[Birchington]

(Original post by toronto353)
Thank you. How are you finding your first few days as DSG?

Finding my feet and looking forward to getting on with the job.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Birchington)
Finding my feet and looking forward to getting on with the job.

I bet it's like starting afresh despite all your experience of deputy leader etc though? I need to read through your introduction PM at some point. I glanced at it last night, but I haven't read it in depth - and that's after I reminded you about it.

[chrisawhitmore]

While I would like to vote for toronto I feel that an uncontested win with what appears to be a high level of RON votes would be damaging to the legitimacy of his position as speaker, so I have to vote RON, and wish him luck in the second round (though I will not do this again if the second round sees no more contestants).

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by toronto353)
True, well it's up to the voters now. As I have said, I'm willing to answer any more questions to win over undecided voters.

What special privileges will you promise me to win my vote?

What is your favourite quote?

How much alprazolam do you think it would take to kill an average cat?

If you could be any kind of carpet which would you be and why?

Have you ever been in love? What happened? Was she aware of the pederasty...?

How tall are you?

That's enough pointless questions for now.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by toronto353)
I think we were all so impressed with the amount of effort that it took that we were like 'come on, let him have this one' and just voted aye. Paddy admitted to not reading it if you look down which I think was what everyone did, but just didn't admit to not reading it.

That was a simpler time

[toronto353]

(Original post by paddy__power)
What special privileges will you promise me to win my vote?

What is your favourite quote?

How much alprazolam do you think it would take to kill an average cat?

If you could be any kind of carpet which would you be and why?

Have you ever been in love? What happened? Was she aware of the pederasty...?

How tall are you?

That's enough pointless questions for now.

None because I assume that you've already voted.

Tricky one, though I can't find the author at the moment I know it is an ancient one and in one fragment he writes something which is I think wisdom for us all:

'In politics, you can't please everyone'

No idea, though I'll commission a committee to find out.

Probably a top of the range carpet which is hardly ever used. I think that I'd just shudder at the dirt from muddy shoes and be a useless carpet.

I'm not one to kiss and tell.

Somewhere between 1 metre and 2 metres.

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
While I would like to vote for toronto I feel that an uncontested win with what appears to be a high level of RON votes would be damaging to the legitimacy of his position as speaker, so I have to vote RON, and wish him luck in the second round (though I will not do this again if the second round sees no more contestants).

I respect your vote and I welcome this last clauses in parentheses - that is at least re-assuring to me.

[xXedixXx]

Good luck toronto. I think the people who are voting R.O.N. are being totally unfair. Everyone has already been given the chance to put themselves forward as speaker. Anyone who comes forward now and claims they want to be the speaker logically in actual fact doesn't want to do the job.

[meenu89]

I stand by everything I said in the other thread. Good luck toronto353.

[toronto353]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Good luck toronto. I think the people who are voting R.O.N. are being totally unfair. Everyone has already been given the chance to put themselves forward as speaker. Anyone who comes forward now and claims they want to be the speaker logically in actual fact doesn't want to do the job.

Thank you and it's a shame that I can't rep you again. You sum up my point really well.

(Original post by meenu89)
I stand by everything I said in the other thread. Good luck toronto353.

Thank you.

[Life_peer]

I agree with xXedixXx and everyone holding the same opinion. We all had the same opportunity to stand for speakership under the same circumstances and we should not turn down toronto353 just because no one else decided to do so. I would understand the opposition if he was a newcomer or a hardly active, inexperienced member, but he is quite the opposite. Good luck to him!

[jesusandtequila]

I don't think a one candidate election is helpful. Since perhaps people didn't stand because they thought that say, paddy would do a better job, then I don't see why we shouldn't RON. To say they had the chance is true, but if they would have stood were it not for thinking others would stand then I think it makes zero sense to say that they 'logically don't want to do the job'.

[meenu89]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Good luck toronto. I think the people who are voting R.O.N. are being totally unfair. Everyone has already been given the chance to put themselves forward as speaker. Anyone who comes forward now and claims they want to be the speaker logically in actual fact doesn't want to do the job.

Thought it's really unfair that you have been neg repped, so to try to make for it I've pos repped you.

[JPKC]

I gave an extra neg because it is a very foolish comment. It also irritates me when a person calls something blatantly illogical logical.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by meenu89)
Thought it's really unfair that you have been neg repped, so to try to make for it I've pos repped you.

Thanks.

