Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cBay)
    Can I just ask why you tories are so desperate for an extra two weeks? Must we really suffer through two morw weeks on ineptness before the inevitable happens?
    You should ask your colleagues in the first place. They've pretty much said it's an MoNC out of spite, specifically to make us less smug or whatnot. I was going to acknowledge that we're not that different after all but seeing your reactions now, perhaps we are. We certainly weren't this bloodlust and spiteful last term.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, having taken a walk and considered it, I remove, and apologise for my brash, overly quick accusation of cheating - I merely think it is unethical (like filibustering) and the Liberal party should seriously consider their willingness to continue with their coalition partners in the upcoming vote.
    To be honest, the day someone calls me ethical (or LP, or JD), is the day I'll give up drinking!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Can I suggest you all go and watch the finish of the Tour de France on tv or just go and make a cup of tea?
    Smoking something would be more helpful right about now.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    With that said, the Tories' claims now are absurd. The GD should not be interpreted in a way which meant that a governing party can prevent a MoNC from ever going through.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    With that said, the Tories' claims now are absurd. The GD should not be interpreted in a way which meant that a governing party can prevent a MoNC from ever going through.
    No, you just need to make sure the proposers/seconders will actually go through with it.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Hardly anyone cares about some ****ing cycling so either add to the debate or go watch it yourself, eh? :dontknow:
    PRSOM :ahee:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    With that said, the Tories' claims now are absurd. The GD should not be interpreted in a way which meant that a governing party can prevent a MoNC from ever going through.
    Ummm, pray tell how the Liberals or Tories have prevented it?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    And to be fair, I've got to agree that watching cycling is incredibly boring... I'd literally rather watch paint dry.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    No, you just need to make sure the proposers/seconders will actually go through with it.
    There is nothing in the GD which prevents government members submitting a MoNC. Under your interpretation, the govt can submit one every two weeks, then immediately withdraw it, thus preventing a legitimate MoNC from ever happening.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, pray tell how the Liberals or Tories have prevented it?
    Collusion
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    There is nothing in the GD which prevents government members submitting a MoNC. Under your interpretation, the govt can submit one every two weeks, then immediately withdraw it, thus preventing a legitimate MoNC from ever happening.
    Haha, yes, but if the Gov did that, then others could just tell the Speaker they want one submitted for as soon as the two week period is over...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    With that said, the Tories' claims now are absurd. The GD should not be interpreted in a way which meant that a governing party can prevent a MoNC from ever going through.
    How is this our doing? :confused: There were no Tory seconders.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, pray tell how the Liberals or Tories have prevented it?
    See my reply to Mobbsy. You are advocating an interpretation of the GD which produces results which are beyond absurd and thus should be rejected very quickly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    There is nothing in the GD which prevents government members submitting a MoNC. Under your interpretation, the govt can submit one every two weeks, then immediately withdraw it, thus preventing a legitimate MoNC from ever happening.
    Pure irrelevant speculation. Let's deal with it when it happens or before it happens, aye?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    How is this our doing? :confused: There were no Tory seconders.
    I suspect that it's your doing because it's logically obvious to me what's happened: you and Ukip are in cahoots, and Nigel and hazzer, knowing that there was likely an MoNC on the cards very soon anyway, tricked us into backing an MoNC that was designed to give you the time you needed to finish the budget and get it out.

    Would you not suspect that something similar had happened, were you in the current position of the non-Ukip seconders?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Pure irrelevant speculation. Let's deal with it when it happens or before it happens, aye?
    Reasoning like this is terrible. Let's deal with it before it happens, sure. Let's deal with it now by rejecting your silly interpretation, which is not only absurd, but unsupported by the text.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    I suspect that it's your doing because it's logically obvious to me what's happened: you and Ukip are in cahoots, and Nigel and hazzer, knowing that there was likely an MoNC on the cards very soon anyway, tricked us into backing an MoNC that was designed to give you the time you needed to finish the budget and get it out.

    Would you not suspect that something similar had happened, were you in the current position of the non-Ukip seconders?
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    See my reply to Mobbsy. You are advocating an interpretation of the GD which produces results which are beyond absurd and thus should be rejected very quickly.
    (Original post by cBay)
    Collusion
    So you're all saying that a MoNC that LABOUR wanted being put forwards by their choice by UKIP with no third party seconders is our fault because you accuse us of knowing about it? Perhaps you will all learn to actually think in future and actually make sure you trust people before doing business with them. So far nobody has been able to explain why UKIP were even involved, in your position I would have been using a Green or Socialist to get the second party requirement, not UKIP.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Reasoning like this is terrible. Let's deal with it before it happens, sure. Let's deal with it now by rejecting your silly interpretation, which is not only absurd, but unsupported by the text.
    My interpretation and your speculation are independent. What we're claiming is entirely reasonable since no government members were involved in the MoNC.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you're all saying that a MoNC that LABOUR wanted being put forwards by their choice by UKIP with no third party seconders is our fault because you accuse us of knowing about it? Perhaps you will all learn to actually think in future and actually make sure you trust people before doing business with them. So far nobody has been able to explain why UKIP were even involved, in your position I would have been using a Green or Socialist to get the second party requirement, not UKIP.

    From my point of view, it was a Ukip MoNC thought up and being proposed by a Ukipper, and the only reason Labour was included was because they were looking for seconders. That's a perfectly reasonable position, particularly given some of the animosity that went on early in the term between Nigel and LP and given the fact that it was Hazzer who contacted me asking me to second, and certainly from the point when I became involved no-one said or did anything that led me to believe the situation was different.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    My interpretation and your speculation are independent. What we're claiming is entirely reasonable since no government members were involved in the MoNC.
    But nevertheless, as you are so carefully arguing, precedent is important, so we need to be careful that the interpretations we make can't give rise to problems in the future.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.