Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by burningnun)
    I doubt we would lose interest in the HoC. Not permanently, since the next election would rekindle it. We would become inactive until then though, because there is nothing for us to be active for for the next few months. An election campaign doesn't require planning.
    Well, quite. But till then there is little point in your party existintg if you cant post Bills. You may be fine by the election, but whats the point ofg a party tha\t cant do anything?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Well, quite. But till then there is little point in your party existintg if you cant post Bills. You may be fine by the election, but whats the point ofg a party tha\t cant do anything?
    To prepare to represent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Well, quite. But till then there is little point in your party existintg if you cant post Bills. You may be fine by the election, but whats the point ofg a party tha\t cant do anything?
    Well, yeah, our party would sort of fade out of existence for a while. The centre party would also be affected by this presumably, so I don't know why we're the only ones being discussed. We have about 40 members and a core of people who have been doing the whole Witness the Fitness deal for a while so I don't see why our commitment is called into question.

    If this bill passes I would request that we be allowed to be inactive without being considered inactive, if that makes sense. That way we wouldn't have to go through the long and boring process of forming again.

    Edit - from kij's sig I see it doesn't affect the Centre Party but aside from that I think my points stand.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burningnun)
    Well, yeah, our party would sort of fade out of existence for a while. The centre party would also be affected by this presumably, so I don't know why we're the only ones being discussed. We have about 40 members and a core of people who have been doing the whole Witness the Fitness deal for a while so I don't see why our commitment is called into question.

    If this bill passes I would request that we be allowed to be inactive without being considered inactive, if that makes sense. That way we wouldn't have to go through the long and boring process of forming again.

    Edit - from kij's sig I see it doesn't affect the Centre Party but aside from that I think my points stand.
    Look I waited for months to get a seat as an independant in the general election. I cant see why you cant wait if your as commited as you think you are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    Look I waited for months to get a seat as an independant in the general election. I cant see why you cant wait if your as commited as you think you are.
    Are you trying to argue against me? I just said that we can wait.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    Look I waited for months to get a seat as an independant in the general election. I cant see why you cant wait if your as commited as you think you are.
    This isn't giving them any MPs though :s:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    Look I waited for months to get a seat as an independant in the general election. I cant see why you cant wait if your as commited as you think you are.
    The lack of reading the post above you and of apostrophes hurts me deep inside.

    Are you against a proposal meaning that parties may propose bills/amendments without MPs if an elected MP supports it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    The lack of reading the post above you and of apostrophes hurts me deep inside.

    Are you against a proposal meaning that parties may propose bills/amendments without MPs if an elected MP supports it?
    I wouldnt be against such a proposal, I just cant see how it can work. How can MP's be excepted to support such an application, on what basis ? The content, the suitability or its political standpoint.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnum Opus)
    This isn't giving them any MPs though :s:
    And they should just wait, be patient let the democratic process take place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    I wouldnt be against such a proposal, I just cant see how it can work. How can MP's be excepted to support such an application, on what basis ? The content, the suitability or its political standpoint.
    Well clearly the quality of that individual piece of legislation. In terms of what its about (do you care) and what it does. Political stuff like party politics should come after in my view.

    Same as you would assess whether to support a PMB.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Well clearly the quality of that individual piece of legislation. In terms of what its about (do you care) and what it does. Political stuff like party politics should come after in my view.

    Same as you would assess whether to support a PMB.
    But there will be an MP who will just allow anything through, this is crap I honestly dont know why there are MP's anymore.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    But there will be an MP who will just allow anything through, this is crap I honestly dont know why there are MP's anymore.
    True, but then there will be MPs who just complain all the time and annoy everyone.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    For clarification, this would not effect the center party as the center party has 2 MPS.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    A non MP may, but they must have an MP support it.
    I thought they just needed another member to second it, with member not defined as MPs only?

    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Well, quite. But till then there is little point in your party existintg if you cant post Bills. You may be fine by the election, but whats the point ofg a party tha\t cant do anything?
    They can lobby and debate, as everyone else does. I don't find not being an MP hampers me much even if we couldn't propose bills - we'd lobby an MP to second our bills. I doubt it'd be too hard.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    But there will be an MP who will just allow anything through, this is crap I honestly dont know why there are MP's anymore.
    Because MPs both decide on the outcome of bills and (if we had a system where an MP had to second any bill) decide what can be presented. Having an MP second it or present it doesn't really matter, it would mean, rightly IMHO, that MPs decide on what can be presented.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01kij114)
    But there will be an MP who will just allow anything through, this is crap I honestly dont know why there are MP's anymore.
    It would be better than the situation we have at present. I support this amendment.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Would people support an amendment to make it that an MP must second both a PMB of a non-MP and a party bill for a party with no MPs for it to be submitted?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This proposed amendment sucks. It means that an individual on the forum is more able to propose a bill than a group of people who have taken the time to form a party, and that just doesn't make a damn bit of sense. The only people to whom it would make sense are idiots and people who are pissed off enough with the Witness the Fitness Party to act like idiots.

    The proposed amendment needs a second reading if you want it not to suck, and that could take a few forms.
    1. Since it's such a blatant knee-jerk reaction to our bill, you put our name on it and make it only apply to us. This would be the honest thing to do, since you posted your intention in our thread. Unfortunately, honesty in this case has the inherent disadvantage of making you look like a massive bell-end and will probably not win you any votes. Let's discuss your other options.
    2. You say that nobody - parties or individuals - without a seat can submit bills. This means you're a ****, but at least you're a consistent ****. It puts an illiberal amendment in front of a generally fairly liberal house, and since nobody is pissed off at any individuals, only the WtF party, it might not get many votes.
    3. You allow parties to make bills if they can find an MP to second it. This causes the problem kij raised, that an MP might just let us propose anything. It's a valid concern, since there are people - like Jangra - who believe that we should be allowed to make bills regardless, so we probably wouldn't have too much difficulty finding a seconder for anything.

    Nefarious also raised a legitimate concern that nobody has really addressed.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burningnun)
    3. You allow parties to make bills if they can find an MP to second it. This causes the problem kij raised, that an MP might just let us propose anything. It's a valid concern, since there are people - like Jangra - who believe that we should be allowed to make bills regardless, so we probably wouldn't have too much difficulty finding a seconder for anything.
    Perhaps. Though making it that only MPs can submit bills seems a bit harsh. I think if an MP is willing to have their name on it as seconder, it's good enough to go to the Speaker. Obviously it's up to the Speaker if it gets presented. This is enough of a safeguard to me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Would people support an amendment to make it that an MP must second both a PMB of a non-MP and a party bill for a party with no MPs for it to be submitted?
    yes, and I will probably post this amendment once the amendment we're currently discussing finishes voting.

    (Original post by burningnun)
    This proposed amendment sucks. It means that an individual on the forum is more able to propose a bill than a group of people who have taken the time to form a party, and that just doesn't make a damn bit of sense. The only people to whom it would make sense are idiots and people who are pissed off enough with the Witness the Fitness Party to act like idiots.

    3. You allow parties to make bills if they can find an MP to second it. This causes the problem kij raised, that an MP might just let us propose anything. It's a valid concern, since there are people - like Jangra - who believe that we should be allowed to make bills regardless, so we probably wouldn't have too much difficulty finding a seconder for anything.
    See above, and stop sounding petty, you guys are supposed to be bringing a little fun to the house But you do have good points.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 27, 2009
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.