This discussion is closed.
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
(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.
Good old partisanship
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by The Mogg)
Yes! Applications to the TSR Britain First party start behind me!
:goaway:
The old git in the emoticon is tolerant of your opinion, don't worry
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
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.
This is something that always comes up but how much does it stand up to scrutiny? Does losing 6 seats really mean new people won't be made MPs? Of course not, Labour alone has 4 de facto vacant seats plus several complete vobots; the Tories have a horde of total vobots, the Liberals have several complete vobots. The house has more than enough vobots who are either former members with no interest in being active, or new members that after month or even years have no interest in becoming active, that a seat reduction would not stop new active people becoming MPs. Case in point I was made an MP when the house was far more active, if your argument held I wouldn't have been able to become an MP when I did.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
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.
Not true at all

If we applied the last election results to 44 seats who would lose out: not the groups you claim would, all three indies that won would still have won, Libbers would still have had 3 seats. Lib Dems would lose 1 seat, Tories 2, Labour 3

So we wouldn't have a neutered libbers, wouldn't have a lack on idies, and the three main parties are all large enough that it would have negligible effect, if Lab-Lib won every time with 44 seats the same would be true of 50 because that's how the system works, just as they would win every time if there were 100 seats. Instead of Lab-Lib-Ind with 28 seats (56%) we would have it with 24 seats (55%).

If your argument held then an increased number of seats would help the right and harm the left, so let's work on the basis of 100 seats:
Labour: 37
Tory: 35
Liberal: 19
Libber: 6
Ind: 3
The government would have 57 seats (57%) so would actually be stronger

Drop down to 40 seats and all three indies would still have won, and the government would have 22 seats (55%)
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 weeks ago
#25
No, it's more beneficial to have seats available for new members than not.

If there's an issue filling seats, reduce the turnout thresholds.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
No, it's more beneficial to have seats available for new members than not.

If there's an issue filling seats, reduce the turnout thresholds.
Which we already have done
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Which we already have done
And if there's still a problem, reduce them yet further.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
And if there's still a problem, reduce them yet further.
Of course, if the House wills it.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
No, it's more beneficial to have seats available for new members than not.

If there's an issue filling seats, reduce the turnout thresholds.
If you need a seat for a new member take a vobot out of a seat and give it to the new person...as people have done for over a decade...

Reducing turnout thresholds doesn't solve the issue of filling seats, just makes it less of a penalty
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 weeks ago
#30
(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.
The situation could be the same, but one's interpretation and understanding of it could be different.

For example, the past weeks demonstrated that Labour is able to get their MPs to vote if they really try hard enough, that we are not only able to fill all our seats, but to have excess members despite having 17 seats, and of course excess members in both your party and the Lib Dems, in addition to 3 independents.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 weeks ago
#31
I don't have a position on this right now. I'll have to spend a little time thinking about it and evaluating the evidence.
1
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Not true at all

If we applied the last election results to 44 seats who would lose out: not the groups you claim would, all three indies that won would still have won, Libbers would still have had 3 seats. Lib Dems would lose 1 seat, Tories 2, Labour 3

So we wouldn't have a neutered libbers, wouldn't have a lack on idies, and the three main parties are all large enough that it would have negligible effect, if Lab-Lib won every time with 44 seats the same would be true of 50 because that's how the system works, just as they would win every time if there were 100 seats. Instead of Lab-Lib-Ind with 28 seats (56%) we would have it with 24 seats (55%).

