Amendment Proposal Thread Watch

username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Sending amendments in private messages is not the best way to work with members, this thread can be used for discussion amendments, finding seconders, and working to write amendments.

Would anyone second this amendment?

In the Guidance Document change the section Party Formation from

(1) If wanting to form a party, someone should put a thread in the Model 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.

To

(1) Users proposing a new party should create a thread in the Model House of Commons forum setting out the party's main principles.
(2) Interested users may declare their intention to join the new party by posting on the proposal thread or sending a private message to the proposers or Speaker.
(3) When deciding whether to allow a party to form, the Speaker should consider;
a. Electoral support for the party on TSR.
b. The party should have five active members in the MHoC, or 10 eligible voters.
c. New parties should aim to differentiate themselves from existing parties, however, if the new party is not sufficiently different from an existing party, the new party may still be formed if the expected activity of the new party can reasonably be claimed to be above the activity of the existing party.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
This thread is a very good idea; I hope people will use this as it could fix a system that is currently broken.

I will happily second your amendment.
0
reply
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
The thread's a good idea but your amendment idea, however, I do not support.
0
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
3c is going to be the point of contention for me on this one. I'll second the amendment but might not support it at division.

Nice thread though.:yy:
0
reply
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Very good idea with the thread.

Regarding the amendment, I understand what you're trying to do here and I think it's sensible but I think there should be some criteria to establish what an 'active' member is. I believe joecphillips had a good criteria for a similar amendment that he proposed the term before last.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Quamquam123)
Very good idea with the thread.

Regarding the amendment, I understand what you're trying to do here and I think it's sensible but I think there should be some criteria to establish what an 'active' member is. I believe joecphillips had a good criteria for a similar amendment that he proposed the term before last.
You mean this one

Maybe I should resubmit it?
0
reply
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by joecphillips)
You mean this one

Maybe I should resubmit it?
I do indeed, yes

Potentially, or Nigel could amend his amendment to incorporate the criteria from your amendment
0
reply
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Thread I support, amendment I do not.
0
reply
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Dont like 3c
0
reply
mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Thread is a good idea and lol at the amendment :rofl:
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
Great idea with the thread!

With regards to the amendment - why don't you insert a phrase saying 'Jacob, Jammy, Joe and Hazzer can create a party because we want to'
1
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
Great idea with the thread!

With regards to the amendment - why don't you insert a phrase saying 'Jacob, Jammy, Joe and Hazzer can create a party because we want to'
Because the amendment does more than that
0
reply
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
I think this thread is a very good idea.

On the whole, I like the amendment too, with the exception of section (3)c.
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by joecphillips)
Because the amendment does more than that
It does but the intent behind it is obvious. Unless you wish to treat the rest of us like we're idiots
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
It does but the intent behind it is obvious. Unless you wish to treat the rest of us like we're idiots
Remove us from your thoughts and decide based on the amendment itself, people voting based on names is a problem in the house as shown by the stuff that qq has passed
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by joecphillips)
Remove us from the amendment and decide based on that, people voting based on names is a problem in the house as shown by the stuff that qq has passed
I'll decide based on the criteria I deem fit thank you.

Good to know you wish to treat us like idiots by the way
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
I'll decide based on the criteria I deem fit thank you.

Good to know you wish to treat us like idiots by the way
Do you deem voting based on names is fit?

I’m not trying to treat you like an idiot, we have seen where voting by name got us and people complained
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by joecphillips)
Do you deem voting based on names is fit?

I’m not trying to treat you like an idiot, we have seen where voting by name got us and people complained
I'm not voting on name. I'm voting on the effect this will fast track your Anti Federalist party application. I personally believe this is a lazy attempt at forming that party and thus do not support that the amendment should be brought forward to the house. Amendments should be for justified reasons for the better of the house not that the 5 of you are exiled from any party you could tolerate being a part of.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
I'm not voting on name. I'm voting on the effect this will fast track your Anti Federalist party application. I personally believe this is a lazy attempt at forming that party and thus do not support that the amendment should be brought forward to the house. Amendments should be for justified reasons for the better of the house not that the 5 of you are exiled from any party you could tolerate being a part of.
Would you be saying that if it was other members wanting to form a party? I have tried to change this for a while even before the libers proposal, if you dislike the amendment vote against it for that reason don’t bring me into it doing so shows us all that you are making your decision based on people not what is good for the house, I’m not saying anyone who opposes this is doing it based on people but you seem to be.
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by joecphillips)
Would you be saying that if it was other members wanting to form a party? I have tried to change this for a while even before the libers proposal, if you dislike the amendment vote against it for that reason don’t bring me into it doing so shows us all that you are making your decision based on people not what is good for the house, I’m not saying anyone who opposes this is doing it based on people but you seem to be.
I don't think there is ideological grounds for it either. This gives you another weapon in that ongoing argument with Dayne and that's bad for the stability of the house. I'm thinking about this for the good of the house.

If your attempts to bring a new party forward hadn't occurred before this amendment and the fact the amendment calls for the same number of active members as you have I'd have probably support it. But because of the current situation I cannot support such a move.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (88)
14.52%
Yes - a food allergy (63)
10.4%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (15)
2.48%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (16)
2.64%
No (424)
69.97%

Watched Threads

View All