A99 - Opposition Coalitions Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
A99 - Opposition Coalitions Amendment 2014

Proposed by: The Rt. Hon. Jarred MP
Seconded by: O133 MP, RayApparently MP, Republic1 MP, tehFrance MP



Opposition Coalitions Amendment

To amend the following cause of the General Elections section of the Guidance Document from:

1) The Speaker shall ask the Party Leader of the party or coalition that fulfils the criteria in article 7.1 of the Constitution to form an opposition.
To the following:

1) The Speaker shall ask the Party Leader of the party that fulfils the criteria in article 7.1 of the Constitution to form an Opposition.


And to amend the following clause of the Constitution from:

7.1.is formed by the party or coalition with the second highest number of seats. In the event of a tie, it will be decided as for the Government above.
To the following:

7.1.is formed by the party with the largest number of seats not in the formed Government.
7.1.1 in the event of a tie in the number of seats, the party with the largest number of votes within the ties shall form the Opposition. If these are also equal, there is no Opposition.




Notes

What does this do?
This takes us back to the days before my Speakership where there was no Opposition coalition subforum. An Opposition would simply be formed by the largest party that was not in Government. The only coalition that could be formed is a Governmental one. I mean let's face it, the Opposition is basically pointless anyway and it comes with some problems...

Why bother?
To reduce the bloc-like behavior we've had since the introduction of the subforum and return to the days where this was a battle between 7 very different groups rather than two blocs. Coalitions can now basically become permanent fixtures; if you miss out on Government you can still hold an Opposition love-in. I want to discourage bloc-like behavior completely.

What happens to the opposition subforum?
It will get deleted, though maybe instead we could turn it into something else on a very provisional basis and see how that goes? It'd need to be given the all-clear, but if anyone has any suggestions then please voice them!

0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
I agree with binning opposition sub-forums, but this amendment would go a bit beyond that by taking away the option to form opposition coalitions. This would in effect make all official oppositions for the foreseeable future entirely composed of either Labour or the Conservatives, barring the smaller parties from any involvement. Recycling the position around the same two parties in perpetuity would possibly make the whole concept of 'opposition' come across as a bit stale. Under the current system, it's very possible for smaller parties to form new political arrangements that challenge two-party dominance, keeping things interest. This happened in 2012 with the Green-Socialist opposition, and who's to say it couldn't be repeated with different parties in the future. With this amendment we could see a strange situation in which two very close, ideologicall-similar parties between them win 12 seats, 6 each, but then see the title of opposition taken from them and given to a different party just because it has 7 seats on its own.
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Aye fully agree
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Agree, but since when has tehFrance been an MP?
0
Cryptographic
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
My stance is similar to Faland's.
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by O133)
Agree, but since when has tehFrance been an MP?
Since a while ago... Why, are you not pleased?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by tehFrance)
Since a while ago... Why, are you not pleased?
No, just an observation in case someone wants to complain about that (clearly non-existent) technicality. I'm sure I saw a recent petition from you. Who did you replace?
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by O133)
No, just an observation in case someone wants to complain about that (clearly non-existent) technicality. I'm sure I saw a recent petition from you. Who did you replace?
A petition from before I was an MP, it doesn't matter who I replaced
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by tehFrance)
A petition from before I was an MP, it doesn't matter who I replaced
You've replaced LP haven't you?
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Nay
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Aye. I'm glad to see that we're moving towards getting rid of Opposition coalitions. I do, however, think that Faland raises some legitimate issues, but I think that it's important to try this out and see if it has the desired effect.
0
nixonsjellybeans
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
I agree with the speaker chap. Not keen on opp' forum as it can soul detroy your own sub-forum.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
You could compromise by allowing Opposition coalitions but not allowing Opposition sub-forums.


But still: Aye.
0
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
As Faland says get rid of the opposition sub forum but keep the right for parties to form an opposition coalition if they wish. I do think it can have a bearing on the stability of a government (and IMO whether a coalition government has collapsed)

Lets just say in the next election we have two main coalitions:
Labour 10 seats and Socialist 6 seats making 16
Conservative 8 seats and Libertarians 5 making 13

Now if the Socialists resigned then Labour wouldn't be fulfilling the GD regarding the formation of a government

So yes eliminate the forum, that's unnecessary, but keep the option of forming an opposition coalition open
0
The Legal Eagle
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
This actually sounds like a pretty good idea. Definitely has my support.

Well done, Jarred et al!
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
Just to address the concerns in here... I'm not keen on keeping Opposition coalitions without the subforum because then a few years down the line we'll probably have a bunch of people who weren't around to see this vote demanding a subforum for their coalition or worse, a bunch of people conspiring to take their activities offsite when we don't give it to them. I can picture the scene now and it's a messy one that I'd rather avoid which is why this is very much an all or nothing situation for me.

I think Government is quite meaningless on here and so Opposition is even more meaningless. I'd like to see it completely disappear as an official thing because it doesn't do anything and we don't need it to exist, for that reason a perpetual Lab/Con switching Opposition is not something which concerns me personally. I was half tempted to just remove all recognition of an Opposition from the founding documents completely but I thought it'd be better to keep it for old time's sake and so that we still have some vague similarity to the real House.
0
Cheese_Monster
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
In agreement with the Speaker.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Jarred)
Just to address the concerns in here... I'm not keen on keeping Opposition coalitions without the subforum because then a few years down the line we'll probably have a bunch of people who weren't around to see this vote demanding a subforum for their coalition or worse, a bunch of people conspiring to take their activities offsite when we don't give it to them. I can picture the scene now and it's a messy one that I'd rather avoid which is why this is very much an all or nothing situation for me.

I think Government is quite meaningless on here and so Opposition is even more meaningless. I'd like to see it completely disappear as an official thing because it doesn't do anything and we don't need it to exist, for that reason a perpetual Lab/Con switching Opposition is not something which concerns me personally. I was half tempted to just remove all recognition of an Opposition from the founding documents completely but I thought it'd be better to keep it for old time's sake and so that we still have some vague similarity to the real House.
Equally, we'd probably see complaints if the title of opposition automatically went to Labour or the Conservatives despite a bipartisan group possessing a better claim. I think the best way to reduce polarisation in the House would probably be to get rid of the concept of opposition entirely, it's not realy suited to multi-party pluralist systems, especially if we bar multi-party coalitions from holding the role. It'd remove us further from being a model of the Westminster system, but given people are generally not keen on bickering/polarisation, perhaps that's a good thing.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
'Aye'.

I am wholly against any of the suggested compromises.
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
No. Would make things even more distanced and uninteresting via removing so many potential scenarios which could shift the direction of discourse, for which Faland gives a great example. Sometimes I wonder whether the closed-off, narrow angle some inflict upon the House is correlated with low recruitment rates...
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (274)
60.89%
Yes- I don't like it (22)
4.89%
No- I want it (120)
26.67%
No- I don't want it (34)
7.56%

Watched Threads

View All