, including those made when it was too late to make changes, this shows for me that while the idea has majority support, the implementation wasn't satisfactory. This fixes those issues, and gives the House the chance to accept the idea now we have a fuller and more rounded implementation of it.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's not an issue of whether they do or not, it's an issue of them being forced to even for a small time.
    Again I am really not bothered thus my vote is for sale... 500000,-руб and alcohol, mainly alcohol wanted
    Online

    2
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Last time, this failed by 1 votes: even 1 abstain rather than a No would have seen this in the GD. In combination with the many comments, including those made when it was too late to make changes, this shows for me that while the idea has majority support, the implementation wasn't satisfactory. This fixes those issues, and gives the House the chance to accept the idea now we have a fuller and more rounded implementation of it.
    How does 15/32 equal majority support.

    Much was made of UKIP's and the Conservative's proposal for a referendum. Isn't this essentially committing the same 'offence' they committed, - albeit, with no attempt to secure public permission.

    If people back it, they will vote for it. If they don't they wont.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    So by not calling ourselves by our real names on the ballot what are talking.. party 1, party 2 ect...

    Forget nickname (subjective) and just go by any political party in the UK over the last 200 years (that should encompass Whigs, Tories and Liberals among others).

    Given that the previous by-elections have produced a range of results (i think most people would call it a healthy system) why are you seeking to change the process for the by-elections.
    Nicknames were subjective until we quantified what they were. It is only applicable if the Speaker feels that more than half of the electorate would be able to use that nickname to identify the option as a real-life party: the most clear-cut example, and one I've heard concerns raised about, being Tories rather than Conservatives. You can be far, far more creative than party 1, party 2 etc: you could be anything from the "TSR Traditionalists" to the "TSR Economists". In any case, people would after this be far more likely to read the manifestos before voting: that's where you need to get your ideas across!

    p.s. I passed up many opportunities to take the mick out of the Tories there... either I'm really desperate for this to pass or I'm just in a very, very kind mood :P
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    How does 15/32 equal majority support.

    If people back it, they will vote for it. If they don't they wont.
    Looking at the comments, there were many people who voted against this based not on the concept, but implementation. I am confident that the majority of (active) MPs support this, and hope it will be shown in the Division Lobby.
    Online

    2
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Looking at the comments, there were many people who voted against this based not on the concept, but implementation. I am confident that the majority of (active) MPs support this, and hope it will be shown in the Division Lobby.
    With that in mind, I refer you to the motion that was defeated on this.

    And would you mind answering my question regarding why is it supposedly wrong for the Tories (while I can call them that) and UKIP to submit a referendum bill on something we've voted upon, but it's fine to essentially, submit the same amendment, which it essentially is, time and time again until the 'correct' answer is given. You said yourself, this failed by 1 vote.

    On this basis, aren't I entitled to submit an amendment to repeal it, and just concede minuscule amount, after minuscule amount in repeatedly putting it through until they vote to repeal it?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Nicknames were subjective until we quantified what they were. It is only applicable if the Speaker feels that more than half of the electorate would be able to use that nickname to identify the option as a real-life party: the most clear-cut example, and one I've heard concerns raised about, being Tories rather than Conservatives. You can be far, far more creative than party 1, party 2 etc: you could be anything from the "TSR Traditionalists" to the "TSR Economists". In any case, people would after this be far more likely to read the manifestos before voting: that's where you need to get your ideas across!

    p.s. I passed up many opportunities to take the mick out of the Tories there... either I'm really desperate for this to pass or I'm just in a very, very kind mood :P
    That's all fair enough however there is far much room for subjectivity. Can you prove to me that 50.1% of the electorate will associate the Tories with conservatives but only 49.9% would associate the TUC Party with the socialists or Labour. Further this is still vague, is the 'pragmatic conservatives' different enough.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    With that in mind, I refer you to the motion that was defeated on this.

    And would you mind answering my question regarding why is it supposedly wrong for the Tories (while I can call them that) and UKIP to submit a referendum bill on something we've voted upon, but it's fine to essentially, submit the same amendement, which it essentially is, time and time again until the 'correct' answer iis given.

