Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    A130 - Independent Groupings AmendmentProposed by: The Rt Hon. PetrosAC MP (Liberal)
    Seconded by: The Hon. Nigel Farage MEP MP (UKIP), The Rt Hon. JoeL1994 MP (Liberal), The Hon. Adam9317 MP (UKIP), The Hon. Andy98 MP (Green), The Hon. ThatDefiniteArticle MP (Socialist), The Rt Hon. Airmed MP (Liberal), The Hon. Nebelbon MP (UKIP)

    Under “Procedures - Party Formation” in the Guidance Document, the following will be added:

    4) If the Speaker believes the proposed party does not have enough members to be declared a party, they can instead become an Independent Grouping. Groupings will be able to stand in elections in the exact same way that parties are able to. Groupings will not expect to be granted a sub forum until the Speaker declares them a Party.

    Section 5 of the Constitution will be renamed from “Parties” to “Parties and Independent Groupings”.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    Nay nay nay!!!!!! This is pointless and just totally not needed.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Since seeing this, I think it should remain the case that the grouping is only formed when approved.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay ! , We are not the other place and it should remain as it is , 10 members and the speakers approval
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Why?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No, because a group of independents is… wait for it… a party! Apparently this is how they do things on reddit so why not just move there?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    What's the point? This is the sort of thing that should remain informal and uncodified, especially the way it is presented. The idea would certainly need fleshing out before I could support it for instance would the criteria for promotion to a party be the same as straight up formation or would there be concessions? What size are we looking at for groupings to be allowed?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    I have put to this to the house as I believe a group of 3 or 4 likeminded independents should not be punished for not having enough members to form a party. This gives them an alternate way of standing in elections together rather than having to stand against each other and split their vote share.

    It is true I got this idea from the other place, but that should not have any baring on the debate here.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What's the point? This is the sort of thing that should remain informal and uncodified, especially the way it is presented. The idea would certainly need fleshing out before I could support it for instance would the criteria for promotion to a party be the same as straight up formation or would there be concessions? What size are we looking at for groupings to be allowed?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If there is sufficient support I'd be happy to amend this in order to flesh it out further.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay, pointless.

    It would only fragment people with common causes.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    It seems lazy not to seek to amend the General Elections, MPs and By Elections section of the GD as the amendment in its current form would create several conflicts.

    I am concerned that the Speaker supposedly doesn't get a say in wether a 'grouping' can be formed or wether they can actually stand in the election given that "The Speaker again has the discretion to remove people from standing in the general election" according to the GD as it stands. The amendment in its current form also allows for copious dual memberships - something I don't think should be particularly encouraged and there isn't the reassurance of the Speaker and Party Leaders being able prevent members from becoming dual members. It also seems like a rather large oversight not to include wether or not a grouping can join a coalition - or even lead a government (seeing as this amendment seeks to address very, very unlikely scenarios). :blah:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I have put to this to the house as I believe a group of 3 or 4 likeminded independents should not be punished for not having enough members to form a party. This gives them an alternate way of standing in elections together rather than having to stand against each other and split their vote share.

    It is true I got this idea from the other place, but that should not have any baring on the debate here.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But "4 likeminded independents" aren't independent at all...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Absolutely not.

    Independents should stand for election as independents under the usual procedure. Whether they choose to form a pact before or after the election with themselves or a party is their choice, but that should remain an informal thing.

    They should not be able to collect multiple seats under the D'Hondt voting system and give them to their allies, no way.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I would not wish this to stop one person standing as an independent, as I did on four occasions (though in reality in name only as I stood on the policies of the Monster Raving Loony Party which did not exist). So I assume a lone independent could still stand?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It seems lazy not to seek to amend the General Elections, MPs and By Elections section of the GD as the amendment in its current form would create several conflicts.

    I am concerned that the Speaker supposedly doesn't get a say in wether a 'grouping' can be formed or wether they can actually stand in the election given that "The Speaker again has the discretion to remove people from standing in the general election" according to the GD as it stands. The amendment in its current form also allows for copious dual memberships - something I don't think should be particularly encouraged and there isn't the reassurance of the Speaker and Party Leaders being able prevent members from becoming dual members. It also seems like a rather large oversight not to include wether or not a grouping can join a coalition - or even lead a government (seeing as this amendment seeks to address very, very unlikely scenarios). :blah:
    As an aside, should this not really have been left for the closing stages of debate in case they were not otherwise brought up. Whilst I understand that from your perspective these are important points for members to take into consideration should those of us who shouldn't only interject in occasional and arguably exceptional instances be given the opportunity to make these points first?

    The laziness aside, perhaps worth pointing out that it is merely in the GD and thus merely guidance, further, do you not already have the authority to reject their inclusion on the ballot paper regardless of this?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I think this bill rather defeats the point of being an independent. I am for independents but I think many people are put off the idea because they want the security of party membership.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why are we becoming the other place for??
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    Why are we becoming the other place for??
    I can only assume members are wanting best of both worlds and know it is probably easier to change here. I would also be interested in seeing how many of those named on the amendment are involved in the other place.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It seems lazy not to seek to amend the General Elections, MPs and By Elections section of the GD as the amendment in its current form would create several conflicts.

    I am concerned that the Speaker supposedly doesn't get a say in wether a 'grouping' can be formed or wether they can actually stand in the election given that "The Speaker again has the discretion to remove people from standing in the general election" according to the GD as it stands. The amendment in its current form also allows for copious dual memberships - something I don't think should be particularly encouraged and there isn't the reassurance of the Speaker and Party Leaders being able prevent members from becoming dual members. It also seems like a rather large oversight not to include wether or not a grouping can join a coalition - or even lead a government (seeing as this amendment seeks to address very, very unlikely scenarios). :blah:
    That is an oversight by myself which will be added before this goes to vote.

    Surely groupings should be allowed to form without the Speaker's permission as they won't be getting a Subforum or anything like that?

    Surely the will of the house (should this pass) is more important than your opinion on whether groupings should be able to stand or not?

    Dual-memberships could potentially be an issue. The membership could be listed in a stickied thread. The same restrictions on dual-memberships would apply (permission of the speaker and party leader).

    I'll add that in


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I would not wish this to stop one person standing as an independent, as I did on four occasions (though in reality in name only as I stood on the policies of the Monster Raving Loony Party which did not exist). So I assume a lone independent could still stand?
    Absolutely


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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: February 27, 2016
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.

  • 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.