Vote of No Confidence in the Government Watch

This discussion is closed.
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 10 years ago
#21
Yes. Parliament has to be sitting to call a vote to form a government. Moreover, the speaker stated that parliament has been opened, which means it is sitting, even without a government. Parliament and government are separate.

I agree something needs to be done. Either:
1) The speaker holds another vote to form a minority government; or
2) The speaker interprets the constitution, and as such there is no government (based on his current interpretation); or
3) There is no confidence in the speaker and he is replaced.

I can't see any other options. This certainly isn't one. Do you want to call another election when there will be people who don't recognise this vote as constitutional, and thus don't recognise the election? Wouldn't be pretty.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#22
(Original post by Drogue)
Not since parliament began sitting though, is it? That's a week after the election ends. I thought you were short by at least a few days?
The vote hasn't been called yet so still time

Sorry, when did we refuse to hold another vote. I was quite happy to have another vote on the Government (not a general election though) - it was the Speaker who decided not to. I'll not have you tarnish my party in this way when it never happened. This is another example of you being politically opportunistic to the detriment of the HoC.
Get a grip this has nothing to do with your party or the speaker or anything. The situation has only go to this stage through the collective action and inaction of the House.
0
wmv94226
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
(Original post by davireland)
under normal circumstances that would be true however can a 'parliamentary session' (A15 clause 5) really be said to be in full swing without a government?
The Parliamentary session begun with the State Opening of Parliament, before the vote on the government came to light.
0
davireland
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
So you believe a solution to the problem is a VoNC against the speaker?
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 10 years ago
#25
I stated my three solutions above. I don't care which one you choose, so long as it's constitutional.

But yes, considering the constitution that is supposed to be the current one, kept up to date by the speaker, appears to be at least one, and probably more iterations old, I think a VoNC in the speaker is justified. Either you accept their interpretation of the constitution or you get rid of them.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 10 years ago
#26
Right now we very much have an incomplete constitution, as there are a number of areas where problems can, and have occured. This is simply because its such a recent thing, and we hadn't had time from the implementation of the constitution, to the process of electing a speaker, the general election, and forming the government.

We should be doing something about it, which the constitutional committee that has been proposed, is a method of doing so. Its not the only method, but it is a solution.

Instead, some people are making this a party political issue, which really frustrates me. The HoC is meant to be a place for diverse debate on political issues, representing political opinion across this forum. A debate about how we organise the debate seems rather pointless. Right now i would prefer an unconstitutional decision which is right, rather than a constitutional one which is wrong.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#27
No one has made this a party political issue at all!?

If you didn't like the constitution you shouldn't have voted for it.

An unconstitutional decision is not the only option as there are simple constitutional alternatives that could be taken. It is just so pathetic that it has got to the stage where the person who fully expects to be Prime Minister of this House is advocating an illegal solution because it saves time and effort over a lengthier legal solution. This isn't a party political issue it is a question of just how badly this House has gone wrong that its own members and leaders don't care to uphold the constitution on which it is based.
0
Grape190190
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#28
Report 10 years ago
#28
LOL at this.

Hands up who just wants to debate bills? The executive doesn't do anything. The idea of calling another election so that we can more easily attach non-existent jobs to MPs is the height of frivolity.

(Original post by Drogue)
But yes, considering the constitution that is supposed to be the current one, kept up to date by the speaker, appears to be at least one, and probably more iterations old, I think a VoNC in the speaker is justified. Either you accept their interpretation of the constitution or you get rid of them.
Surely a VoNC in the previous speaker would preferable since he wrote the damn thing.

Your conclusion is flawed: we can't get rid of the speaker because an interpretation of the constitution yields an unpopular (in this case, unworkable) result. That's idiotic.

If it says in the constitution, "Everyone must wear pink hats", and Alasdair enforces it, it's not Alasdair's problem if pink hats go out of fashion; it's the constitution's - and thus, it must be altered. Interpreting something doesn't make you responsible for the consequences. Otherwise, the constitution becomes worthless and Alasdair is a dictator: he can't legitimately say, "I interpret this to mean 'Everyone must wear blue hats'".
0
daniel_williams
Badges: 15
#29
Report 10 years ago
#29
(Original post by Grape190190)
Surely a VoNC in the previous speaker would preferable since he wrote the damn thing.
I swear you just have it in for me :p:

the constitution I wrote was only giving fixed directions as to how to deal with thins and the lengths of times everything should take, the confusion has arisen from the amendment made to allow minority governments.

the constitution is a guideline and is interpreted how any speaker wises to do so, its not a LAW a constitution is a guideline and a point of reference on how things should be conducted.

the biggest problem is half the people here won't have read the constitution and yet voted on it and it passed with a rather high percentage. maybe I should have stayed on as speaker jsut to see it through its teething problems rather than it seem me jump ship and let someone else take the wrap for it.