    On this basis, aren't I entitled to submit an amendment to repeal it, and just concede miniscule amount, after miniscule amount in repeatedly putting it through until they vote to repeal it?
    In terms of your entitlement, your better off asking the Speaker as he would be the expert on the specifics. However, this is only the 2nd time the amendment has gone up, and it has seen significant change: a total of 6 small but very important ways, whereas the EU Referendum was close to a literal carbon-copy as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong there), as well as being thoroughly rejected and it being clear it wouldn't come close to passing in this Parliament.

    Whilst I don't know whether you could do that or not, I wouldn't condone it. This only happened under very specific circumstance:
    1) It was defeated by the smallest margin possible
    2) It effected an upcoming election, and thus didn't make sense to be held over to next term
    3) Many changes were suggested at the last minute, after it went to vote: these were both real improvements, and meant that there was clear potential to change the minds of some MPs on the issue.

    I doubt that would happen in many cases, so I don't feel this particular example is one we can gain much from generalising out of.
    Online

    2
    (Original post by CLS94)
    In terms of your entitlement, your better off asking the Speaker as he would be the expert on the specifics. However, this is only the 2nd time the amendment has gone up, and it has seen significant change: a total of 6 small but very important ways, whereas the EU Referendum was close to a literal carbon-copy as I recall (correct me if I'm wrong there), as well as being thoroughly rejected and it being clear it wouldn't come close to passing in this Parliament.

    Whilst I don't know whether you could do that or not, I wouldn't condone it. This only happened under very specific circumstance:
    1) It was defeated by the smallest margin possible
    2) It effected an upcoming election, and thus didn't make sense to be held over to next term
    3) Many changes were suggested at the last minute, after it went to vote: these were both real improvements, and meant that there was clear potential to change the minds of some MPs on the issue.

    I doubt that would happen in many cases, so I don't feel this particular example is one we can gain much from generalising out of.

    With the greatest respect, this seems like you are endorsing a set of rules to stop parties from resubmitting the same things but you think that you should have an exemption to that rule.

    Readings is the time to make changes, not go around resubmitting things that the House has made clear it doesn't back,

    This, and the failed one (which you described as this) both have the same categorical aim within this House, to try and restrict parties from naming themselves in alignment with RL counterparts.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That's all fair enough however there is far much room for subjectivity. Can you prove to me that 50.1% of the electorate will associate the Tories with conservatives but only 49.9% would associate the TUC Party with the socialists or Labour. Further this is still vague, is the 'pragmatic conservatives' different enough.
    I could if this was real life, and I had a gigantic civil service and several polling agencies. Given neither of us have that, I think we can safely infer from factors such as the extensive use in the media of "Tories" to refer to "Conservatives" that those likely to vote can very easily assume the link, unlike with the TUC (which is a separate entity that often disagrees strongly with Labour on issues such as industrial action.

    Considering I've never heard anyone refer to your party as the "pragmatic conservatives", I don't see how that could fall foul of this regulation: however, I will like Metro did with the Liberal issue earlier ask the Speaker for clarification in case change is needed.

    (Original post by Jarred)
    Could the Speaker please provide regulation on this issue?
    Of course, if there is any specific change you'd like to suggest to improve this, I'm more than happy to consider it
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    With the greatest respect, this seems like you are endorsing a set of rules to stop parties from resubmitting the same things but you think that you should have an exemption to that rule.

    Readings is the time to make changes, not go around resubmitting things that the House has made clear it doesn't back,

    This, and the failed one (which you described as this) both have the same categorical aim within this House, to try and restrict parties from naming themselves in alignment with RL counterparts.
    I think that it comes down to being sensible, and building an enjoyable environment here. As a general rules, no, I don't support such practices, but as always there are exceptions, and I feel I've explained clearly enough why this is a different situation to nearly all other Bills. Would you be able to provide something similar for the EU Referendum?

    I agree, but unfortunately some MPs made fantastic arguments after readings took place and the vote had begun. Had they been made earlier, we may well have acted on them. The aim is the same, yes, but the specific rules here are fairer and more effective by some distance, and we felt the best way to ensure they got a fair reading by the House was to re-submit this. In fact, there was discussion of amending the amendment even had it passed to remove some of the loopholes pointed out, although this obviously would have been far from optimal.
    Online

    2
    (Original post by CLS94)
    I think that it comes down to being sensible, and building an enjoyable environment here. As a general rules, no, I don't support such practices, but as always there are exceptions, and I feel I've explained clearly enough why this is a different situation to nearly all other Bills. Would you be able to provide something similar for the EU Referendum?
    That shouts Hypocrisy then. You can't say, nope, we shouldn't be allowed to send in the same thing if it's been voted against, or at least failed to attain the support necessary to pass, and then come up with reasons which justify why it's essentially okay for you to do it.

