Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Opposition & Coalition forums Watch

  • View Poll Results: If we were to change something brought up in this topic, what should we do?
    Remove the Opposition and Coalition forums
    24.00%
    Stop the bill/motion challenge
    32.00%
    Stop the MP review
    32.00%
    --------On a trial basis for next term
    32.00%
    --------Permanently
    16.00%
    Limit the forum/s to a few standard policy, bills & stickied threads
    8.00%
    Maintain the status quo
    48.00%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So I've thought for a while that these were a good idea at the time and have now been accepted as the normal. I was one of the folk that pressed for the initial coalition forum several years ago.

    However I've came to the view that they've detracted from the house parties' community atmospheres, and that this place was better without them. All the content within the forums is deleted at the end of term. Go a couple years back and search for coalitions in your sub forms and you'll see discussions and negotiations, bills being sent from one leader to the other for discussion in party sub form, you'll see factions within your party, intensive politicking and above all a strong focus on ideological stances - which whilst no one would say ideological views are great, they are a lot less bland and more divisive than the current focus on compromises and number of bills produced. I think the reason we've got to the point where number of bills is so important is because the fun side of this is bleeding away - and the coalition/opposition sub form to me are the biggest part of the problem. It's more important that this place has the politicking, factions, divisiveness but at the same time community than continue lumbering down a path that includes competitions to produce the most bills at the end of term. That's administrative rather than political.

    Rant over - I will get a vote on this thread in a while just to canvas opinions, but would like to hear other folks thoughts first? I may just be an old fart that's too far out of it to see it from another view point

    Edit: if it wasn't clear, I am suggesting do away with both the coalition and the opposition sub forums at the start of the next term.

    Edit 2: I've added a poll. It's a bit complicated, multi choice wizardry, but select what you want and also select whether it should be a trial basis or permanently
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Shared sub-forums do appear to siphon activity from the party sub-forums, it's never occurred to me that this could contribute to a more general decline in party/House character. Intrigued to hear everyone else's thoughts. :holmes:
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely disagree, abolishing coalition subfora will make coalition government a matter of PMs between the leaders. I'd rather see these negotiations done out in the (relative) open.

    Don't forget that coalition parties are in some ways one party.
    • Offline

      12
      Aye, completely agree!
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Completely disagree. If one were to abolish the coalition/opposition forums, then essentially members of government/opposition cannot interact over a bill before it is submitted and it becomes more about party leadership. I don't believe it detracts from party sub-forums.
      • Community Assistant
      • Wiki Support Team
      • Political Ambassador
      • PS Reviewer
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      I agree with this completely. I used to vaguely see the point of having a Government subforum, but the Opposition forum I think is a complete waste of time altogether and I've never been sure why we have one. Perhaps have a subforum for the Cabinet maybe if that really is needed, but fewer subforums would bring the activity and debate out from the shadows and into the open more.

      Also, being in coalitions has always killed party activity in TSR UKIP's subforum, whether that be during my, paddy's or TNP's tenure.

      A very good idea and it's good to see you back:

      (Original post by Indievertigo)
      QFA
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      I disagree - they're a great opportunity to encourage collaborations with people you wouldn't normally interact with from different parties.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by O133)
      Absolutely disagree, abolishing coalition subfora will make coalition government a matter of PMs between the leaders. I'd rather see these negotiations done out in the (relative) open.

      Don't forget that coalition parties are in some ways one party.
      I agree, it would take things to PM. Negotiations on bills would essentially have to move to leader to leader PMs, who have to consult their party and then take their united views to the other leader. However, the question I put to you is why would you rather that discussion was done in a forum? What's the difference between the leader consulting the party members then taking that stance to the other half, or the discussion taking place in an open forum?


      (Original post by Cheese_Monster)
      Completely disagree. If one were to abolish the coalition/opposition forums, then essentially members of government/opposition cannot interact over a bill before it is submitted and it becomes more about party leadership. I don't believe it detracts from party sub-forums.
      I suppose this touches on the point above, what's the difference between the open forum and the leader taking the view to the other half?


      (Original post by Blue Meltwater)
      I disagree - they're a great opportunity to encourage collaborations with people you wouldn't normally interact with from different parties.
      Agree, they are, but then can you not do that in the House forum? And my second question to you would be just how much interaction do you have with people in your own party?

