[Moleman1996]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
As I've said, it's a little harsh saying that. We had an inactive leader at the start of the term, and now I'm leader activity has been picking up. Why call a VoNC just as activity is getting stronger?

activity has picked up in the last week or so. How long have you been leader now? Convenient how activitiy rises just before an election must be called, how can you guarentee it wont fall again after the election?

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Why "Leadership"?

+1
Good spot.

[Mechie]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
activity has picked up in the last week or so. How long have you been leader now? Convenient how activitiy rises just before an election must be called, how can you guarentee it wont fall again after the election?

I've been leader for a month. It took me a bit of time to find my feet, start some discussions within the party etc. I'm now managing to get some more activity. How can anyone guarantee anything? There's nothing I can say that'll make you believe that I'll keep activity up, but I do guarantee it.

(Original post by tehFrance)
Harsh he tried to play off as a Labour victory... it is not.

Because it is the right thing to do for the good of the house.

I agree that it is a bit much to call it a Labour victory, the by-election did play the major part. Labour have been more active though.

I don't think this would be for the good of the house. A new government for all of 2 weeks? What good would that do?

[toronto353]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
I would call our activity as of late hardly lacking.

You have submitted one Bill and one tonight. I'd call that lacking. The fact is that you have submitted two Bills, but you have been inactive throughout the whole term so why should we give you a chance now?

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
This is a pretty bad time for this to be called. We had an inactive leader at the start of the term, who is no longer the leader, and since I've been leader the party has been more active. We're actually starting to produce some legislation, so I think slating us for not producing enough legislation is a bit harsh.

Also, whoever called this, how have I been showing a "lack of leadership"?

The reason our coalition collapsed was because of Morgsie going into a tantrum about the "abstained because I don't care" comment on one of his bills, in the pretence that it is because our lack of activity. Before that he was fine in trying to set up discussions with me, which I engaged in. Yes our party hasn't been as active, but I don't feel it's right to call a VoNC when an active leader is managing to drum up some more activity.

How easy is it to look at the world through rose tinted spectacles? Mr Speaker, it is clear that we have a Government that is managed by a party which can't control its own members; whose members show a lack of respect towards members of the House and seems to be constantly fighting amongst itself. If the leader was not generating activity, then why wasn't there a vote of no confidence in Labour's leader? They let it slide to the point that it was only because the Lib Dems left that they had a change in leadership. If you call a prime minister who can't control his members' activities, can't ensure that his by-election candidates show courtesy towards others and under whose leadership, the party is bitterly split, then yes he is a prime minister, but he has shown no leadership in this House and hence a VONC is the only option. The fact that he continues to blame others for his government's woeful record is indicative of what this government has become and shows that this motion is the only way for this House to have some proper leadership.

(Original post by JPKC)
The PM is right here.

This is a poor attempt at opportunism. The TSR Labour government is renewing itself after the election of a new leader; this is shown by the recent pick-up in legislation and activity both within the Party and indeed the MHoC as a whole.

Calling a VoNC at this time just demonstrates the Leader of the Opposition's own poor judgement - if this passes, a 7-day coalition building period will take place a mere two weeks before the next election! This is what's farcical here.

I think the Labour government should be grateful that this action hasn't been called before. To use a somewhat cliched phrase - Labour isn't working.

(Original post by JPKC)
The last 2 bills were Labour, the last motion was Labour. Obviously other Parties contributed before that, but the recent rise is ours to claim.

And there's still the point that a government should not necessarily be VoNC'd even if inactive. What would replace Labour? A Nasty Party coalition excluding the largest Party?

Well I'm sure we are grateful for your activity, but you're the government so why has this activity not come before now. I'm assuming that the government will change from the 'Nasty Party' because we won't see a government which tolerates disrespectful members and in fighting.

[CyclopsRock]

Yeah, that one bill you submitted that everyone hated and you sent straight to voting anyway is a wonderful example of leadership. Personally, were I given a vote, I'd vote against this - it's a lot easier to smack down the weak and mentally in-agile.

[Mechie]

(Original post by toronto353)
How easy is it to look at the world through rose tinted spectacles? Mr Speaker, it is clear that we have a Government that is managed by a party which can't control its own members; whose members show a lack of respect towards members of the House and seems to be constantly fighting amongst itself. If the leader was not generating activity, then why wasn't there a vote of no confidence in Labour's leader? They let it slide to the point that it was only because the Lib Dems left that they had a change in leadership. If you call a prime minister who can't control his members' activities, can't ensure that his by-election candidates show courtesy towards others and under whose leadership, the party is bitterly split, then yes he is a prime minister, but he has shown no leadership in this House and hence a VONC is the only option. The fact that he continues to blame others for his government's woeful record is indicative of what this government has become and shows that this motion is the only way for this House to have some proper leadership.

