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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    partisan :fuhrer:
    It's quite common for a Speaker (at least pre-Birch) to give their opinion on an amendment, as they are not (at least officially) a party-political matter.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Also I would suggest that a Libertarian revival, BNP (UKIP of the left), Respect party, MRLP, SNP/Celtic alliance, Center/facist party are all holes which could be filled in the house. That is at least 6 new parties which could be formed.
    Don't forget the Cooperative Party for those libertarian socialists among us

    Enough of this "broadchurch" bs :fuhrer:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It's quite common for a Speaker (at least pre-Birch) to give their opinion on an amendment, as they are not (at least officially) a party-political matter.
    Although I would argue that a great many amendments are put forwards for, at least in the back of the mind , party political reasons. I will not deny that I have put thought into party political amendments

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It's quite common for a Speaker (at least pre-Birch) to give their opinion on an amendment, as they are not (at least officially) a party-political matter.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Although I would argue that a great many amendments are put forwards for, at least in the back of the mind , party political reasons. I will not deny that I have put thought into party political amendments

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I actually believe that when Speaker's discuss issues such as this it further reinforces the idea that individuals shouldn't seek to amend the GD/Constitution for political gain.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cBay)
    Don't forget the Cooperative Party for those libertarian socialists among us

    Enough of this "broadchurch" bs :fuhrer:
    The socalist are liberal though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I actually believe that when Speaker's discuss issues such as this it further reinforces the idea that individuals shouldn't seek to amend the GD/Constitution for political gain.
    But the fine line between legitimate non partisan amendments and veiled partisan amendments is the very reason I think the speaker should stay out of it, as the only way to shield themselves from arguments of bias, especially at this time when all the amendments are coming from a select few who since you have become speaker seem to have gone mad.

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'm sorry, what exactly does the bold mean?
    The requirements are only a guideline. 10 isn't fixed. The greens were created with 5 members and were very active.

    Also I would suggest that a Libertarian revival, BNP (UKIP of the left), Respect party, MRLP, SNP/Celtic alliance, Center/facist party are all holes which could be filled in the house. That is at least 6 new parties which could be formed.

    actually it isn't 2%. Due to the bias in D'hondt it is between 2.1-2.5% to get a seat. Depending on the way the votes are dished out.

    And with all due respect, you have the power to remove the requirements if you belive a party would be active. The Nat Libs might become active once they have a seat and I belive that people would be more willing to take the leap if they had a better shot at getting a seat.
    It means that I don't see why fragmentation is an inherently good thing, as you appear to be suggesting. Just stirs up bitterness and resentment. Reconciliation is far better.

    I did not say new parties couldn't be formed for lack of ideological niches to fill. You said the parties would be formed by people leaving current parties - which implies they would not have a unique ideological platform.

    The point stands.

    Indeed I could. But that doesn't affect my argument at all.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The socalist are liberal though.
    It's not about being liberal, it's about how you organise the economy. And direct democracy. And being liberal as well I suppose.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But the fine line between legitimate non partisan amendments and veiled partisan amendments is the very reason I think the speaker should stay out of it, as the only way to shield themselves from arguments of bias, especially at this time when all the amendments are coming from a select few who since you have become speaker seem to have gone mad.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The arguments of bias have been coming, exclusively, from you though (and maybe a few others unfamiliar with convention). If individuals can't keep their amendments apolitical then that's unfortunate. However when I make a point on how the MHoC should be run then I don't and won't be making it for the benefit of any particular party, just the House as a whole. Surely most understand that if the rules were unfair then the House would be unpleasant to be in and would wither and die.

    There have been quite a few amendments recently. I've no idea why.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It means that I don't see why fragmentation is an inherently good thing, as you appear to be suggesting. Just stirs up bitterness and resentment. Reconciliation is far better.
    I do. Fragmentation = more choise and more diversity. Unlike you I do not wish to see a 2 party state. Also 'coming from me?'

