VA159 – Dual Membership Amendment

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: 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
    9.30%
    Abstain
    8
    18.60%

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    A very sensible amendment and I see no reason for anyone to object.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    People should stick stuff like this in their coalition agreements tbh.
    finding the middle finger thingy for you mister.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    finding the middle finger thingy for you mister.
    You need my vote to control the Liberals?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You need my vote to control the Liberals?
    https://youtu.be/Nxq-wCf5G8o?t=7s
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    People should stick stuff like this in their coalition agreements tbh.
    Why does it belong in coalition agreements??
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Ayes to the right: 31
    Noes to the left: 4
    Abstentions: 8

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

    Turnout: 86%
 
 
 
Updated: October 6, 2016
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.

Today on TSR
Poll
Does your body insecurities make you avoid PE or exercise?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Study resources

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.