VA159 – Dual Membership Amendment Watch

Poll: Should this amendment be passed into the Constitution and Guidance Document?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (31)
72.09%
On the contrary, No (4)
9.3%
Abstain (8)
18.6%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
VA159 – Dual Membership Amendment
Proposed by: mobbsy91 MP (Con)
Seconded by: hazzer1998 MP (UKIP), Unown Uzer MP (UKIP), JoeL1994 MP (Lab), Nigel Farage MEP MP (UKIP)

Dual Membership Amendment

This House shall adjust the Guidance Document and Constitution as follows:

Remove Party Membership section from:
1) Members are only allowed to be in one party, unless both Party Leaders and the Speaker agree. This is not in the Constitution as parties may wish to share forums while engaged in coalitions.

Add Party Membership section to Constitution:
1) Members are only allowed to be in one Party, unless both Party Leaders and the Speaker agree. If a member wants to join a Party which is in a coalition, the Leaders of all Parties in the coalition must also agree.

Notes:
Spoiler:
Show

‘This is not in the Constitution as parties may wish to share forums while engaged in coalitions.’ is no longer needed as coalitions use the Government sub-forum, as so unless a member has dual membership, there is no other reason they should be in another Party, also allowing this to be moved to the Constitution.

When a member from a non-coalition Party becomes dual member in a coalition Party, they gain access to the shared Government sub-forum, which has sensitive information, which all the Parties might not want shared with any non-Government Parties.

0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
A very sensible amendment and I see no reason for anyone to object.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Aph)
A very sensible amendment and I see no reason for anyone to object.
People should stick stuff like this in their coalition agreements tbh.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Aph)
A very sensible amendment and I see no reason for anyone to object.
Aph ym friend. I'm drunk, so probably only why im saying this, but YEH you. are. right. :hugs:
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by RayApparently)
People should stick stuff like this in their coalition agreements tbh.
finding the middle finger thingy for you mister.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by mobbsy91)
finding the middle finger thingy for you mister.
You need my vote to control the Liberals?
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by RayApparently)
You need my vote to control the Liberals?
https://youtu.be/Nxq-wCf5G8o?t=7s
1
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by RayApparently)
People should stick stuff like this in their coalition agreements tbh.
Why does it belong in coalition agreements??
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Aph)
Why does it belong in coalition agreements??
I don't see why party's should have to cede control of their usergroup to another party. If the Tories were unable to negotiate this with the Liberals then that's their problem.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by RayApparently)
I don't see why party's should have to cede control of their usergroup to another party. If the Tories were unable to negotiate this with the Liberals then that's their problem.
They aren't???? Am I missing something because it seems like you really don't understand what's going on.
1
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Aph)
They aren't???? Am I missing something because it seems like you really don't understand what's going on.
What do you mean they aren't. This amendment means that a party in coalition has to clear dual memberships with their partners. I think that parties should be able to control who's a member without having to consult another party. Unless the relevant parties agree to consult eachother in a coalition agreement that is.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by RayApparently)
What do you mean they aren't. This amendment means that a party in coalition has to clear dual memberships with their partners. I think that parties should be able to control who's a member without having to consult another party. Unless the relevant parties agree to consult eachother in a coalition agreement that is.
But the reasoning is that the duel could spy on the government or members on another party, it's not unreasonable for new duel members which this only applies to.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Aph)
But the reasoning is that the duel could spy on the government or members on another party, it's not unreasonable for new duel members which this only applies to.
And if a party believes it's coalition partners will let in spies and dupes or whatever then they should tell their partner(s) that themselves and work it into an agreement. This looks to me like nothing more than the Tories using us to impose something on the Liberals. So whilst I appreciate that it might be a useful arrangement, I don't see why it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by RayApparently)
And if a party believes it's coalition partners will let in spies and dupes or whatever then they should tell their partner(s) that themselves and work it into an agreement. This looks to me like nothing more than the Tories using us to impose something on the Liberals. So whilst I appreciate that it might be a useful arrangement, I don't see why it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution.
Considering the term is almost virtually over, that's a bit of a ridiculous argument... also note that the only Tory who has written support on this amendment is me, the proposer. Other tories i spoke to are less bothered about it.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by mobbsy91)
Considering the term is almost virtually over, that's a bit of a ridiculous argument... also note that the only Tory who has written support on this amendment is me, the proposer. Other tories i spoke to are less bothered about it.
Still looks like an attempt to get one over on the Libs (something Kippers would obviously support). JoeL might actually just think it's a good idea.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#16
Ayes to the right: 31
Noes to the left: 4
Abstentions: 8

The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it! Unlock!

Turnout: 86%
0
X
new posts
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

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1099)
79.18%
Leave (289)
20.82%

Watched Threads

View All