We did call a VoNC in the leader, and it passed and then I was voted as the new leader. This was done before the Lib Dems left, I might add.

As I've said, I've had strong words with the member involved and he's promised to tone down his behaviour. I think he could be a good member of the house so I've given him a chance, in a time when we need more activity I don't think it would be the right thing to potentially alienate members from the house without giving them a fair chance.

I can't help if MPs don't voice their opinions in the party sub-forum and only do it after it's been submitted.

[toronto353]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
We did call a VoNC in the leader, and it passed and then I was voted as the new leader. This was done before the Lib Dems left, I might add.

As I've said, I've had strong words with the member involved and he's promised to tone down his behaviour. I think he could be a good member of the house so I've given him a chance, in a time when we need more activity I don't think it would be the right thing to potentially alienate members from the house without giving them a fair chance.

I can't help if MPs don't voice their opinions in the party sub-forum and only do it after it's been submitted.

Then why the delay in activity? Anyone can make excuses, but it takes a leader to admit that he's in the wrong. There was and is no excuse for a lack of activity for the past few months. It's all well and good to say that you are encouraging activity, but it's too little, too late.

Yes you have, but your party is in disarray and your member seems to haven't changed a single bit even after your 'strong words'. I will always welcome every member, but not one that speaks to people like dirt.

The point of leadership is to get a grip on your party and see what their opinions are. The fact that there's infighting isn't my problem, it's your's, but the House doesn't require a government of infighting.

[Mechie]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Yeah, that one bill you submitted that everyone hated and you sent straight to voting anyway is a wonderful example of leadership. Personally, were I given a vote, I'd vote against this - it's a lot easier to smack down the weak and mentally in-agile.

I can't help but feel that comment was a little harsh.

[mevidek]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Yeah, that one bill you submitted that everyone hated and you sent straight to voting anyway is a wonderful example of leadership. Personally, were I given a vote, I'd vote against this - it's a lot easier to smack down the weak and mentally in-agile.

"in-agile"? Don't you mean "unable"?

What a brilliant comment by the way.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
I can't help but feel that comment was a little harsh.

Weakness again, ladies and gentlemen!

[Mechie]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Weakness again, ladies and gentlemen!

There's a difference between weakness and taking offence.

[JPKC]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Oh so sorry that the rest of us like to have thought out bills that aren't rushed and quite frankly crap.

Are you serious? if this was RL there would be a VoNC against an inactive party if they were in power. And Nasty to who? you lefties... yes we shall be.

Well, if you do get to form a government, good luck with it lasting for two weeks before dissolution. And this is not real life, but the point I was making is that even if TSR Labour were inactive (which we are not), it would still be a better government than any alternative the Tories could provide with their agenda.

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
Then why the delay in activity? Anyone can make excuses, but it takes a leader to admit that he's in the wrong. There was and is no excuse for a lack of activity for the past few months. It's all well and good to say that you are encouraging activity, but it's too little, too late.

Yes you have, but your party is in disarray and your member seems to haven't changed a single bit even after your 'strong words'. I will always welcome every member, but not one that speaks to people like dirt.

The point of leadership is to get a grip on your party and see what their opinions are. The fact that there's infighting isn't my problem, it's your's, but the House doesn't require a government of infighting.

There's absolutely no infighting in the Party at all, and the fact that you're still obsessed with a matter that was resolved a week ago shows how little you have to go on. And with regards to the "treating people like dirt", that's always been a problem with myself (I assume you're referring to me) rather than with the Prime Minister's leadership. Let's make this about substance, please.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by JPKC)
Well, if you do get to form a government, good luck with it lasting for two weeks before dissolution. And this is not real life, but the point I was making is that even if TSR Labour were inactive (which we are not), it would still be a better government than any alternative the Tories could provide with their agenda.

Spoiler:

Show

Our agenda is far better than Labours, we want to help not increase red tape and spending thus ruining the country.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
There's a difference between weakness and taking offence.

Yeah, insomuch as the point where you draw the line demonstrates your actual weakness. I mean christ, you have to appreciate the immensely handicapped position you're in? You weren't in charge for the whole time, but you were in the party. When Khrushchev (your mate!) came to power, he couldn't just go "Look fellas, you remember that Stalin bloke? Yeah, sorry about him. I'm different though, honest!" Your party wasted a massive chunk of the parliament fiddling with its flaccid knob whilst everyone else got busy around your inactivity, like some drunk ward matron asleep on the floor that the mental asylum inmates step around quietly lest she wake up and try and actually write some statist and unworkable legislation like mandating mobile phone companies do something they already do. Incidentally, the deafening sound of my logical approach to legislation followed by your party's booming silence means that bill will be withdrawn, right? Or will it, like the salary cap bill, just be left to rot and decay in the voting lobby like the wounded and infected zombie-bite victim you've left chained up outside your bunker because no one has the balls to dome the poor bastard before he turns?

