This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#41
(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.
I think we have tweaked that section enough.
1
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 weeks ago
#42
:ditto:
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#43
Report 3 weeks ago
#43
I would like to point out I only seconded this amendment for the purposes of debate. I'm against reducing the count of MPs so low at the minute - we need to engage with the forum more and perhaps sort out our internal community before we take steps to reduce the house. I believe this house needs to talk on the issue and this is the best place to do it.

Having such a large number does mean seats for new members, but we can't deny there's issues with retaining people after they join. I am rather sure we can come across party lines and agree that we need to change something, whether it means we do some sort of MHOC event (say a live debate on something else that isn't a bill or motion?) or we start outreaching to other sections of TSR perhaps. I'm sure there's many users on this site who'd love to join in, but can't yet.

Personally, i'd love to see smaller parties (esp. the greens) set up but until support for said parties can be gauged and there's enough people to allow said parties to exist in the first place, we're dealing with the current spectrum of parties first and to be fair, we do have a wide range from right to left wing and everywhere in between. I also recognise independent MPs and their range of views.

Reducing seats should be the very last considered thing, after the house comes together to fix an issue that affects everyone. This may be me taking this a little too deep, but this house has been going for a good 10 years and i'd like to see it go another 10 years more.
4
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#44
Report 3 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by SnowMiku)
I would like to point out I only seconded this amendment for the purposes of debate. I'm against reducing the count of MPs so low at the minute - we need to engage with the forum more and perhaps sort out our internal community before we take steps to reduce the house. I believe this house needs to talk on the issue and this is the best place to do it.

Having such a large number does mean seats for new members, but we can't deny there's issues with retaining people after they join. I am rather sure we can come across party lines and agree that we need to change something, whether it means we do some sort of MHOC event (say a live debate on something else that isn't a bill or motion?) or we start outreaching to other sections of TSR perhaps. I'm sure there's many users on this site who'd love to join in, but can't yet.

Personally, i'd love to see smaller parties (esp. the greens) set up but until support for said parties can be gauged and there's enough people to allow said parties to exist in the first place, we're dealing with the current spectrum of parties first and to be fair, we do have a wide range from right to left wing and everywhere in between. I also recognise independent MPs and their range of views.

Reducing seats should be the very last considered thing, after the house comes together to fix an issue that affects everyone. This may be me taking this a little too deep, but this house has been going for a good 10 years and i'd like to see it go another 10 years more.
Can I just say for someone who recently joined this is a very reasonable and eloquent assessment of this house right now. :yes: For context, the Green Party were a thing and closed down a few years ago, a couple of months after I got involved.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 3 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by Andrew97)
I think we have tweaked that section enough.
Maybe we should undo all those tweaks then and put it back to how it was when I joined the House: a simple 50% turnout or less and the seat is highlighted at a review?
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#46
Report 3 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by 04MR17)
If you support the death of the house then why are you still here?
The House will die If I want it or not.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#47
Report 3 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by quirky editor)
The House will die If I want it or not.
That didn't answer the question
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#48
Report 3 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by 04MR17)
That didn't answer the question
Your question was based on the assumption I support the death of the house, I don't.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#49
Report 3 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by quirky editor)
Your question was based on the assumption I support the death of the house, I don't.
But you want to cause it.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 3 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by quirky editor)
Your question was based on the assumption I support the death of the house, I don't.
My question was based on your assumption that the house will die. If you believe it to be doomed why are you still here?
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#51
Report 3 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by 04MR17)
My question was based on your assumption that the house will die. If you believe it to be doomed why are you still here?
I'm supporting an amendment that will slow the death.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#52
Report 3 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by quirky editor)
I'm supporting an amendment that will slow the death.
I believe the opposite. Shrinking seats by definition would reduce the capacity of the chamber and therefore the community it houses. Thus accelerating a death you claim not to want. By lowering the ambitions of party leadership you lower the appetite for this house to grow and thrive. You are making the problem worse.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 3 weeks ago
#53
Hell no - the idea that “parties cannot fill their seats” literally only applies to the Labour Party. The Conservatives, Libertarians and Lib Dems all have many active members that are not MPs.

I would urge all members to vote against this partisan amendment which is being submitted by Labour Party MPs purely for their own gain.

The solution to this isn’t reducing the number of seats, it is letting the Labour Party lose their seats at voting review with the seats being redistributed to the other three parties that can fill them in by elections.
Last edited by Connor27; 3 weeks ago
2
Cabin19
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#54
Report 3 weeks ago
#54
I don't believe that the number of MPs should be reduced as the community needs to grow through adding new members to the house of which this opportunity only comes when inactive current MPs are replaced. If is fewer seats it means fewer seats to distribute for the main parties therefore results in only really the diehards remaining who will want to keep being MPs so therefore vastly lowers the opportunity for new members of the house. I also think by having more MPs it leads to a more diverse debate, wider spectrum of views and simply alot better discussions!
Last edited by Cabin19; 3 weeks ago
2
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#55
Report 3 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by Cabin19)
I don't believe that the number of MPs should be reduced as the community needs to grow through adding new members to the house of which this opportunity only comes when inactive current MPs are replaced. If is fewer seats it means fewer seats to distribute for the main parties therefore results in only really the diehards remaining who will want to keep being MPs so therefore vastly losers the opportunity for new members of the house. I also think by having more MPs it leads to a more diverse debate, wider spectrum of views and simply alot better discussions
Hear hear!
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#56
Report 3 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by 04MR17)
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.
PRSOM.

(Original post by Connor27)
Hell no - the idea that “parties cannot fill their seats” literally only applies to the Labour Party. The Conservatives, Libertarians and Lib Dems all have many active members that are not MPs.

I would urge all members to vote against this partisan amendment which is being submitted by Labour Party MPs purely for their own gain.

The solution to this isn’t reducing the number of seats, it is letting the Labour Party lose their seats at voting review with the seats being redistributed to the other three parties that can fill them in by elections.
I don't believe that accusations of partisanship are particularly helpful here. This is a valid amendment that has been discussed previously by people on both sides of the House, and it deserves to be treated seriously without attempts to 'call out' people.
2
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#57
Report 3 weeks ago
#57
Connor27 Your party temporarily required the services of Aph, who has never been in your party.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 3 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Aph)
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...
Use this site to do it

https://icon.cat/util/elections#
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#59
Report 3 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by Connor27)
Hell no - the idea that “parties cannot fill their seats” literally only applies to the Labour Party. The Conservatives, Libertarians and Lib Dems all have many active members that are not MPs.

I would urge all members to vote against this partisan amendment which is being submitted by Labour Party MPs purely for their own gain.

The solution to this isn’t reducing the number of seats, it is letting the Labour Party lose their seats at voting review with the seats being redistributed to the other three parties that can fill them in by elections.
A very partisan answer, I thought you said that amendments aren't supposed to be partisan issues...
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#60
Report 3 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by quirky editor)
Connor27 Your party temporarily required the services of Aph, who has never been in your party.
That was for a few hours though at any rate I would actually support the repeal of A83. Despite any advantage to my party when I look at it with my dusty speaker hat on I believe that actually reflecting activity rather than covering it up is of benefit to the House.
1
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 (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All