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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Your party doesn't exist.
    ^^^^

    It's a shame that I have to do this as a former Speaker, but the Constitution is unbelievably clear on this point. A party only forms when it gets a subforum on TSR.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    ^^^^

    It's a shame that I have to do this as a former Speaker, but the Constitution is unbelievably clear on this point. A party only forms when it gets a subforum on TSR.
    adam9317 Response to this?

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    ^^^^

    It's a shame that I have to do this as a former Speaker, but the Constitution is unbelievably clear on this point. A party only forms when it gets a subforum on TSR.
    I'm annoyed, because it was nice when you were Speaker to actually have you online for more than 2 minutes to send the update and actually reply to member's quotes, tags and queries.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    ^^^^

    It's a shame that I have to do this as a former Speaker, but the Constitution is unbelievably clear on this point. A party only forms when it gets a subforum on TSR.
    Can you point to where it says that?

    You could argue that the speaker could shut us down at any point a month from now due to the sub forum issue but where does it say that it is required to form?

    It says approved by the administration team not when they can be bothered to create a sub

    Constitution
    5.1.are formed when approved by the administration team and Speaker (please see the Guiding Document)
    5.2.are administered by the Speaker until a party leader is elected, thereafter administration responsibilities fall to the party leader
    5.3.will be shut down if either:
    5.3.1.there is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month
    5.3.2.none of their MPs vote for a period of 1 month
    5.3.3.the party leader steps down and no-one replaces them 5.3.4.the Speaker deems them to be inactive 6.The Government


    Guidance document
    1) If wanting to form a party, someone should put a thread in the main House of Commons forum spelling out their main principles.

    2) Interested people should PM the Speaker and proposer.

    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.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    It says approved by the administration team not when they can be bothered to create a sub
    That's what approval by the admin team is: the creation of a subforum and a usergroup. If they aren't prepared to create them then the party hasn't been approved, because the very essence of an MHoC party is a usergroup and a subforum – they are inseparable from the party's being.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    That's what approval by the admin team is: the creation of a subforum and a usergroup. If they aren't prepared to create them then the party hasn't been approved, because the very essence of an MHoC party is a usergroup and a subforum – they are inseparable from the party's being.
    And we're does it clearly state this?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    You're kidding, right? Our party would profit from anything with the liber-prefix since it would most likely cost our Liberal kingmakers a couple of seats. I obviously can't speak for others but I've been here for more than five years and seen similar ambitious formations fail, which is why I can honestly declare that my criticism has no ulterior motive.

    Your party doesn't exist, doesn't satisfy the requirements for its formation, is composed of only up to two active users (not counting the Kipper who isn't in UKIP due to personal issues with their leadership and the cheat), and the Speaker isn't aware of basic rules—of course we're protesting.
    Surely it strikes you as just a little bit ironic that your party is the only one in the entire house that is intent on protesting and denying the legitimacy of the formation despite the speaker saying otherwise.

    Ray has said he supports, as has UU, Petros has remained quiet on it; you don't want to lose votes and seats so you're looking for any excuse to delegitimise the libertarians, Rakas even said at the very start, and I quote:

    "If you form, the Tories will strangle you until you die again. Nay."

    That was on day one when Paddy had just announced the party. These veiled attempts at concealment are pitiful, this is the aim of all you tories that are opposing our formation.

    If anything, this episode has made me lose the little respect I had for the conservatives, you're like a bunch of whining kids, Ray has much more class than you, Mobbsy and Rakas combined.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Hopefully I will be able to alleviate all issues raised throughout the last 24 hours in this message!

    It is a shame that some of the members who originally signed upto the idea of this party are no longer a part of it, but even with this core of current active members, the activity I have witnessed in their private sub forum is immense, outperforming some parties in this house with half a dozen 'active' members

    As for the CT, the issue was that because the MHOC is such a small part of the whole site, Captain Jack, or those at the top do not want to deal with it on a day to day basis. Although I disagree that this decision would have required that much input from them, he was adamant that nothing would be done until a QC replacement was found, and I judged this time period to be too long and unfair on the libertarian's part that made me go ahead with the decision!

