Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Ask a Democrat - The TSR Democrats Q&A Thread Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What is your economic policy?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Has the Speakership approved this? If so I'm disappointed. The Democrats are clearly not just a re-branded Green Party and should have to meet the new party requirements which they obviously don't. Rakas21
    The speaker has no constitutional power to stop it
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Personally, I blame the speakers who have put effort into keeping the Greens going. My old party should have been shut down as soon as it became apparent that it was no longer active rather than posts deliberately made in the forum to maintain it. This shows the dangers of allowing an old party to continue on.



    Next time you are online can we get a statement on why this has been allowed?
    Agreed; I must say it certainly wasn't for want of me drawing certain past speakers' attention to the issue.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    why?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The speaker has no constitutional power to stop it
    Yes they do. They have the responsibility to act in the interests of the house and to
    "ruling where the Constitution does not specify a course of action". The constitution does not specify what should happen if a party changes its name and position so radically and so should use the best judgement. In this case, a party should have been declared inactive as the constitution does say on multiple occasions has decided to become a new party without the requirements set forth for doing so by the constitution. If this is allowed to continue it is a huge mistake Rakas is making, maybe enough to make me regret my decision to vouch for his decisions previously. I will await Rakas' response to the questions asked of this decision for now though as I think he has always had good reasons or justifications for his actions in the past and he has always been good at amending his views when he is shown to be in the wrong.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Yes they do. They have the responsibility to act in the interests of the house and to
    "ruling where the Constitution does not specify a course of action". The constitution does not specify what should happen if a party changes its name and position so radically and so should use the best judgement. In this case, a party should have been declared inactive as the constitution does say on multiple occasions has decided to become a new party without the requirements set forth for doing so by the constitution. If this is allowed to continue it is a huge mistake Rakas is making, maybe enough to make me regret my decision to vouch for his decisions previously. I will await Rakas' response to the questions asked of this decision for now though as I think he has always had good reasons or justifications for his actions in the past and he has always been good at amending his views when he is shown to be in the wrong.
    I will concede on 1.1.1, even though it's worse than the commerce clause

    as for being a new party that's an absurd assertion.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Has the Speakership approved this? If so I'm disappointed. The Democrats are clearly not just a re-branded Green Party and should have to meet the new party requirements which they obviously don't. Rakas21
    Basically this.

    It's also a good time to remind the Speaker that they do not have the authority to unanimously approve the creation of a new party.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I can think of two examples where a party has changed its name, the Liberal Democrats became the Liberal Party, and the Patriotic Conservative Party became UKIP. For the Speaker to stop this change of the name the Speaker would have to make a judgement call to decide what opinions members hold which is a step towards breaking neutrality.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I will concede on 1.1.1, even though it's worse than the commerce clause

    as for being a new party that's an absurd assertion.
    It is different enough from the green party that it should be considered a new party. It is a huge shift to go from far left to centre-right (going by the fact that this new party is basically the same as the Liberal party so far, apart from the refusal to join a coalition with the socialists, maybe putting them slightly to the right of us). That said, as a new party, I think you have a claim to have enough activity to form this new party. Even if you don't actually have 10 members the activity of the members you do have is high enough to form a party imo.

    You should not be able to do so by taking over the old Greens though. Let the old party die, then throw proposals for your new party to be founded in time for the next GE.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    I can think of two examples where a party has changed its name, the Liberal Democrats became the Liberal Party, and the Patriotic Conservative Party became UKIP. For the Speaker to stop this change of the name the Speaker would have to make a judgement call to decide what opinions members hold which is a step towards breaking neutrality.
    Those were name changes without a policy change. One just dropped one word from their name, the other simply changed the name of the party to reflect a RL party that shared the same views. This is a radical departure from what the original party was. Like it or not parties are seen as extensions of the RL parties they share names with, and people will have associated the old party with radical left-wing economic policies. Changing those to be centre-right is not just a name change, it is creating a new party.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Basically this.