    I did not say new parties couldn't be formed for lack of ideological niches to fill. You said the parties would be formed by people leaving current parties - which implies they would not have a unique ideological platform.
    I said that is one of the options. I would look at welzi and neb as an example. Those 2 could form a BNP and are certainly active. The labour and conservative parties are also very broad and sometimes I wonder if it is only the name keeping them together.

    The point stands.

    Indeed I could. But that doesn't affect my argument at all.
    the point is that once you increase the number of seats you increase activity, increased activity leads to the ability for more seats to be made. Thus we see a great cycle and a bigger more vibrant house. But it is something which should be doen slowly.

    It does.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The arguments of bias have been coming, exclusively, from you though (and maybe a few others unfamiliar with convention). If individuals can't keep their amendments apolitical then that's unfortunate. However when I make a point on how the MHoC should be run then I don't and won't be making it for the benefit of any particular party, just the House as a whole. Surely most understand that if the rules were unfair then the House would be unpleasant to be in and would wither and die.

    There have been quite a few amendments recently. I've no idea why.
    I also, just about, have faith in the house to reject amendments that implement an inherent bias, especially when they cannot be bullied by their party into voting in a particular way.

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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cBay)
    It's not about being liberal, it's about how you organise the economy. And direct democracy. And being liberal as well I suppose.
    I'm sure you could find the support from labour to form a break-off group. Especially if this passed and seats were garunteed.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    I do. Fragmentation = more choise and more diversity. Unlike you I do not wish to see a 2 party state. Also 'coming from me?'

    I said that is one of the options. I would look at welzi and neb as an example. Those 2 could form a BNP and are certainly active. The labour and conservative parties are also very broad and sometimes I wonder if it is only the name keeping them together.


    the point is that once you increase the number of seats you increase activity, increased activity leads to the ability for more seats to be made. Thus we see a great cycle and a bigger more vibrant house. But it is something which should be doen slowly.

    It does.
    We see things differently then. I see it as encouragement of people to form rival parties to spite others when things don't go their way thus making the MHoC a less pleasant place to be. Also be careful with what you say. I don't want to 'see a 2 party state' but I don't think a 7 party one is all that bad. You'll note that I recently allowed a 7th party to form - in fact seeing the lack of activity perhaps I was over eager to see it happen.

    I didn't say 'coming from you'? :/

    I don't think the MPs you've used as an example would leave their respective parties if this amendment passed nor do I think breaking up parties is a reason to pass amendments.

    You've tried to back up your argument by repeating the premise I rejected. Increasing seats doesn't automatically increase activity.

    In order to retain new members party leaders should look to create internal positions of responsibility for them to occupy. Being an 'MP' is not necessarily going to keep someone in the House. As a Party Leader for a long time I saw members leave because of what they felt having to remember to vote was a burden.

    You'll notice that I haven't said I disagree with the amendment, just the arguments being used to defend it. I have favoured expanding this House in the past and could easily argue in favour of this.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I also, just about, have faith in the house to reject amendments that implement an inherent bias, especially when they cannot be bullied by their party into voting in a particular way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As do I. Hopefully my green avatar serves as a reminder that here honourable members walk on hallowed ground. They shouldn't mess with the proper procedure.

    Procedure is love. Procedure is life.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    We see things differently then. I see it as encouragement of people to form rival parties to spite others when things don't go their way thus making the MHoC a less pleasant place to be. Also be careful with what you say. I don't want to 'see a 2 party state' but I don't think a 7 party one is all that bad. You'll note that I recently allowed a 7th party to form - in fact seeing the lack of activity perhaps I was over eager to see it happen.
    Indeed we do. I see it as being able to focus more on a niche which you want to focus on.

    I didn't say 'coming from you'? :/
    sorry, I was referring to
    It seems odd that you should tout people being able to leave their parties...
    why is it odd coming from me?

