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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Helfus)
    But "4 likeminded independents" aren't independent at all...
    Which is exactly why they should be able to stand as a grouping.

    It seems people are scared they'll lose seats to groupings and are prepared to sacrifice democracy to retain seats. It'd be completely different if there were constituencies so Independents didn't have to stand against each other if they had the same policies


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    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
    Except what you seem to be proposing a system where we have parties, independents, and some Frankenstein hybrid

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    I am partly involved in the other place but I wouldn't like this place to be the exact copy of that.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except what you seem to be proposing a system where we have parties, independents, and some Frankenstein hybrid

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What I'm proposing is a way for multiple independents to stand together if they have the same policies and ideas. I don't see what is so overly controversial that people instantly shut it down


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Which is exactly why they should be able to stand as a grouping.

    It seems people are scared they'll lose seats to groupings and are prepared to sacrifice democracy to retain seats. It'd be completely different if there were constituencies so Independents didn't have to stand against each other if they had the same policies


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Been there, tried that, didn't get support. Look up the amendment.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    I am partly involved in the other place but I wouldn't like this place to be the exact copy of that.
    From my very limited knowledge I understand the other place is somewhat more formal, so there is no hope of here ever becoming like that.

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    From what I know, only one of the seconders was active over there


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    From my very limited knowledge I understand the other place is somewhat more formal, so there is no hope of here ever becoming like that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, lets just say its different....
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Been there, tried that, didn't get support. Look up the amendment.
    I know I'm not proposing them anyway as it'd be a logistical nightmare


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I know I'm not proposing them anyway as it'd be a logistical nightmare


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    you have no idea. But I think my amendment came as clear se as we will ever get to a workable solution on here. Although it was written for IAS.

    I still don't support this because they are parties in all but name. Reduce a party to 5 people and I would support you. But not this.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    you have no idea. But I think my amendment came as clear se as we will ever get to a workable solution on here. Although it was written for IAS.

    I still don't support this because they are parties in all but name. Reduce a party to 5 people and I would support you. But not this.
    I would have rather had done that but I don't think the CT would be happy with constantly creating sub forums


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Nay for gods sake! Just because we've had an influx of people posting to make their own party, doesn't mean we need to have an individual party/grouping just to accommodate every single person's own set of individual policies.

    Quite frankly, most people will fit into one of the 6 parties we currently have. And even if not perfectly, they can mostly vote freely on Bills (at least in the Tories they could!) and have their say anyway!

    These amendments are ridiculous, and pointless - the House is working well with the Parties it has, it doesn't need individual groupings as well.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I would have rather had done that but I don't think the CT would be happy with constantly creating sub forums


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Then force in-active parties to merge with active ones. Set a minimum legislative requirement exact term which the failure to reach means closing down. That way we shed our dead weight sooner.
    Offline

    18
    Aye this would be beneficial to the house. I think it would be of particular use to supporters of the SNP, Plaid and SF as they are smaller in number generally.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Nay for gods sake! Just because we've had an influx of people posting to make their own party, doesn't mean we need to have an individual party/grouping just to accommodate every single person's own set of individual policies.

    Quite frankly, most people will fit into one of the 6 parties we currently have. And even if not perfectly, they can mostly vote freely on Bills (at least in the Tories they could!) and have their say anyway!

    These amendments are ridiculous, and pointless - the House is working well with the Parties it has, it doesn't need individual groupings as well.
    We have 7 parties...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Nay for gods sake! Just because we've had an influx of people posting to make their own party, doesn't mean we need to have an individual party/grouping just to accommodate every single person's own set of individual policies.

    Quite frankly, most people will fit into one of the 6 parties we currently have. And even if not perfectly, they can mostly vote freely on Bills (at least in the Tories they could!) and have their say anyway!

    These amendments are ridiculous, and pointless - the House is working well with the Parties it has, it doesn't need individual groupings as well.
    Seven parties

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    It's not really easier to get changes here, the other place was created because this place was stubborn to change.

    Not even half are involved in the other place.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Aph)
    We have 7 parties...
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Seven parties

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeh whatever I kinda went on full rant and didn't really think, rather just wrote what came naturally xD

    Btw, JD, definitely agree about what you said about the Speaker's post...
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    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
    Why shouldn't the considerations that are made when approving a party be made for the approval of a 'grouping'? Sub-forums are more why we get CT permission.

    'Should' being the operative term... And if this were to pass that wouldn't be a blank approval for all groupings of any kind. It is the will of the House that people should be able to form parties and that those parties should be able to stand in elections. That alone wasn't enough to keep the BNP on the ballot paper. It is not a matter of 'my opinion' but a matter of any Speaker's discretion.

    If you add the point about dual memberships and that 'groupings' (like parties) need to be approved as well as amending the GD comprehensively I would consider this to be a much more agreeable suggestion.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    It's not really easier to get changes here, the other place was created because this place was stubborn to change.

    Not even half are involved in the other place.
    There's more than one? xD


    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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.