This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
A236 – Number of MPs Amendment

Proposed by: Glaz MP
Seconded by: CoffeeAndPolitics MP, quirky editor MP, BosslyGaming MP, SnowMiku MP



Section 3 of the constitution will be amended from

3.1 will elect 50 MPs using the D’Hondt method

To

3.1 will elect 44 MPs using the D’Hondt method


Notes
The MHoC is due a seat reduction, parties are struggling to fill all their seats and 50 is now an unsustainable seat number. Furthermore MP turnout is roughly around this area, so 44 is more representative of who is turning out to vote.
All parties are struggling to fill in seats and proxies are required all around, and proxies are beginning to run short. With 44 seats compared to 50, all parties will be able to fill all their seats and not have to have numerous proxies.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
This is an excuse for when you can't be bothered to motivate people
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
44 is a silly number, what is wrong with 40 if going for this?

What benefit is there in reducing seat numbers, other than acceptance that everybody is reliant on vobots and to an increasing extent unreliable vobots.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
Just... no. I used to be in favour of reduction a while back but not anymore.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by The Mogg)
Just... no. I used to be in favour of reduction a while back but not anymore.
What's changed, other than partisan reasons?
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
What's changed, other than partisan reasons?
Well it's not really needed is it. We struggle enough to get new members in the house as it is, reducing the amount of people that get to partake as an MP isn't really going to help that. Also, using the glorious Tory party as an example, we are managing just fine on 17 seats and can go higher, so again reducing the seats helps no one. Anyway, if we're going to talk about partisanship why not mention how both the proposer and all the seconders are in the coalition.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by The Mogg)
Well it's not really needed is it. We struggle enough to get new members in the house as it is, reducing the amount of people that get to partake as an MP isn't really going to help that. Also, using the glorious Tory party as an example, we are managing just fine on 17 seats and can go higher, so again reducing the seats helps no one. Anyway, if we're going to talk about partisanship why not mention how both the proposer and all the seconders are in the coalition.
The same was true when you supported it, it wouldn't help with recruitment which is the real issue (and which the house, again, is unwilling to attempt to tackle)

You're managing just fine and yet have to resort to third party proxies?

All the named individuals being from one side of the house is hardly proof of partisanship, especially given its down to the choice of 44.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
If you're gonna reduce the number of MPs you should change the method to Sainte-lauge
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Aph)
If you're gonna reduce the number of MPs you should change the method to Sainte-lauge
Why?

That is also a separate issue that should be dealt with separately
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
[insert overused statement about recruitment herre]. This amendment is a natural conclusion of the realisation that if we can not recruit any more people we should reduce the seats until it dies completely.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The same was true when you supported it, it wouldn't help with recruitment which is the real issue (and which the house, again, is unwilling to attempt to tackle)

You're managing just fine and yet have to resort to third party proxies?

All the named individuals being from one side of the house is hardly proof of partisanship, especially given its down to the choice of 44.
Yep, it's called a change in opinion and seeing a new perspective. Recruitment is as you say probably the biggest issue, so in your view what can be done with recruitment? (just want to know really)

We had other internal options, but we decided to use Aph since he would be the quickest to respond. It ended up that we didn't need him.

I would say there's a hint of partisanship there, but we can disagree on that.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why?

That is also a separate issue that should be dealt with separately
If you reduce the number of seats and don't give more to small parties seats then you hurt the house even more.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Aph)
If you reduce the number of seats and don't give more to small parties seats then you hurt the house even more.
One could argue that then to some extent negates the amendment given the smaller parties are then likely to have issues filling those seats since the small parties tend to be those with no RL affiliation to get vobots via
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by The Mogg)
Yep, it's called a change in opinion and seeing a new perspective. Recruitment is as you say probably the biggest issue, so in your view what can be done with recruitment? (just want to know really)

We had other internal options, but we decided to use Aph since he would be the quickest to respond. It ended up that we didn't need him.

I would say there's a hint of partisanship there, but we can disagree on that.
Make the mhoc active again rather than having it a place where 90% of the house rarely do anything other than vote, doing so by changing the activity review away from voting, which enables the issue, and towards active engagement with the rest of the MHoC. The two issues I see are recruitment: people don't know were here, solved by trending more increasing exposure; getting people to actually stay if they find us, more likely to happen when there is actual debate rather than just an empty room.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
Members of the House have appeared to value independents, whether they be someone like myself who is a party in all but name, or those who are non-aligned. I'm not sure whether we would retain all of them if the number of seats were reduced, and ask members of the House to consider this.

I recognise that filling 50 seats without proxies has been difficult for more than just this Parliament.
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by barnetlad)
Members of the House have appeared to value independents, whether they be someone like myself who is a party in all but name, or those who are non-aligned. I'm not sure whether we would retain all of them if the number of seats were reduced, and ask members of the House to consider this.

I recognise that filling 50 seats without proxies has been difficult for more than just this Parliament
Seat reductions will be proportionate. Independents will not be affected.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by quirky editor)
Seat reductions will be proportionate. Independents will not be affected.
That's objectively not true...
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
This amendment would ensure a LibLabCon House, kill off the Libers and independents and spell the end for the House.

As I have said before, diversity of opinion and party membership are some of the most important things we as a House can have. Bring back the Greens, the Socialists, the Nat Cons and any of the non-LibLabCon parties. Heck, I'd even be willing to tolerate a Communist or Britain First party if it got people into the House.

A system that would keep the Lib-Lab pact in power, the Tories as permanant opposition and a neutered Libertarian Party would be a Bad Thing for the House. We have trouble getting our leader elected as an MP and this would sound the death knell for anyone not associated with the LibLabCon parties.

Hell to the Nay.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
With regards to implementation: this would be best done at the next GE I believe.

With regards to substance, I remain opposed. This would further concentrate power in few hands and I don't believe it would help the House thrive - getting involved as an MP is a key way to begin an MHoC career.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Heck, I'd even be willing to tolerate a Communist or Britain First party if it got people into the House.
Yes! Applications to the TSR Britain First party start behind me!
0
X
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 (199)
67.69%
No (95)
32.31%

Watched Threads

View All
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