(Original post by JPKC)
I gave an extra neg because it is a very foolish comment. It also irritates me when a person calls something blatantly illogical logical.

What's illogical is people running for the speakership for the sake of it.

[JPKC]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
What's illogical is people running for the speakership for the sake of it.

Please respond to J&T's comment or risk looking like someone who doesn't know what the word 'illogical' means.

[Life_peer]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
I don't think a one candidate election is helpful. Since perhaps people didn't stand because they thought that say, paddy would do a better job, then I don't see why we shouldn't RON. To say they had the chance is true, but if they would have stood were it not for thinking others would stand then I think it makes zero sense to say that they 'logically don't want to do the job'.

I agree with the last bit, it really does not implicate that, but disagree with the first one. I think we should not vote for reopening the nominations because we would deny the purpose of secret candidature which is, I believe, to prevent potential candidates from deciding whether they stand based upon who shall be their opponent. It must work the other way round as well, meaning that believing that someone against whom the potential candidate does not stand a chance is going to apply for the role should not be a disadvantage to those standing regardless, toronto353 in this case.

I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough. In other words, whatever the others thought, not voting for toronto353 just because they were mistaken is unfair, I think, because not knowing who will stand is one of the system's characteristic. If the RON passes, I shall urge this House to pass a constitutional amendment requiring the candidates to announce their candidature at least two hours before sending their manifestos to the speaker or something along those lines to restrict the risk of having such potentially tampered election again.

[hines]

I have gone for RON simply because I'd like to have some kind of comparison to vote against. It's a big role to have in the HoC and so I think - although you said before, people did have the chance - , that more manifestos are needed.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Life_peer)
I agree with the last bit, it really does not implicate that, but disagree with the first one. I think we should not vote for reopening the nominations because we would deny the purpose of secret candidature which is, I believe, to prevent potential candidates from deciding whether they stand based upon who shall be their opponent. It must work the other way round as well, meaning that believing that someone against whom the potential candidate does not stand a chance is going to apply for the role should not be a disadvantage to those standing regardless, toronto353 in this case.

I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough. In other words, whatever the others thought, not voting for toronto353 just because they were mistaken is unfair, I think, because not knowing who will stand is one of the system's characteristic. If the RON passes, I shall urge this House to pass a constitutional amendment requiring the candidates to announce their candidature at least two hours before sending their manifestos to the speaker or something along those lines to restrict the risk of having such potentially tampered election again.

If toronto should be speaker, then he can easily stand in the next election and best the other candidates. If he doesn't win that, then we'd not be getting the speaker the house wants. If he does win that, then RON'ing isn't at all unfair to him. I don't see how RON'ing is unfair to toronto. It is only if he would get beat by other candidates that he has anything to lose, and if he would get beaten, then the House gets the speaker it wants, which it would not get here. Either way, I don't think toronto is at all disadvantaged.

It's not to say we should RON every election based on the fact that some other candidates would have stood, but to only have one candidate isn't healthy for the House.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by paddy__power)
If RON wins I might stand with toronto's manifesto but with every second word changed randomly with some sort of thesaurus.

Baby kangaroo Tribiani

You'd get my vote!

(Original post by paddy__power)
What special privileges will you promise me to win my vote?

What is your favourite quote?

How much alprazolam do you think it would take to kill an average cat?

If you could be any kind of carpet which would you be and why?

Have you ever been in love? What happened? Was she aware of the pederasty...?

How tall are you?

That's enough pointless questions for now.

You truly are the question master! Move over Jeremy Paxman!

[toronto353]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
If toronto should be speaker, then he can easily stand in the next election and best the other candidates. If he doesn't win that, then we'd not be getting the speaker the house wants. If he does win that, then RON'ing isn't at all unfair to him. I don't see how RON'ing is unfair to toronto. It is only if he would get beat by other candidates that he has anything to lose, and if he would get beaten, then the House gets the speaker it wants, which it would not get here. Either way, I don't think toronto is at all disadvantaged.

It's not to say we should RON every election based on the fact that some other candidates would have stood, but to only have one candidate isn't healthy for the House.

(Original post by hines)
I have gone for RON simply because I'd like to have some kind of comparison to vote against. It's a big role to have in the HoC and so I think - although you said before, people did have the chance - , that more manifestos are needed.

To you and others voting RON, will you then agree that, if RON wins and no more manifestos are submitted, that you will vote for me in a second ballot? To keep voting RON in case someone decides to finally stand is also not healthy for this House.