Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

A163 – New Party Formation Amendment

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:

    New Party Formation Amendment

    Proposed by: joecphillips MP (Lib)
    Seconded by: adam9317 MP (Con), Andy98 MP (Grn), cranbrook_aspie MP (Soc), Kay_Winters MP (Lab), Quamquam123 MP (Lab), SoggyCabbages MP (Lab), TitanCream MP (Lib)

    In Guidance Document Replace
    3) In deciding whether to allow a party to form, the Speaker should be primarily mindful of the support for the party. Precedent sets the hurdle as 10 eligible voters showing support, though the Speaker may want to consider other factors, such as whether those voters are active House of Commons members.

    With

    3)
    A) To create a new party the group that wants party status must accumulate 15 points and have a minimum of 5 active TSR members.
    Points will be awarded for:
    Active MPs within the last 6 months - 5 points
    Bills posted in the past 12 weeks when sponsored by an MP from another party (if the Speaker deems it to be proper legislation) - 4 points
    Motions posted in the past 12 weeks when sponsored by an MP from another party (if the Speaker deems it to be proper legislation) - 3 points
    Non-MPs active within the MHoC in the last 6 months - 3 points
    New/inactive members of the last 6 months - 1 point.

    B) An active MP shall be anyone who has held a seat as an MP for at least 2 weeks (excluding proxy MPs), unless they have lost a seat due to inactivity within the last 2 voting reviews.

    C) An active non-MP of the MHoC shall be defined as anyone who:
    a) a) Has been a proxy MP but not held their own seat for 2 weeks
    b) Has lost a seat within the past 2 voting reviews and their
    b) Have commented outside the bar in 4 consecutive weeks.
    c) a) Commented on over 25% of the Bills, Amendments and Motions posted to debate within a 14 day period.
    b) Over 21 posts within a 7 day period excluding the bar
    d)If someone doesn't meet these conditions but feel they have been active they can ask the speaker to consider upgrading to active them at their discretion.

    D) An active TSR member is anyone who has:
    a) over 100 posts
    b) an account that is over 4 weeks old
    c) over 0.75 posts per day or over 50 posts in a 2 week period.



    Notes
    Most objections to new parties forming is due to the risk of inactivity, this amendment ensures that people wanting to create new parties are rewarded for activity during the formation of a party and ensure that they have a slightly easier time in creating the party than people who have no history in the MHoC.

    This also has the advantage of creating a clear system so new groups know what they have to achieve to become a party rather than the current system where it is not as clear.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I remind members in considering this that the CT are still required to give their approval and that they do not follow a set of rules that can be changed by this House. In effect what this does is to create a specific system to replace the Speaker's approval part of the process.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. This is a very sensible amendment and removes potential ambiguity from the GD.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Again this fixation with a bloody points system :rolleyes:

    Unsurprisingly, I also oppose this amendment since I believe the current system works just fine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What is it with this stupid ****ing points **** that's been coming up...
    No.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    D) An active TSR member is anyone who has:
    a) over 100 posts
    b) an account that is over 4 weeks old
    c) over 0.75 posts per day or over 50 posts in a 2 week period.
    Clarify if it's And or Or.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Clarify if it's And or Or.
    It's definitely "and" unless otherwise stated.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It's definitely "and" unless otherwise stated.
    I'd request that be specified for clarity.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Clarify if it's And or Or.
    It is and, I will make it clearer at the next opportunity.

    If not that would be easy to get around.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. Seems a good idea.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Again this fixation with a bloody points system :rolleyes:

    Unsurprisingly, I also oppose this amendment since I believe the current system works just fine.
    At least this points system is clear, I don't understand the other one still.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    At least this points system is clear
    The current system is clear and gives the Speaker the flexibility needed to properly process the party's application. This system does not do that and is too rigid and I find this idea that we have to measure everything with points baffling. We never needed to do this in the past so I don't understand the current fixation with points systems.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    The current system is clear and gives the Speaker the flexibility needed to properly process the party's application. This system does not do that and is too rigid and I find this idea that we have to measure everything with points baffling. We never needed to do this in the past so I don't understand the current fixation with points systems.
    The current system is not clear it gives a recommendation for what the speaker could approve but that's it, this makes it so activity can be rewarded in a clearer way which will encourage potential new members and parties rather than oh you might need this or you might need that I don't know.

    People also said the current system tends to end up with 2 or 3 active members this would leave a party needing 5 active members.

    TitanCream RomanBowling33 as the 2 people who have tried to start a new party recently how clear did you find the current system while trying to start it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The current system is not clear it gives a recommendation for what the speaker could approve but that's it, this makes it so activity can be rewarded in a clearer way which will encourage potential new members and parties rather than oh you might need this or you might need that I don't know.

    People also said the current system tends to end up with 2 or 3 active members this would leave a party needing 5 active members.

    TitanCream RomanBowling33 as the 2 people who have tried to start a new party how clear did you find the current system while trying to start it?
    I was new to the sim so wasn't aware of everything anyway but I definitely found it hardest to determine how to go about starting a new party. I very much like what this amendment does and how it gives clear criteria for starting a new party and I fully support it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I will have a proper look tomorrow, but it looks like the barrier to entry on out end would be set far too low and certainly not high enough for the lazy CT

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It was pretty hard and I hated how the failures o a previous party were the barrier.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    Not only am i happy with the status-quo but i also trust the judgment of the speaker.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Do I think that this is a good idea? Yes, I do believe that the barrier is too high and the curent system basically says that it's the speaks discression but people don't read it like that.

    Do I think the CT would make a sub for just two people? Not on your life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Do I think that this is a good idea? Yes, I do believe that the barrier is too high and the curent system basically says that it's the speaks discression but people don't read it like that.

    Do I think the CT would make a sub for just two people? Not on your life.
    This requires more than just 2 people even if the group who wants to become a party produce legislation everyday.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    This requires more than just 2 people even if the group who wants to become a party produce legislation everyday.
    Ahhh I missed that hurdle, based on the experience with the MEU 5 members is enough.
 
 
 
Updated: October 24, 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.

Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?

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.