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

    2
    I refer you to Rakas' point in post 32.

    Of course there's a need for a speaker, but in election, he's akin to the returning officer, who only acts if there is a breach of clearly set out election rules. Giving a speaker the subjective option to disqualify a name, is personally I think a dangerous situation when we want every party to know where they stand, so all parties compete on level terms within an election.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    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?
    If this amendment were to be enforced then I wouldn't have a problem with the Liberal Party using that name.
    As others have said, the RL equivalent have polled very low in the past, and also, such name has never been used in previous TSR elections so it seems to me that such a name would be allowed.

    Of course the issue arises over whether "Liberal" can be easily associated as a nickname for a real life party (namely the Liberal Democrats). I don't think anyone really calls them the "Liberals" though, people say "Lib Dems". Naturally, the word Liberal is in both names but I think liberal is such a broad term that if I were going to say no to something like this I'd have to say no to every word in the dictionary on similar grounds, and the election would become a battle between Party A through to Party G, and that'd be no fun at all.

    (Original post by CLS94)
    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
    It's difficult to answer this question without showing some form of partiality one way or the other, but you've asked so I'll happily oblige

    I would say that I feel uneasy making a decision on such vague premises. It seems difficult finding where exactly to draw the line and I can see it bringing a wide range of problems down the line. As I have said I would accept the Liberal Party name, "liberal" is not overly analogous to Lib Dems, it describes a whole range of ideologies... but can the same not be said for "conservative". Quite clearly I'd have to reject that name, but to what extent? Would I have to reject any name containing that word just because a certain RL party chose it as their own name. It seems a bit inconsistent to me, and makes me wonder if I can ever really allow any kind of political word. I understand what I have to do as Speaker: I abide by the Constitution, and take into consideration the Guidance Document as an advisory piece, and I make an decision when no course of action is expressed. But I feel uneasy with the potential concept of making or breaking an election campaign on a vague definition, it's a different ballpark. I'd suggest trying a much more rigorous definition than what is present now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This seems familiar....I think the House has already decided on this and I do find it strange this has been submitted again when TSR UKIP was derided for what was seen as a second referendum attempt on the same issue.

    I said No last time and I'll say so again. This isn't a beneficial change in my view.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    If this amendment were to be enforced then I wouldn't have a problem with the Liberal Party using that name.
    As others have said, the RL equivalent have polled very low in the past, and also, such name has never been used in previous TSR elections so it seems to me that such a name would be allowed.

    Of course the issue arises over whether "Liberal" can be easily associated as a nickname for a real life party (namely the Liberal Democrats). I don't think anyone really calls them the "Liberals" though, people say "Lib Dems". Naturally, the word Liberal is in both names but I think liberal is such a broad term that if I were going to say no to something like this I'd have to say no to every word in the dictionary on similar grounds, and the election would become a battle between Party A through to Party G, and that'd be no fun at all.



    It's difficult to answer this question without showing some form of partiality one way or the other, but you've asked so I'll happily oblige

    I would say that I feel uneasy making a decision on such vague premises. It seems difficult finding where exactly to draw the line and I can see it bringing a wide range of problems down the line. As I have said I would accept the Liberal Party name, "liberal" is not overly analogous to Lib Dems, it describes a whole range of ideologies... but can the same not be said for "conservative". Quite clearly I'd have to reject that name, but to what extent? Would I have to reject any name containing that word just because a certain RL party chose it as their own name. It seems a bit inconsistent to me, and makes me wonder if I can ever really allow any kind of political word. I understand what I have to do as Speaker: I abide by the Constitution, and take into consideration the Guidance Document as an advisory piece, and I make an decision when no course of action is expressed. But I feel uneasy with the potential concept of making or breaking an election campaign on a vague definition, it's a different ballpark. I'd suggest trying a much more rigorous definition than what is present now.
    Thanks for your input Mr. Speaker, it is much appreciated. Given this feedback rest assured that that specific element will be looked at and changed prior to the next reading of this, so if anyone has ideas on it - post them!
    Offline

    0
    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 don't really think pragmatic conservatives is different enough. Whats to stop every party using the same trick and the election becoming a fight between the Pragmatic Conservatives, Pragmatic UKIP, Pragmatic Greens, Pragmatic Labour, Pragmatic Socialists, Pragmatic Libertarians and Liberals (who are the only party who wouldn't be affected by this change).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    I don't really think pragmatic conservatives is different enough. Whats to stop every party using the same trick and the election becoming a fight between the Pragmatic Conservatives, Pragmatic UKIP, Pragmatic Greens, Pragmatic Labour, Pragmatic Socialists, Pragmatic Libertarians and Liberals (who are the only party who wouldn't be affected by this change).
    What about my earlier suggestion of 'Orange Book Liberal Tory Party'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tactical Nuclear Penguin)
    This seems familiar....I think the House has already decided on this and I do find it strange this has been submitted again when TSR UKIP was derided for what was seen as a second referendum attempt on the same issue.

    I said No last time and I'll say so again. This isn't a beneficial change in my view.

    This is completely different to M148 in that it only effects elections and complete different from the recent amendment in that it's actually been thought through and considered and the specifics have been ironed out and by the sounds of it will be ironed out more in another reading.