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you guys have, whether you've been active or inactive, had a shockingly awful term. By all means, try and prove your worth in your final hours, but if you honestly think me calling you weak and mentally in-agile was offensive, man, you need to take a look at exactly what's actually happened this parliament. Your party, man! Your party!

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
There's absolutely no infighting in the Party at all, and the fact that you're still obsessed with a matter that was resolved a week ago shows how little you have to go on. And with regards to the "treating people like dirt", that's always been a problem with myself (I assume you're referring to me) rather than with the Prime Minister's leadership. Let's make this about substance, please.

Practise what you preach. It was two days, not a week ago so please refrain from misleading the House. I'm a little confused then, if there's no infighting, then why do I have Labour party members informing of such infighting. It is clear that there is infighting. I honestly would love to make this about substance, but there's so little material from the Labour party in the form of Bills, then I regret that I can not make many arguments of great substance.

Let's take the debate back to the issue though. Your government has submitted just five Bills throughout this entire parliament and just three as a sole governing party (one of which was so disastrous that your party couldn't even get its own MPs to vote for it and two which have had so little effort put into them). How is that any kind of achievement whatsoever? My party (a much smaller party) has submitted four Bills as a party (twice as many as you) and the Conservatives have submitted three as a sole party. How can you claim that your government should still be in power when the Opposition is clearly creating more activity than the government. Has your government run out of steam? Has it no new ideas? The government should do the last honourable option left to it and stand aside.

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
Practise what you preach. It was two days, not a week ago so please refrain from misleading the House. I'm a little confused then, if there's no infighting, then why do I have Labour party members informing of such infighting. It is clear that there is infighting. I honestly would love to make this about substance, but there's so little material from the Labour party in the form of Bills, then I regret that I can not make many arguments of great substance.

I've not made a single person butthurt for a good week (from being nasty that is). The thing about your Party's candidate running a dirty campaign doesn't count as I didn't trash talk you there, I made my points fairly and with respect and cannot help that you didn't like hearing them.

Let's take the debate back to the issue though. Your government has submitted just five Bills throughout this entire parliament and just three as a sole governing party (one of which was so disastrous that your party couldn't even get its own MPs to vote for it and two which have had so little effort put into them). How is that any kind of achievement whatsoever? My party (a much smaller party) has submitted four Bills as a party (twice as many as you) and the Conservatives have submitted three as a sole party. How can you claim that your government should still be in power when the Opposition is clearly creating more activity than the government. Has your government run out of steam? Has it no new ideas? The government should do the last honourable option left to it and stand aside.

Your parties have submitted bills that would damage the country, the amount of effort that went into them is irrelevant.

The system of government you seem to be proposing is one whereby the most active party forms the government. That's an interesting constitutional idea you have there, keep up the wacky work!

[CyclopsRock]

I have no problems with dirty campaigns anyway, tbh. This is politics, boys. You can't govern from the sidelines.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
I've not made a single person butthurt for a good week (from being nasty that is). The thing about your Party's candidate running a dirty campaign doesn't count as I didn't trash talk you there, I made my points fairly and with respect and cannot help that you didn't like hearing them.

Once again you have shown your true colours with regards to how you deal with people in this House. With regards to your slanderous comments, I will not debate that point as that isn't relevant here.

Your parties have submitted bills that would damage the country, the amount of effort that went into them is irrelevant.

The system of government you seem to be proposing is one whereby the most active party forms the government. That's an interesting constitutional idea you have there, keep up the wacky work!

Oh I'm sorry, then why be in government? The government that you are part of is weak and lazy. Thanks for the above quote as well. That's definitely going into the manifesto. Labour believes that a free media with no restrictions damages this country. Your comments show how truly dangerous your party and your government is. The fact that david can not reply for himself and uses the attack dogs shows how much of a joke this goverment has become.

Let's move on to Bill content then. Your party proposed a salary cap. Now that idea was so poorly received that not even every Labour MP voted for the cap. One, TopHat, abstained and so did a Socialist - Abiraleft. If your ideas are so great, then why can you barely muster any MPs to a) vote and b) vote for them. Of all the wacky ideas of this House, you must be going wrong when even the Socialists won't vote for something which is clearly on their side of the political spectrum. Why can the PM not muster his MPs? You see there really is no excuse because Rakas is a new leader and he changed his MP least so that more active MPs would appear in the House. Can the Labour party not manage even this?

[Left Hand Drive]

Another election would only lead to another gain for the socialists