Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    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.
    Why do we need parties in all but name though? I would not be at all surprised if we had SF, PC and SNP SF would fail to get a seat, PC might just scrape 1 and the SNP would get no more than 1 and guess what that means? An indie can achieve the exact same without causing all the problems this would create

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    Well, lets just say its different....
    Does the other place have fewer bills?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    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.
    I'll look into your suggestions


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Does the other place have fewer bills?
    Depends really. It has more oral questions though.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why do we need parties in all but name though? I would not be at all surprised if we had SF, PC and SNP SF would fail to get a seat, PC might just scrape 1 and the SNP would get no more than 1 and guess what that means? An indie can achieve the exact same without causing all the problems this would create

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Having a party name on a ballot is very beneficial and an independent grouping would work towards this.

    It was also increase the variety across the house.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why do we need parties in all but name though? I would not be at all surprised if we had SF, PC and SNP SF would fail to get a seat, PC might just scrape 1 and the SNP would get no more than 1 and guess what that means? An indie can achieve the exact same without causing all the problems this would create

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So just because you think PC or SNP would only win 1 seat each, we shouldn't go through with this? What if they had enough votes to win 2 or 3?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Does the other place have fewer bills?
    I'd say it has many more. There are usually backlogs of at least a week. It's been as bad as a month wait if 1 bill per day was posted.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    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.
    And this time I am not even going to bother with the nicer side, and this is why you should have never commented in the first place. If you wanted to keep debating things you should have not taken the chair, I'm sure the members are more than capable of making the necessary arguments, it certainly would not be the first time, or is this you handing in your resignation already?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    There's more than one? xD


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I didn't want to be specific it could be any number as long as it is under half
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    So just because you think PC or SNP would only win 1 seat each, we shouldn't go through with this? What if they had enough votes to win 2 or 3?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What if? If it's an important word, we have no idea how many they would get, but it just creates problem after problem, if but a single seat is soon should a sub forum not be made for them? The CT will love that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    I genuinely appreciate your advice on matters of good form and conduct but you appear to be confusing personal style with convention. Speaker Birchington was quite reserved and indeed would only interject 'in occasional and arguably exceptional instances'. Speaker Jarred on the other hand would often make comments similar to mine in debates such as this when the topic was on procedure (as opposed to being political). Both were very good Speakers.

    As the GD offers guidance then arguably yes - however the GD explicitly states that the Speaker can reject parties/individuals. It (obviously) does not mention 'groupings' and this amendment seems to imply their automatic inclusion. Here I am not so much concerned with the concept as I am with the practicalities and making sure amendments are well written.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What if? If it's an important word, we have no idea how many they would get, but it just creates problem after problem, if but a single seat is soon should a sub forum not be made for them? The CT will love that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It is very easy and efficient to organise everything offsite there isn't a need for a subforum for a smal lgorup
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What if? If it's an important word, we have no idea how many they would get, but it just creates problem after problem, if but a single seat is soon should a sub forum not be made for them? The CT will love that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If they're able to win as many seats as the Socialists, I'd argue they're just as entitled.

    Regardless, there is no point debating what ifs


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And this time I am not even going to bother with the nicer side, and this is why you should have never commented in the first place. If you wanted to keep debating things you should have not taken the chair, I'm sure the members are more than capable of making the necessary arguments, it certainly would not be the first time, or is this you handing in your resignation already?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I direct you to my earlier comments.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I genuinely appreciate your advice on matters of good form and conduct but you appear to be confusing personal style with convention. Speaker Birchington was quite reserved and indeed would only interject 'in occasional and arguably exceptional instances'. Speaker Jarred on the other hand would often make comments similar to mine in debates such as this when the topic was on procedure (as opposed to being political). Both were very good Speakers.

    As the GD offers guidance then arguably yes - however the GD explicitly states that the Speaker can reject parties/individuals. It (obviously) does not mention 'groupings' and this amendment seems to imply their automatic inclusion. Here I am not so much concerned with the concept as I am with the practicalities and making sure amendments are well written.
    Actually the GD is poorly written and merely says "people" which one could argue means only indie candidates can be blocked, but also going a double checking there was nothing extra in the constitution I think a fair bit of polishing needs doing because it is still pretty FTPA and says when the RL PM calls an election rather than a more general "when there this a RL". If I didn't have so much to do over the next few months I would do a big polish.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Actually the GD is poorly written and merely says "people" which one could argue means only indie candidates can be blocked, but also going a double checking there was nothing extra in the constitution I think a fair bit of polishing needs doing because it is still pretty FTPA and says when the RL PM calls an election rather than a more general "when there this a RL". If I didn't have so much to do over the next few months I would do a big polish.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are of course correct, there are lots of little bits and pieces where the GD needs to be straightened out. If you can stomach my saying so.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You are of course correct, there are lots of little bits and pieces where the GD needs to be straightened out. If you can stomach my saying so.
    Conduct not befitting the speaker, one could take the "of course" to mean that in your opinion I am usually correct and thus you are demonstrating a political bias

    And it's the constitution. A summer project, I doubt anybody will beat me to it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    If they're able to win as many seats as the Socialists, I'd argue they're just as entitled.

    Regardless, there is no point debating what ifs


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It ought not be about numbers; rather, about activity.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Aye

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    I don't think this is necessary. If independents who can't form a party want a formal designation, they should just join a party. It's very rare that we get someone who completely wouldn't fit with any of the 7 parties.
 
 
 
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.