      (Original post by toronto353)
      I agree with this completely. I used to vaguely see the point of having a Government subforum, but the Opposition forum I think is a complete waste of time altogether and I've never been sure why we have one. Perhaps have a subforum for the Cabinet maybe if that really is needed, but fewer subforums would bring the activity and debate out from the shadows and into the open more.

      Also, being in coalitions has always killed party activity in TSR UKIP's subforum, whether that be during my, paddy's or TNP's tenure.

      A very good idea and it's good to see you back:
      Interesting that about UKIP, I think from what I've seen that is not a unique thing for parties when they are in a coalition.

      I genuinely believe and have suggested this every now and then, that getting rid of these fora will improve things in here. Like I said it just takes a trawl back a couple years into subforum activity and the amount of 'community' politicking and so on going on is insanely larger. I think the HoC forum should be about more than just writing bills; I think it's an excellent way to get people into politics, and keeping the 'politicking' side of things out of it just doesn't help that. Not that I am saying there weren't times when things got slightly... over the top... but that's what mods and speakers are for! :P
      Offline

      8
      ReputationRep:
      I see the benefits but debate within them is very useful and makes things clearer.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Indievertigo)
      I agree, it would take things to PM. Negotiations on bills would essentially have to move to leader to leader PMs, who have to consult their party and then take their united views to the other leader. However, the question I put to you is why would you rather that discussion was done in a forum? What's the difference between the leader consulting the party members then taking that stance to the other half, or the discussion taking place in an open forum?
      Let's have a scenario where RayApparently (to take a random Labourite) wants to see what the Green Party think of a bill he has written. Under the current system Ray uploads the bill to the government subforum and the Greenies can look over it next time they're online.

      Under your system, Ray has to PM his bill to TBM to get the Labour seal of approval, then TBM has to PM it to SU17 to get him to put it on the Green subforum. The Greens then debate this on their party subforum, where Ray and the rest of the Lab/Soc MPs can't see what is being said, and in maybe a week's time SU17 reports back with the highlights of what the Greens have said to TBM, who posts this to the Labour subforum. Because this then requires Labour to debate the potential Green amendments then the thread must remain open on the Labour subforum for a good few days. Then we bring in the Socialists...
      Plus, I like the ability to post a poll to judge government support for an idea.
      • Community Assistant
      • Wiki Support Team
      • Political Ambassador
      • PS Reviewer
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Indievertigo)

      Interesting that about UKIP, I think from what I've seen that is not a unique thing for parties when they are in a coalition.

      I genuinely believe and have suggested this every now and then, that getting rid of these fora will improve things in here. Like I said it just takes a trawl back a couple years into subforum activity and the amount of 'community' politicking and so on going on is insanely larger. I think the HoC forum should be about more than just writing bills; I think it's an excellent way to get people into politics, and keeping the 'politicking' side of things out of it just doesn't help that. Not that I am saying there weren't times when things got slightly... over the top... but that's what mods and speakers are for! :P
      The smaller parties definitely suffer. I'm not sure about the larger parties, but for the smaller parties it has such a huge impact.