    The EU referendum is irrelevant, as it's legitimacy for submission was never in question - in that it was not submitted twice in the same term.


    I agree, but unfortunately some MPs made fantastic arguments after readings took place and the vote had begun. Had they been made earlier, we may well have acted on them. The aim is the same, yes, but the specific rules here are fairer and more effective by some distance, and we felt the best way to ensure they got a fair reading by the House was to re-submit this. In fact, there was discussion of amending the amendment even had it passed to remove some of the loopholes pointed out, although this obviously would have been far from optimal.
    I appreciate that but it still remains to me that you are saying, well I wouldn't condone it if someone else tried this trick, but I think it's fair for me to do it.

    I don't mind people disagreeing with rules - that's why this House has the chance to change them, but members should still respect them while they are in place.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    That shouts Hypocrisy then. You can't say, nope, we shouldn't be allowed to send in the same thing if it's been voted against, or at least failed to attain the support necessary to pass, and then come up with reasons which justify why it's essentially okay for you to do it.

    The EU referendum is irrelevant, as it's legitimacy for submission was never in question - in that it was not submitted twice in the same term.




    I appreciate that but it still remains to me that you are saying, well I wouldn't condone it if someone else tried this trick, but I think it's fair for me to do it.

    I don't mind people disagreeing with rules - that's why this House has the chance to change them, but members should still respect them while they are in place.
    I'm a relativist. If you wanted to submit something, based on the same premise as what had gone before but with significant change, no problem. If you submitted a carbon-copy - that's wasting our time and is an issue. Anything in between? It would be down to the specifics. Doesn't matter if I agree with the idea or not, I'd take the same position. Now, is there any chance we could get back to debating the amendment at hand, rather than an irrelevant tangent that doesn't belong in this thread?
    Online

    2
    The 'tangent' is discussing whether this is actually legitimately allowed to be submitted. As you've said, carbon copies waste time. I personally think sending the same thing is a carbon copy - your aim is a carbon copy of the previous two after all. Anyway, you've called Jarred in to mediate and I appreciate that. Note, I don't think that you've got any ulterior motives behind this as shown in attempts to 'flatten the lumps'

    I'm not sure, after all we've debated the pros and cons regarding this three times this parliament.

    Rakas has said that it's too vague. I'm making the point that election rules need to be clear and apply to all, and this is why I don't think the GD works to an extent to ensure we all know where we stand. How would you address this?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    The 'tangent' is discussing whether this is actually legitimately allowed to be submitted. As you've said, carbon copies waste time. I personally think sending the same thing is a carbon copy - your aim is a carbon copy of the previous two after all. Anyway, you've called Jarred in to mediate and I appreciate that. Note, I don't think that you've got any ulterior motives behind this as shown in attempts to 'flatten the lumps'

    I'm not sure, after all we've debated the pros and cons regarding this three times this parliament.

    Rakas has said that it's too vague. I'm making the point that election rules need to be clear and apply to all, and this is why I don't think the GD works to an extent to ensure we all know where we stand. How would you address this?
    May I point out that having reviewed the motion, it was very different in that it advocated forcing complete name changes. This would have had negatives, like putting off new members from joining, and generally affected many more areas than this. There was not support for going that far, and we respect that.

    I personally think this is pretty clear. If everything was black and white, there'd be no need for a Speaker - it would be a purely administrative role any moderator could take up with ease. However, there are cases where potentially a call has to be made, and it is the Speaker who deals with these. That's why he is democratically elected, and can be democratically removed from the role if MPs feel his interpretations are incorrect or undesirable.

    That being said, I feel that these rules are clear in all regards and as specific as they can be. I would also say that, if there is no deliberate attempt to undermine them, that is obviously for the best: eventualities such as changing the colour of a logo, however, have now been dealt with and prevented from becoming an issue. Is there anything else of that ilk you feel needs further clarification here?
 
 
 
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
Which web browser do you use?

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.