the way i ran the HoC was the way the constitution was written, so different speakers have different style and different views on things so yeah its difficult to point the finger at anyone. but amendments were made by alasdair before the general election went ahead because one of them was minority governments and that affected the general election and subsequently this argument about governments.
Grape190190
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#30
Report 10 years ago
#30
(Original post by daniel_williams)
I swear you just have it in for me :p:

the constitution I wrote was only giving fixed directions as to how to deal with thins and the lengths of times everything should take, the confusion has arisen from the amendment made to allow minority governments.

the constitution is a guideline and is interpreted how any speaker wises to do so, its not a LAW a constitution is a guideline and a point of reference on how things should be conducted.

the biggest problem is half the people here won't have read the constitution and yet voted on it and it passed with a rather high percentage. maybe I should have stayed on as speaker jsut to see it through its teething problems rather than it seem me jump ship and let someone else take the wrap for it.

the way i ran the HoC was the way the constitution was written, so different speakers have different style and different views on things so yeah its difficult to point the finger at anyone. but amendments were made by alasdair before the general election went ahead because one of them was minority governments and that affected the general election and subsequently this argument about governments.
I wasn't actually blaming you: I was just trying to point out the absurdity of blaming Al for the chaos resulting from rules which he didn't write.
0
wmv94226
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 10 years ago
#31
I disagree, when you're elected Speaker your job is to implement the constitution in order to run the House. TBH I think if the constitution had been followed to the letter then we probably wouldn't have been in the situation we are now, so there's no point blaming Dan for this. Perhaps the constitution is flawed, but the interpretation of it is also flawed, and this makes me feel even more strongly than back in May that a constitutional committee or a supreme court is neccessary to ensure the Speaker is on the ball when interpreting the constitution, and to make reccommendations and over rule him when he is not.
0
daniel_williams
Badges: 15
#32
Report 10 years ago
#32
ok yeah there were a lot of flaws withthe constitution, its the reeason why i stood as an independent MP, so i could re-write it and submit it again.

the problem was when I wrote it, its was a very very busy time for me and I was already contemplating stepping down from speakership. the thing is i tried to get down the core stuff from teh Hoc to write a reference point of how it should be run. tehre are a lot of problems with it i won't deny that.

a lot of chaos has come from A15 which alasdair put forward, but not only that, where its been combined into the constitution with my old stuff without having anything removed its now contradictory and its rather confusing. so yeah its a bit of the 2 of us to blame for this.
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#33
Report 10 years ago
#33
(Original post by UniOfLife)
No one has made this a party political issue at all!?

If you didn't like the constitution you shouldn't have voted for it.

An unconstitutional decision is not the only option as there are simple constitutional alternatives that could be taken. It is just so pathetic that it has got to the stage where the person who fully expects to be Prime Minister of this House is advocating an illegal solution because it saves time and effort over a lengthier legal solution. This isn't a party political issue it is a question of just how badly this House has gone wrong that its own members and leaders don't care to uphold the constitution on which it is based.
The constitution is flawed, which we are all aware of. The idea was to use it as a base, and develop it, and we have not even got through the first stage of amending all the errors and omissions in it. Common sense should prevail over the letter of the law, especially when the constitution does not have a solution to the situation we are currently in.

If the constitution was applied to the letter of the law, the Conservative party would not be represented in the HoC this time around, as they did not meet the deadline for manifesto submissions, and were not the only ones. It is funny how the Conservatives advocate unconstitutional acts when it benefits them, but try to use others arguing to do the same, for the benefit of the HoC, to score political points.

If the Conservative party are willing to withdraw completely from this session of the HoC, to show their resolve to be subject to the constitution by the letter, i would welcome that move.
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#34
Again you claim this is about scoring political points when as far as I can see you are the first person to make the accusation and post anything remotely approaching partisan political point scoring.

I'm not advocating sticking precisely to the very letter of the law but that doesn't mean abandoning it all together. The solution here is simple - either have a new election or have a new vote. Neither is particularly difficult and neither one approaches anything like forgetting about the constitution.

This isn't (for hopefully the last time) anything to do with parties or politics. It is about getting out of this mess without abandoning the constitution completely.
0
davireland
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 10 years ago
#35
(Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
If the constitution was applied to the letter of the law, the Conservative party would not be represented in the HoC this time around, as they did not meet the deadline for manifesto submissions, and were not the only ones. It is funny how the Conservatives advocate unconstitutional acts when it benefits them, but try to use others arguing to do the same, for the benefit of the HoC, to score political points.

If the Conservative party are willing to withdraw completely from this session of the HoC, to show their resolve to be subject to the constitution by the letter, i would welcome that move.
I thought you were against turning this into an issue of party politics?, i'm not going to argue party politics with you using my interpretation of the constitution because it does no good to anyone.

The Conservative party simply wants a normal HoC, the Leader of the Conservative party has stated that he didnt care who governed as long as it happened soon and within the boundaries of the constitution. We do not welcome the continuation of this activity because it is damaging the house immensly, we want to debate bills and this can not be done properly without a return to normality.