      The situation almost reminds me of the blocs in the MUN. Much like the Opposition and Government subforums, they sucked all debate into the blocs and harmed the MUN so we abolished the blocs. We need to do the same here and actually bring debate back into the heart of the MHoC. I means it's not much fun debating against the Government or indeed the Opposition when all of their MPs and members have debated and then decided that they all back the Bill.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      Toronto, all your anecdotal evidence is void. For most of your tenure as Leader at it, there were no other active members (ffs, you couldn't even fill 2 positions in the cabinet), if there are no active members, of course there will be no posts in the sub-forum. Last term, UKIP literally posted 3 times in the opposition sub-forum, and all that was was to say, 'sorry for being so slow', three times.
      • Community Assistant
      • Wiki Support Team
      • Political Ambassador
      • PS Reviewer
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Cryptographic)
      Toronto, all your anecdotal evidence is void. For most of your tenure as Leader at it, there were no other active members (ffs, you couldn't even fill 2 positions in the cabinet), if there are no active members, of course there will be no posts in the sub-forum. Last term, UKIP literally posted 3 times in the opposition sub-forum, and all that was was to say, 'sorry for being so slow', three times.
      I am not referring here to just my own tenure. I'm sorry, but my experience is that coalitions do harm smaller parties and we would be better without the subforums. We're never going to agree, but my argument, it must be noted, is not based solely on the smaller parties problem. Drag debate out into the main forum and close these subforums - that should be our solution to some of the activity problems.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by toronto353)
      I am not referring here to just my own tenure. I'm sorry, but my experience is that coalitions do harm smaller parties and we would be better without the subforums. We're never going to agree, but my argument, it must be noted, is not based solely on the smaller parties problem. Drag debate out into the main forum and close these subforums - that should be our solution to some of the activity problems.
      We don't have activity problems, this term is very unusual because the distribution of the seats has been the polar opposite to distribution of active MHoC members, put simply, the seats were allocated most to the parties that couldn't handle it, and visa-versa. If the distribution of seats matched the distribution of active MHoC members I doubt we would have more than 1 seat highlighted, if that.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      To even my own surprise I find myself in tentative support of this proposal.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Cryptographic)
      We don't have activity problems, this term is very unusual because the distribution of the seats has been the polar opposite to distribution of active MHoC members, put simply, the seats were allocated most to the parties that couldn't handle it, and visa-versa. If the distribution of seats matched the distribution of active MHoC members I doubt we would have more than 1 seat highlighted, if that.
      This is about more than just activity - there's not a term goes by that frets of activity problems aren't discussed. This is more about the direction of the house as a community can take - it can continue down the path of administerial debate becoming a stomping ground for future lawyers and nitpickers, or it can go back down the path of an environment that harbours a real interest in the true nature of politics. Politicians in RL do not spend the bulk of their time creating bills and with the other parties. They spend the bulk of their time with their own party members plotting out their next big subterfuge.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Indievertigo)
      This is about more than just activity - there's not a term goes by that frets of activity problems aren't discussed. This is more about the direction of the house as a community can take - it can continue down the path of administerial debate becoming a stomping ground for future lawyers and nitpickers, or it can go back down the path of an environment that harbours a real interest in the true nature of politics. Politicians in RL do not spend the bulk of their time creating bills and with the other parties. They spend the bulk of their time with their own party members plotting out their next big subterfuge.
      UK politicians in RL (this term excepted) do not govern alongside other parties with whom to make bills.
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      I can certainly see the logic to your thinking but I'm not sure its as simple as that. In the 14th parliament we were a sole opposition and went 2 weeks without a post. In the Tory-ukip of the 15th and Tory-Libertarian of the 17th activity was all in the government sub forums but their was no net loss overall.

      I'm not quite sure that's the nail we need to hit.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Rakas21)
      I can certainly see the logic to your thinking but I'm not sure its as simple as that. In the 14th parliament we were a sole opposition and went 2 weeks without a post. In the Tory-ukip of the 15th and Tory-Libertarian of the 17th activity was all in the government sub forums but their was no net loss overall.

      I'm not quite sure that's the nail we need to hit.
      It's definitely a bigger problem than just forums, it's the culture that has been bred as a result of having these sub forums. It's not an overnight fix granted, but given time it can return to the community it once was. I can see a lot less interest from new members, and that's over a period of time, because the place is almost primarily just about producing bills and numbers of bills. It's not all about numbers of posts and bills, the place should be about politics which is what it once was. Now it's by elections here, there, suggestions that seats be swapped from one party to the other; parties have hardly any identity any longer and that has been driven by these sub fora.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by O133)
      UK politicians in RL (this term excepted) do not govern alongside other parties with whom to make bills.
      I think they have done so every now and then, including during the war. But your point is a good one - coalitions are far too commonplace on this forum, again I suggest that is because of these sub fora. There have been minority governments in the past with parties refusing to go into coalitions - in general my stance would be if in doubt go it alone - it's more important to maintain the identity of a party than jump into bed with rival parties. And yes I class the libertarians/conservatives/UKIP and the socialist/Labour/liberals as rival parties within both factions. The amount of seats stolen from Cons/Lab by the other parties is testament to the fact that, ultimately they should be considered rivals.
     
     
     
    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: July 15, 2014
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. 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.