    I don't think the MPs you've used as an example would leave their respective parties if this amendment passed nor do I think breaking up parties is a reason to pass amendments.
    I would like to note that both have either tried to leave or have become a joint member Recently. I would also like to note that there are a broad range of political opinions in the world. I would suggest that a 5D axis might begin to be able to begin to create political regions. And thus I belive that people should be willing to beak free and form new parties if they disagree with politics.

    You've tried to back up your argument by repeating the premise I rejected. Increasing seats doesn't automatically increase activity.
    Premise: making more seats makes it easier for small parties to get seats and remain active.
    Premise: making more seats will cause more by-elections as larger parties struggle to fill seats.
    Premise: making more seats makes it easier for indies to be elected.
    Premise: making more seats makes it easier to become an MP which will make some people stick around.

    Assuming all these premises to be true means that more seats = more activity.

    In order to retain new members party leaders should look to create internal positions of responsibility for them to occupy. Being an 'MP' is not necessarily going to keep someone in the House. As a Party Leader for a long time I saw members leave because of what they felt having to remember to vote was a burden.
    party leaders are unlikely do do that and often these internal positions don't mean a thing.

    You'll notice that I haven't said I disagree with the amendment, just the arguments being used to defend it. I have favoured expanding this House in the past and could easily argue in favour of this.
    okay.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Although I would argue that a great many amendments are put forwards for, at least in the back of the mind , party political reasons. I will not deny that I have put thought into party political amendments
    This culture of the Speaker commenting did really exist at a time where most amendments were genuinely apolitical.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    Indeed we do. I see it as being able to focus more on a niche which you want to focus on.

    sorry, I was referring to why is it odd coming from me?

    I would like to note that both have either tried to leave or have become a joint member Recently. I would also like to note that there are a broad range of political opinions in the world. I would suggest that a 5D axis might begin to be able to begin to create political regions. And thus I belive that people should be willing to beak free and form new parties if they disagree with politics.


    Premise: making more seats makes it easier for small parties to get seats and remain active.
    Premise: making more seats will cause more by-elections as larger parties struggle to fill seats.
    Premise: making more seats makes it easier for indies to be elected.
    Premise: making more seats makes it easier to become an MP which will make some people stick around.

    Assuming all these premises to be true means that more seats = more activity.

    party leaders are unlikely do do that and often these internal positions don't mean a thing.


    okay.
    But they can still form split off parties if they want. The reason they don't isn't because they won't get seats (as indies can win seats they probably could and this amendment only makes it marginally easier) but because of the requirements for forming a new party which I think are fair. You may disagree but that's besides the point.

    I meant that it's odd that anyone would say that as it's a dodgy argument. i.e. "It seems odd that one should tout people being able to leave their parties..." - but who talks like that.

    Again I repeat - it's the party formation requirements that are the barrier to part formations, not the likelihood of winning a seat (which this only marginally increases). If the likelihood of winning a seat stopped participation then we wouldn't get independent candidates.

    First premise: Why does it make them remain active?
    Second: That doesn't mean more activity. If anything it means more voter fatigue.
    Third: It's quite easy anyway. And indies tend not to be discouraged by their chances of winning. In fact I suspect that when indies join parties they're more likely to stay active as they're surrounded by allies and get to have a secret clubhouse/sub-forum. Increased party membership is the key to activity.
    Fourth: In my personal experience this is not necessarily true. Parties can already give seats to newer members to encourage them to stay as they see fit.

    I did it. And it worked. Once it has been tried across the House and if there is still more members than there are things to do then there will be a stronger case for this. I question wether activity is greater now than when this sort of thing was previously suggested and rejected.

    My reasons for supporting this would be quite different.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    This culture of the Speaker commenting did really exist at a time where most amendments were genuinely apolitical.
    I still believe they should only interject going into the final 24h and only where important things worth considering haven't yet come up

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I still believe they should only interject going into the final 24h and only where important things worth considering haven't yet come up

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Write an amendment, I'll happily (and ironically) argue against it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Write an amendment, I'll happily (and ironically) argue against it.
    But then that is also codifying for the sake of codifying, something I disagree with even more

    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: March 7, 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.