    Also there's a complete difference between this and the European Referendum. If you're referring to internetguru's attempt being blocked earlier this term it was blocked by members from all sides of the house on the basis it was so similar to the Tory bill it amounted to plagiarism. If you're on about the objection to another referendum, I'll leave to those who don't want the referendum to explain to this but say I guess the main objection was the fact you wanted a site-wide referendum on an issue that had already been decided via a site wide referendum. It could damage the houses overall appeal if we're seen as somewhere with no fresh ideas and who want to do things over and over again until whoever wants to do it gets the right answer and as people's right answer differs this circle could go on indefinitely. I suppose the same argument could be used against the resubmission of this amendment but given it requires 1 change of mind in the amendments favour it's a significantly less valid argument here especially given the major difference between between this and A84.
    Online

    2
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Thanks for your input Mr. Speaker, it is much appreciated. Given this feedback rest assured that that specific element will be looked at and changed prior to the next reading of this, so if anyone has ideas on it - post them!
    I think what he is saying there is that he wants to be in the position that he enforces the rules, rather than have a situation where a ruling has to be given. The only time where a speaker should need to give an election ruling is for eventualities, we don't forsee.


    I don't think there is any perfect solution, as people said with the potentiality of changing the voting system, there are alternatives, but they may be worse than the status quo. The Amendment is trying too hard I feel, if you simply said party names that got more than 0.1% you would allieviate any questions. If you said any party name which is registered with the electoral commission, you'd not have any questions surroudning legitimacy . However, they are not ideal solutions, but like I said earlier, I don't think there is any, apart from the status quo.
    Online

    2
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    This is completely different to M148 in that it only effects elections and complete different from the recent amendment in that it's actually been thought through and considered and the specifics have been ironed out and by the sounds of it will be ironed out more in another reading.

    Also there's a complete difference between this and the European Referendum. If you're referring to internetguru's attempt being blocked earlier this term it was blocked by members from all sides of the house on the basis it was so similar to the Tory bill it amounted to plagiarism. If you're on about the objection to another referendum, I'll leave to those who don't want the referendum to explain to this but say I guess the main objection was the fact you wanted a site-wide referendum on an issue that had already been decided via a site wide referendum. It could damage the houses overall appeal if we're seen as somewhere with no fresh ideas and who want to do things over and over again until whoever wants to do it gets the right answer and as people's right answer differs this circle could go on indefinitely. I suppose the same argument could be used against the resubmission of this amendment but given it requires 1 change of mind in the amendments favour it's a significantly less valid argument here especially given the major difference between between this and A84.
    The Internetguru criticism, I can agree with and accept.

    What my point was, and I still feel it is that there was a lot of criticism for us resubmitting something that had been voted against, with it being on the same premise that had been voted against, even if that was the best part of 3-5 terms ago.

    The problem for me remains that this amendment has precisely the same aim as an amendment which has failed to achieve the support it requires on two occasions, to the extent that the proposer said that this amendment failed.

    I appreciate Jarred's ruling but I can't help but think that we should not have a situation where members can seriously say they don't approve of the practice but then offer a justification as to why they feel they should be granted as an exception to their own 'guideline'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    This is completely different to M148 in that it only effects elections and complete different from the recent amendment in that it's actually been thought through and considered and the specifics have been ironed out and by the sounds of it will be ironed out more in another reading.

    Also there's a complete difference between this and the European Referendum. If you're referring to internetguru's attempt being blocked earlier this term it was blocked by members from all sides of the house on the basis it was so similar to the Tory bill it amounted to plagiarism. If you're on about the objection to another referendum, I'll leave to those who don't want the referendum to explain to this but say I guess the main objection was the fact you wanted a site-wide referendum on an issue that had already been decided via a site wide referendum. It could damage the houses overall appeal if we're seen as somewhere with no fresh ideas and who want to do things over and over again until whoever wants to do it gets the right answer and as people's right answer differs this circle could go on indefinitely. I suppose the same argument could be used against the resubmission of this amendment but given it requires 1 change of mind in the amendments favour it's a significantly less valid argument here especially given the major difference between between this and A84.
    I wasn't referring to internetguru's attempt (I agree with you there) I meant the objections to our own site-wide referendum proposal.

    I am worried that this sets a rather dangerous precedent that failed bills/motions can be tweaked slightly and just resubmitted with practically the same end intention, instead of sending the original one to a second and/or third reading to take into account the feedback on the first reading. This to me feels exactly like a second reading.

    I am personally struggling to see a valid argument for changing one's vote from last time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, and this amendment wouldn't make much difference anyway.

    Labour could just rename to: "The British Labour Party", for example.

    And the tories could rename from "The Conservative and Unionist Party" to "The Conservative Party". Problem solved, yo'.

    a) Is too vague to properly stop this IMO.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    No, and this amendment wouldn't make much difference anyway.

    Labour could just rename to: "The British Labour Party", for example.

    And the tories could rename from "The Conservative and Unionist Party" to "The Conservative Party". Problem solved, yo'.
    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
    The more you know, yo.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    The more you know, yo.
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    No, and this amendment wouldn't make much difference anyway.
    a) Is too vague to properly stop this IMO.
    ^^
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This has been withdrawn.
 
 
 
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.