If your argument held then an increased number of seats would help the right and harm the left, so let's work on the basis of 100 seats:
Labour: 37
Tory: 35
Liberal: 19
Libber: 6
Ind: 3
The government would have 57 seats (57%) so would actually be stronger

Drop down to 40 seats and all three indies would still have won, and the government would have 22 seats (55%)
I thank the Honourable Member for doing the maths I had not got around to doing.
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by barnetlad)
I thank the Honourable Member for doing the maths I had not got around to doing.
I would like to thank the right honourable gentlemen for going into specifics. I had a similar train of thought.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Not true at all

If we applied the last election results to 44 seats who would lose out: not the groups you claim would, all three indies that won would still have won, Libbers would still have had 3 seats. Lib Dems would lose 1 seat, Tories 2, Labour 3

So we wouldn't have a neutered libbers, wouldn't have a lack on idies, and the three main parties are all large enough that it would have negligible effect, if Lab-Lib won every time with 44 seats the same would be true of 50 because that's how the system works, just as they would win every time if there were 100 seats. Instead of Lab-Lib-Ind with 28 seats (56%) we would have it with 24 seats (55%).

If your argument held then an increased number of seats would help the right and harm the left, so let's work on the basis of 100 seats:
Labour: 37
Tory: 35
Liberal: 19
Libber: 6
Ind: 3
The government would have 57 seats (57%) so would actually be stronger

Drop down to 40 seats and all three indies would still have won, and the government would have 22 seats (55%)
I'm not sure about your maths. I make it that the libers would have been on 2 and the Lib Dems wouldn't have lost any seats...
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 weeks ago
#35
Mr Speaker, i will be voting against this amendment.

Mr Speaker, fundamentally i believe that this amendment is premature. Although last term was the first in which seats were unfilled for a protracted period of time to date this term that pattern has not been repeated. While the Labour Party may seemingly have 4 seats at risk it would appear that the other parties in the House all currently have spare MP capacity meaning that all 50 seats can be filled and that any current issues relate to distribution.

Mr Speaker, if the proposers of this motion wish to gain more support by proving through the term that this House cannot maintain its current 50 seats, perhaps the proposers would support both a return of the previous voting thresholds (70% and 50% respectively) and the repeal of A83 (seat sharing) so that we can attain a true judgement of whether parties can fill or take seats.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 weeks ago
#36
Andrew97 Will you be commenting on this, since after all you are allowed to express opinions on amendments.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, i will be voting against this amendment.

Mr Speaker, fundamentally i believe that this amendment is premature. Although last term was the first in which seats were unfilled for a protracted period of time to date this term that pattern has not been repeated. While the Labour Party may seemingly have 4 seats at risk it would appear that the other parties in the House all currently have spare MP capacity meaning that all 50 seats can be filled and that any current issues relate to distribution.

Mr Speaker, if the proposers of this motion wish to gain more support by proving through the term that this House cannot maintain its current 50 seats, perhaps the proposers would support both a return of the previous voting thresholds (70% and 50% respectively) and the repeal of A83 (seat sharing) so that we can attain a true judgement of whether parties can fill or take seats.
3 paragraphs and 3 Mr Speakers. Why?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by quirky editor)
[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.
If you support the death of the house then why are you still here?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
3 paragraphs and 3 Mr Speakers. Why?
Because that is how Rakas rights and I don't think that's at all relevant to this amendment.




Mr Speaker, I find myself whole-heartedly agreeing with Rakas21. This house has lasted for almost 15 years and the ability to recruit new members is a challenge we must all face. Perhaps if the proposers spent less time encouraging their party members to sign up to a different platform and more time trying to keep them on this one they wouldn't find that they have such a problem.

The way I see it, reducing the number of seats is admitting defeat that we can no longer perform at the capacity we have done for more than a decade. The loss of the MUN and failure of the MEU is bad enough, to suggest that MHoC can no longer sustain its numbers is (in my view) a very very poor judgement for the future members of TSR who would benefit from taking part in an MHoC which may no longer exist if this amendment is allowed to pass, allowing a precedent for further reductions.

Utterly and comprehensively: no.
2
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by The Mogg)
Andrew97 Will you be commenting on this, since after all you are allowed to express opinions on amendments.
Yes.

I don't think this is the solution to the issues we are having currently. The main "benefit" I can see is that it makes the jobs of the whips easier. Yes, there is a issue with gaining and retaining members, but making less seats available is not the answer.
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 (478)
66.48%
No (241)
33.52%

Watched Threads

View All