    It's also a good time to remind the Speaker that they do not have the authority to unanimously approve the creation of a new party.
    Yes, they do, so long as the party has enough activity. In this case, I would say they do. They may not have the required 10 members but it is up to speakers discretion, acting in the best interests of the house, as to whether or not they have the necessary levels of activity and if the new party offers something to the house.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Yes, they do, so long as the party has enough activity. In this case, I would say they do. They may not have the required 10 members but it is up to speakers discretion, acting in the best interests of the house, as to whether or not they have the necessary levels of activity and if the new party offers something to the house.
    5.1. Parties are formed when approved by the administration team and Speaker

    This heavily implies the need for CT approval in addition to that of the Speaker. Just because the new party would use the infrastructure of a party that closed down doesn't mean that can be waived.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    Parties on TSR undergo radical transformation over time, early members of UKIP have moved to the Green Party, the Liberal Party, and the Labour Party. UU's far-right UKIP being allowed to continue is evidence that a party's shift on the political spectrum is not viewed as grounds to intervene in a party.
    Members moving is not the same as a party radically changing its name while taking all its members with it. I don't know the situation with UUs UKIP so I can't really comment on that one I'm afraid. I've mentioned that I do think you have enough support for this new party to be formed if you can show how the house would benefit from this new party. Why not take that path while there is time before the general election? Spell out how you will be different from the parties that exist already and give the TSR team time to wipe that forum of posts and members and set it up instead as this new party in time to stand in the next GE?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    5.1. Parties are formed when approved by the administration team and Speaker

    This heavily implies the need for CT approval in addition to that of the Speaker. Just because the new party would use the infrastructure of a party that closed down doesn't mean that can be waived.
    True I guess, but the only times I have seen the admin team have any input is when there are too many existing parties already and they do not want to create another subforum (this happened during one of my speakerships) or where there are concerns about the output that party may produce (the BNP for example). In this case it would be more of a rubber stamp for the admin team to wipe the green forum, rename it and clear the membership ready for the new party to take control of that forum.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    May I ask the Democrats what your general policies regarding defence are?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Yes they do. They have the responsibility to act in the interests of the house and to
    "ruling where the Constitution does not specify a course of action". The constitution does not specify what should happen if a party changes its name and position so radically and so should use the best judgement. In this case, a party should have been declared inactive as the constitution does say on multiple occasions has decided to become a new party without the requirements set forth for doing so by the constitution. If this is allowed to continue it is a huge mistake Rakas is making, maybe enough to make me regret my decision to vouch for his decisions previously. I will await Rakas' response to the questions asked of this decision for now though as I think he has always had good reasons or justifications for his actions in the past and he has always been good at amending his views when he is shown to be in the wrong.
    The part where you state you could regret the way you voted in the MoNC against the Speaker is interesting because Rakas was presented with evidence over the summer that Hazzer was in the Green Party to launch a hostile takeover but did not do anything. When Hazzer's intentions were revealed to the MHoC the Speakership team did not make a statement, Hazzer was allowed to keep posting in the Green Party's private forum to keep the Green Party looking active.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    How does this party differ from liberals party? They both appear the same to me.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    The part where you state you could regret the way you voted in the MoNC against the Speaker is interesting because Rakas was presented with evidence over the summer that Hazzer was in the Green Party to launch a hostile takeover but did not do anything. When Hazzer's intentions were revealed to the MHoC the Speakership team did not make a statement, Hazzer was allowed to keep posting in the Green Party's private forum to keep the Green Party looking active.
    Interesting, and had I been around at the time I would have taken that into account. So far all of the mistakes Rakas has made I have seen as justifiable and/or fixable. I don't think I would change my vote right at this second if I could, but I do feel like the ongoing situation in the Greens is a problem that it sounds like successive speakers should have dealt with already.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Let's not get drawn into the syntactics of the GD here, the Speaker isn't a machine that blindly follows these documents, the reason the House has a Speaker is because objective judgement often needs to be made. If I had blindly followed things then UKIP would have been closed in early 2014 a few months before it had a surge of new members (or dupes, idk whatever)

    In my opinion, the Speaker should have disallowed this. It's not a name change or a rebrand, it's a couple of right-wing members taking over a left-wing party and turning it into another Liberal Party. It should be treated as a new party formation, and rejected on two grounds: Lack of support and lack of a novel/ distinguishing factor. These are the bare minimum criteria for party creation.

    I was probably the most hesitant Speaker ever in closing old parties. That was because I thought once we lost a subforum we'd never get it back. I think the return of the Libers maybe disproves that. But I always thought that if push came to shove, when a party had to be closed, a wider House discussion should take place on what could be proposed to replace it. But that should not be done like this. In the modern House, I wonder if a closed party should perhaps be repurposed for some wider House use, like a replacement for the Wiki. But then I hear the TSR Wiki is being replaced anyway now, right? Note, as you can tell I've not given any scrutiny to these ideas and am just thinking out loud...

    Anyway, you could at least have paid homage to MHoC tradition and called it the TSR Centre Party as an homage to what came before!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Basically this.

    It's also a good time to remind the Speaker that they do not have the authority to unanimously approve the creation of a new party.
    It’s a good thing it is not a new party then
 
 
 
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: November 10, 2017
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.