username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#21
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
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.
You are missing the point of the amendment, the point is to decide if competition for parties is a better system than forcing parties to be different: I believe it is.
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 years ago
#22
(Original post by Jacob E)
You are missing the point of the amendment, the point is to decide if competition for parties is a better system than forcing parties to be different: I believe it is.
Jacob - I'm not some newbie. I know what this amendment intends to do. Please don't act like it doesn't.

If the shoe fits wear it.
0
reply
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#23
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
Jacob - I'm not some newbie. I know what this amendment intends to do. Please don't act like it doesn't.

If the shoe fits wear it.
It is true the amendement would make the AFL easier to form, however, that does not mean your arguments against the amendment are not based on sound reasoning. Competition allows the strongest parties to survive, provides encouragement for parties to improve to compete against competitors, and removed the need for the Speaker to make a political decision. A member against this amendment has challenged the points supporting a competitive MHoC, providing evidence to Joe's claims that your opposition is based on an irrational dislike of a potential new party.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 years ago
#24
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
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.
I wouldn’t class a member who posts 1 or 2 times a week as an active member so it is above what we currently have
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 years ago
#25
(Original post by joecphillips)
I wouldn’t class a member who posts 1 or 2 times a week as an active member so it is above what we currently have
I didn't realise you actually won the Deputy Speakership election and thus could comment on such matters. Oh wait... you did terribly.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 years ago
#26
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
I didn't realise you actually won the Deputy Speakership election and thus could comment on such matters. Oh wait... you did terribly.
Once again why are you making this personal? The ds election is a vote for who is the most popular member and last time I checked you also didn’t win.

So do you class someone who makes 1 or 2 posts a week as active? Not that it matters you also failed in your campaign.
0
reply
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 years ago
#27
Seems like a very sensible idea this thread, it certainly makes communication across the house simpler. As for the amendment, I also quite like it, and oddly enough don’t mind any of clauses.
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 years ago
#28
I am thinking of creating an amendment which allows 2 government and non government bills each instead of one. This would increase activity in the MHoC I think, as there would be more things to debate, anyone willing to second?
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 years ago
#29
(Original post by Jacob E)
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.
I'll second this, if you are willing to second mine too!
0
reply
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#30
(Original post by JMR2018)
I'll second this, if you are willing to second mine too!
I second all amendments because I do not believe there should be seconders, however, I am not an MP.
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 years ago
#31
(Original post by Jacob E)
I second all amendments because I do not believe there should be seconders, however, I am not an MP.
Ok then, fair enough. I'll second your thing anyways because I think it should be easier to create a political party. Maybe also create an amendment ending this seconding business, I agree with u tbh.
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 years ago
#32
(Original post by JMR2018)
I am thinking of creating an amendment which allows 2 government and non government bills each instead of one. This would increase activity in the MHoC I think, as there would be more things to debate, anyone willing to second?
I like the idea but it wouldn't work particularly well with how we run as a government. We have a release schedule that is rather full at present.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 years ago
#33
(Original post by JMR2018)
I am thinking of creating an amendment which allows 2 government and non government bills each instead of one. This would increase activity in the MHoC I think, as there would be more things to debate, anyone willing to second?
I am confused as to what you are proposing. Are you referring to the amount of bills the Speaker can post each day or something different?
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 years ago
#34
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
I like the idea but it wouldn't work particularly well with how we run as a government. We have a release schedule that is rather full at present.
I'm not sure how that will affect things. It will just increase the maximum number of bills can be submitted by the government or opposition to 2 each.
0
reply
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 years ago
#35
(Original post by Saunders16)
I am confused as to what you are proposing. Are you referring to the amount of bills the Speaker can post each day or something different?
Yh changing this part of the Guidance Document below Bill procedure from:

1) In the House of Commons a maximum of one government bill, one non-government bill, one motions, one treaty and one amendment per day is permitted, excluding ‘joke’ bills.

to

1) In the House of Commons a maximum of two government bills, two non-government bills, two motions, one treaty and one amendment per day is permitted, excluding ‘joke’ bills.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 years ago
#36
(Original post by JMR2018)
Yh changing this part of the Guidance Document below Bill procedure from:

1) In the House of Commons a maximum of one government bill, one non-government bill, one motions, one treaty and one amendment per day is permitted, excluding ‘joke’ bills.

to

1) In the House of Commons a maximum of two government bills, two non-government bills, two motions, one treaty and one amendment per day is permitted, excluding ‘joke’ bills.
I completely disagree that it would improve activity to allow more bills to be submitted per day for two reasons. Firstly, many people are already not active or interested enough to give more than a short comment as it stands. By increasing the amount of legislation they need to look at to keep up to date, it may actually become more unlikely that they take part. Secondly, the current system ensures that we have legislation to debate as much as possible. There are certain periods in which we see more legislation submitted for whatever reason, so the current system is helpful as it stops the house from dumping all the legislation that it has at a certain point over one or two days rather than several more.
0
reply
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 years ago
#37
(Original post by JMR2018)
I'm not sure how that will affect things. It will just increase the maximum number of bills can be submitted by the government or opposition to 2 each.
I don't really see it being used is what I'm trying to say
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 years ago
#38
I haven't actually written an amendment before, so please tell me if there is anything I need to change. I also need seconders so please either PM or reply to this message if you are happy to second it.

Axxx - Independent Groupings Amendment, The Hon. Saunders16 MP (Libertarian)
In the Guidance Document insert a new section entitled Independent Grouping Formation:

(1) Users proposing a new grouping should create a thread in the Model House of Commons forum setting out the grouping’s main principles.
(2) Interested users may declare their intention to join the new grouping by posting on the proposal thread or sending a private message to the proposers or Speaker.
(3) When deciding whether to allow a grouping to form, the Speaker should consider;
a. Electoral support for the party on TSR in the form of dual members.
b. The grouping should have two active members in the MHoC, or five eligible voters.
c. New groupings should aim to differentiate themselves from existing parties and groupings, but - unlike parties - do not need to be significantly different to parties and groupings that already exist.

In the Guidance Document insert into the section entitled Party Formation:

(4) If a grouping is deemed to meet the requirements to become a party and there are less than six parties at that point, the Speaker should approve its formation as a party if requested.
(5) If a grouping is deemed to meet the requirements to become a party but there are six parties or more at that point, the Speaker should approve its formation if there is judged to be a sufficient niche. If there is not a sufficient niche, but there is a party that does not meet the requirements at that point, the party should be given one month by the Speaker to meet the requirements and be replaced if it fails to do so.
(6) If a party is replaced under subsection (5), the Speaker should hold an internal vote between the party closing down altogether or becoming a grouping instead. After a vote is held, a week should be given until the subforum is transferred.

In the Constitution insert into the section entitled Party Membership:

12.2 Members are allowed to be in a grouping at the same time they hold party membership without needing the permission of party/grouping leaders or the Speaker.
0
reply
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 years ago
#39
Do you not think that this effectively condones off site activity as there is let's be honest, not much hope of having sufficient communication through PMs to coordinate a grouping... also, it makes it more effort having to see if a new member is part of a group, if they then want to join a party, but the party don't want dual membership between groups/parties...

All this does is effectively make it easier for parties to be formed, just calling them something different, without a subforum?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 years ago
#40
3c feels like a contradiction.

"sufficient niche" would need clarifying I think.

It might just be me, but can this amendment please define exactly what it means by grouping?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (478)
66.48%
No (241)
33.52%

Watched Threads

View All