    At this point, I will look to see how long it is until Danny Dorito will be until his return and I can discuss more with him, as until a QC replacement is found; we have no one with decent MHOC knowledge to contact.

    I would like to apologise for how I have handled this issue. I understand it has not been amazingly handled and there are elements which I could have executed better. We are where we are now, and I would look to carry this party forward and from here in act in the most professional way to ensure the livelihood, the activeness and most importantly the fun of this house, and within this new party continues!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Read "active members", which UKIP members actively participate in debate that aren't UU or Nigel?
    BobBobson, ChargingStag, and ATW1
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    Hopefully I will be able to alleviate all issues raised throughout the last 24 hours in this message!

    It is a shame that some of the members who originally signed upto the idea of this party are no longer a part of it, but even with this core of current active members, the activity I have witnessed in their private sub forum is immense, outperforming some parties in this house with half a dozen 'active' members

    As for the CT, the issue was that because the MHOC is such a small part of the whole site, Captain Jack, or those at the top do not want to deal with it on a day to day basis. Although I disagree that this decision would have required that much input from them, he was adamant that nothing would be done until a QC replacement was found, and I judged this time period to be too long and unfair on the libertarian's part that made me go ahead with the decision!

    At this point, I will look to see how long it is until Danny Dorito will be until his return and I can discuss more with him, as until a QC replacement is found; we have no one with decent MHOC knowledge to contact.

    I would like to apologise for how I have handled this issue. I understand it has not been amazingly handled and there are elements which I could have executed better. We are where we are now, and I would look to carry this party forward and from here in act in the most professional way to ensure the livelihood, the activeness and most importantly the fun of this house, and within this new party continues!
    Baptism by fire. :cute:
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    Hopefully I will be able to alleviate all issues raised throughout the last 24 hours in this message!

    It is a shame that some of the members who originally signed upto the idea of this party are no longer a part of it, but even with this core of current active members, the activity I have witnessed in their private sub forum is immense, outperforming some parties in this house with half a dozen 'active' members

    As for the CT, the issue was that because the MHOC is such a small part of the whole site, Captain Jack, or those at the top do not want to deal with it on a day to day basis. Although I disagree that this decision would have required that much input from them, he was adamant that nothing would be done until a QC replacement was found, and I judged this time period to be too long and unfair on the libertarian's part that made me go ahead with the decision!

    At this point, I will look to see how long it is until Danny Dorito will be until his return and I can discuss more with him, as until a QC replacement is found; we have no one with decent MHOC knowledge to contact.

    I would like to apologise for how I have handled this issue. I understand it has not been amazingly handled and there are elements which I could have executed better. We are where we are now, and I would look to carry this party forward and from here in act in the most professional way to ensure the livelihood, the activeness and most importantly the fun of this house, and within this new party continues!
    Will you be responding to the points Fez has made?

    -------------

    I did intend to stay quiet on this issue, but I find myself commenting anyway. I think it was too soon for the Libertarians to form, for several reasons, even if their formation was/is seemingly inevitable. 4 or 5 members just isn't enough. The Nat Libs had more than that and look how that ended. I don't expect anyone to wait for 10 active members, but I think it would be reasonable enough to wait for the Libertarians to have 6 or 7. Secondly, I've got to agree with the points Fez has raised. The CT haven't actually given approval for the Party.

    These two things are why I wanted to create Groupings for groups of people that haven't received approval for a party, but nevermind.

    I do think there's space for the Libertarians, and I wish them luck, but I think this announcement was premature.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    And we're does it clearly state this?
    I am still waiting for proof that the CT have approved the creation in some other way and not created a subforum, because not creating a subforum sounds an awful lot like declining to me.


    On a general note, I don't oppose on principle the formation of the Libertarians or indeed the use of off-site forums to prepare a party structure or bills for when they do get a subforum, but it is ludicrous that they be considered a party without the appropriate infrastructure in place. Last time I checked this was a TSR Model House of Commons.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Read "active members", which UKIP members actively participate in debate that aren't UU or Nigel?
    Since when did the GD say "10 active members"?
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    To be honest my support for the formation of this party rested largely on my faith in ByronicHero who apparently won't be very involved going forward. I feel rather mislead. I am sympathetic to the arguments put forward by various Tory MPs (who obviously aren't just complaining because they're worried about their vote share ) but I guess I broadly still support formation. It doesn't appear to have been fantastically handled though.
    I'm humbled by your confidence and regret that you feel misled. I'm sad to see how quickly this has all started to come apart, really. I'm confident that their membership is easily sufficient to play a meaningful part in the MHoC though and am glad that you, and others, remain willing to give them a chance.

    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Will you be responding to the points Fez has made?

    -------------

    I did intend to stay quiet on this issue, but I find myself commenting anyway. I think it was too soon for the Libertarians to form, for several reasons, even if their formation was/is seemingly inevitable. 4 or 5 members just isn't enough. The Nat Libs had more than that and look how that ended. I don't expect anyone to wait for 10 active members, but I think it would be reasonable enough to wait for the Libertarians to have 6 or 7. Secondly, I've got to agree with the points Fez has raised. The CT haven't actually given approval for the Party.

    These two things are why I wanted to create Groupings for groups of people that haven't received approval for a party, but nevermind.

    I do think there's space for the Libertarians, and I wish them luck, but I think this announcement was premature.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I really think this is a quality over quantity issue, Petros. One good member is worth far more than ten awful ones. The Libertarian output has been far higher than any other party so far, for example. I really don't think that the best interests of the MHoC are served by fixating on some number or another, as that rarely tells the whole story. The Nat Libs were almost exclusively populated by - if I remember correctly - HOC newcomers, and showed nowhere near the level of activity that the Libertarians have so far. I don't think it is a good comparison.

    I do understand your concerns - and don't want to get too involved on the Liber's behalf here - but would you not agree that no matter your misgivings it is always worth giving them the benefit of the doubt because, if they fail, nothing has been lost. The opportunity cost(s) end up suggesting strongly that it is better to have them form on the basis of probable considerable upside, than preclude it due to the possibility of minor downside.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I'm humbled by your confidence and regret that you feel misled. I'm sad to see how quickly this has all started to come apart, really. I'm confident that their membership is easily sufficient to play a meaningful part in the MHoC though and am glad that you, and others, remain willing to give them a chance.



    I really think this is a quality over quantity issue, Petros. One good member is worth far more than ten awful ones. The Libertarian output has been far higher than any other party so far, for example. I really don't think that the best interests of the MHoC are served by fixating on some number or another, as that rarely tells the whole story. The Nat Libs were almost exclusively populated by - if I remember correctly - HOC newcomers, and showed nowhere near the level of activity that the Libertarians have so far. I don't think it is a good comparison.

    I do understand your concerns - and don't want to get too involved on the Liber's behalf here - but would you not agree that no matter your misgivings it is always worth giving them the benefit of the doubt because, if they fail, nothing has been lost. The opportunity cost(s) end up suggesting strongly that it is better to have them form on the basis of probable considerable upside, than preclude it due to the possibility of minor downside.
    If we keep granting permission for parties to form and then they keep failing, the CT will become even less likely to create subforums and usergroups for said parties. That's my main worry here
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    If we keep granting permission for parties to form and then they keep failing, the CT will become even less likely to create subforums and usergroups for said parties. That's my main worry here
    Maybe doing what has happened here is a good thing it let's new parties start easier and the ct doesn't get disturbed until a party can establish themselves.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    BobBobson, ChargingStag, and ATW1
    I can personally confirm the activity of two of these three
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Maybe doing what has happened here is a good thing it let's new parties start easier and the ct doesn't get disturbed until a party can establish themselves.
    I'm not against what you guys have done at all - it's what I would have done in the same situation. It does make it hard to track your membership though, as there's no usergroup (obviously)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm not against what you guys have done at all - it's what I would have done in the same situation. It does make it hard to track your membership though, as there's no usergroup (obviously)
    Thanks for the support mate, glad to see at least one party leader more concerned about activity in the house than his own party's electoral prospects, more than we can say for the boys in blue.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm not against what you guys have done at all - it's what I would have done in the same situation. It does make it hard to track your membership though, as there's no usergroup (obviously)
    I will encourage all members to change their user title and we will make sure to make a list of members available.
 
 
 
  • 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 newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.