If we simply resign from the house, how will that actually help anything? it will just create more problems because 13 seats out of 50 would be unoccupied therefore creating further problems and what with the loonies being inactive a substantial number of MP's would be absent making the whole parliament farcical. Do you really welcome a continuation of the turmoil this house is currently in or do you welcome a speedy resolution?
0
wmv94226
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 10 years ago
#36
You're the one who has been party political. You made it sound like the Lib Dems and the Speaker we're in cohorts not to have another vote and this wasn't the case. You keep mentioning a re-election, in the hope that the Tory party will gain a few extra votes to be the largest party, as a result in the continued increase of support for your RL counterparts since the last election. It's as if you think if you accuse others of being party political even when they're not people won't realise it is you who is in fact being party political. But we're not that stupid.

fundamentally, you're dragging out a non-issue when we could be getting on with debating legislation and amending the constitution. Rather you have picked up on an erroneous constitutional blunder and have decided to make a big song and dance about it to further disrupt proceedings in the hope you get another election. And then you accuse my proposed amendment as a childish game (I assum you're referring to me), when it's a serious attempt to rectify the constitution and stop any further gaffs by the Speaker, and it was proposed by myself before the Speaker had made any gaffs. You really have a way with twisting things. Stop it, stop this and let us get on with business!
0
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#37
(Original post by hldomster)
You're the one who has been party political. You made it sound like the Lib Dems and the Speaker we're in cohorts not to have another vote and this wasn't the case. You keep mentioning a re-election, in the hope that the Tory party will gain a few extra votes to be the largest party, as a result in the continued increase of support for your RL counterparts since the last election. It's as if you think if you accuse others of being party political even when they're not people won't realise it is you who is in fact being party political. But we're not that stupid.

fundamentally, you're dragging out a non-issue when we could be getting on with debating legislation and amending the constitution. Rather you have picked up on an erroneous constitutional blunder and have decided to make a big song and dance about it to further disrupt proceedings in the hope you get another election. And then you accuse my proposed amendment as a childish game (I assum you're referring to me), when it's a serious attempt to rectify the constitution and stop any further gaffs by the Speaker, and it was proposed by myself before the Speaker had made any gaffs. You really have a way with twisting things. Stop it, stop this and let us get on with business!
This has never been party political as has been told to you numerous times. It's not my problem if you won't accept the answer. And what nonsense about hoping to get more votes - paranoid much?

It isn't an "erroneous constitutional blunder", it is the abandonment of the constitution in word and spirit with the tacit approval of the House. I don't know if my Party supports me on this "song and dance" or not and I don't care. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that people are happy to sit around pretending all is OK when the entire basis for the HoC has been trampled. And to have people pretend that this is party political or some pathetic ploy to get a few more votes for the Conservative Party is totally disheartening.

Oh, and btw, I wasn't referring to you when I made the comment about childish games (again with the paranoia).
0
GuyM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 10 years ago
#38
@hldomster - Firstly I'm new, so by all means apologies if I offend...

I dont see this being a party political issue at all. Indeed I've consulted with UoL who was given us a free reign to do as conscience dicates, if we were trying to manouver into being the Goverment somehow, surely we would be showing a united front rather than being able to make our own decisions?

-Guy
0
davireland
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 10 years ago
#39
Agreed, I just want a return to normality, dont care how we get there but thats my goal. Whether we form the government is irrelevant because its just important to get things going again.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#40
Report 10 years ago
#40
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Again you claim this is about scoring political points when as far as I can see you are the first person to make the accusation and post anything remotely approaching partisan political point scoring.

I'm not advocating sticking precisely to the very letter of the law but that doesn't mean abandoning it all together. The solution here is simple - either have a new election or have a new vote. Neither is particularly difficult and neither one approaches anything like forgetting about the constitution.

This isn't (for hopefully the last time) anything to do with parties or politics. It is about getting out of this mess without abandoning the constitution completely.
No, i made an observation that your approach to this whole discussion, that it must be done by the constitution, no matter what common sense says, is simply wrong because the constitution is flawed. I was not seriously advocating the Conservative party withdrawing, but showing that the logical extension of your argument leads to that.

I could point out countless attacks on the Lib Dems, over this issue in various threads, which do amount to party politics, attacking a party politically over a non-political issue.

Holding a new election goes against common sense. There is nothing at all wrong with the vote that was put to the people of TSR (apart from the parties which did not submit their manifestos in time, but we will leave that), so holding a new vote goes against common sense, but it seems to be the idea you are most in favour of. The only logical reason i can see for that, is to try and gain more votes in a rerun of the election, which is therefore certainly motivated by party politics.

The constitution makes no mention of holding revoting for a tied vote, so doing that would be against the constitution... but it would be more sensible. If you are advocating that as a solution, i can agree with you, but you can't have it both ways, attacking me for thinking the best solution would be one not in the constitution, but then doing exactly the same yourself.
0
X
new posts
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (125)
39.06%
No - but I will (17)
5.31%
No - I don't want to (20)
6.25%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (158)
49.38%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed