Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Ask Her Majesty's Government – Parliament XXIII

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    There are two Conservative MPs openly rebelling against the government by voting against the Government bill on assisted suicide. For The Prime Minister to remain committed to his principles, honourable, and fair in his approach, Rakas21, and Pinkberr_y should be removed from their MP positions for breaking the coalition agreement.
    The government thanks you for your opinion however this is an internal affair and no further discussion will take place. Should LP wish to take action, i'm sure the House will be notified.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The government thanks you for your opinion however this is an internal affair and no further discussion will take place. Should LP wish to take action, i'm sure the House will be notified.
    To be fair LP has to based on what happened with the liberals who voted against a government bill. If he doesn't then the liberals are as weak as Nigel suggest.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    To be fair LP has to based on what happened with the liberals who voted against a government bill. If he doesn't then the liberals are as weak as Nigel suggest.
    He has to act based on the last week or so

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The government thanks you for your opinion however this is an internal affair and no further discussion will take place. Should LP wish to take action, i'm sure the House will be notified.
    It may be an internal issue but when previous rebellions have been played out in public the internal business line does not work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    To be fair LP has to based on what happened with the liberals who voted against a government bill. If he doesn't then the liberals are as weak as Nigel suggest.
    Liberal MP's voted against more than one bill, it's simply that we only got really miffed after a while.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    He has to act based on the last week or so

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Technically speaking, you resigned.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It may be an internal issue but when previous rebellions have been played out in public the internal business line does not work.
    You know that i don't engage in such public frivalities, even on this bill i limited myself to a single post and vote in division.

    ..

    To be clear, i'll accept being sacked if that is the will of the government however that is a matter for internal discussion and not something which will be played out in this thread with opposition members involving themselves.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Liberal MP's voted against more than one bill, it's simply that we only got really miffed after a while.



    Technically speaking, you resigned.



    You know that i don't engage in such public frivalities, even on this bill i limited myself to a single post and vote in division.

    ..

    To be clear, i'll accept being sacked if that is the will of the government however that is a matter for internal discussion and not something which will be played out in this thread with opposition members involving themselves.
    Only from the ministerial, sacked from the seat.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You know that i don't engage in such public frivalities, even on this bill i limited myself to a single post and vote in division.
    Well, you could have started by telling us in advance and accepting the declared consequences instead of launching another act of this embarrassing “constant suffering while being limited to lying on the back and *****ing into diapers is better than painless death and the state must prevent its citizens from ending their lives as hard as it can even though they can spend a lot of money to travel abroad in order to finally rest in peace” drama which isn't going to affect the result anyway and is therefore entirely moot and counterproductive.

    JD's behaviour (bar his incredibly selective religious-like morals) doesn't surprise me at all but I expected better of you, especially in the light of your numerous statements regarding Conservative whipping and unity once a policy has been accepted by the majority (or not rejected by more than 40 per cent of active members).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    There are two Conservative MPs openly rebelling against the government by voting against the Government bill on assisted suicide. For The Prime Minister to remain committed to his principles, honourable, and fair in his approach, Rakas21, and Pinkberr_y should be removed from their MP positions for breaking the coalition agreement.
    Let me worry about that, though I assure you an action would be taken regardless. Moreover, Pinkberry_y isn't actually rebelling; we've just failed to properly explain the nature of whipping to a new member—one I trust will honour the coalition agreement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Well, you could have started by telling us in advance and accepting the declared consequences instead of launching another act of this embarrassing “constant suffering while being limited to lying on the back and *****ing into diapers is better than painless death and the state must prevent its citizens from ending their lives as hard as it can even though they can spend a lot of money to travel abroad in order to finally rest in peace” drama.

    JD's behaviour (bar his incredibly selective religious-like morals) doesn't surprise me at all but I expected better of you, especially in the light of your numerous statements regarding Conservative whipping and unity once a policy has been accepted by the majority (or not rejected by more than 40 per cent of active members).
    When a clear line can be drawn between those who might as well be dead and those who have a shot is when I'll support assisted dying.

    When there are extreme precautions in place to prevent pressure from friends or family influencing the individuals decision is when I'll support assisted dying.

    Life may not be sacred, it may not special, or anything like that, but, its all anyone has at the end of the day, don't give people the ability to throw what could be a very long and prosperous life away.

    You're publicly attacking a conservative minister for doing the conservative thing

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    When a clear line can be drawn between those who might as well be dead and those who have a shot is when I'll support assisted dying.

    When there are extreme precautions in place to prevent pressure from friends or family influencing the individuals decision is when I'll support assisted dying.

    Life may not be sacred, it may not special, or anything like that, but, its all anyone has at the end of the day, don't give people the ability to throw what could be a very long and prosperous life away.

    You're publicly attacking a conservative minister for doing the conservative thing

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I just wish you to never find yourself in a situation that forces one to choose death over living, otherwise you may well find yourself begging to be allowed the easy way out.

    Now try to go back in time through our history and apply the “it's the conservative thing so we have to support it” argument to various policies that would not be considered even by UKIP nowadays.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Can the Prime Minister tell us if he plans on letting the term expire automatically or if he'll be exercising his power to call an early(ish) election?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Can the Prime Minister tell us if he plans on letting the term expire automatically or if he'll be exercising his power to call an early(ish) election?
    I'm not quite sure yet. We still need to deliver certain key policies.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I'm not quite sure yet. We still need to deliver certain key policies.
    Fair enough, the natural end of term is probably most convenient for those of us who'll need to settle into Uni anyway.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely gobsmacked that Rakas lost his seat for voting against a bill that was guaranteed to pass anyway. I mean if it failed by a single vote or something I'd understand but that was a true display of Tory political brutality. Not even the longest serving PM in MHoC history is safe from the swing of the axe.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Absolutely gobsmacked that Rakas lost his seat for voting against a bill that was guaranteed to pass anyway. I mean if it failed by a single vote or something I'd understand but that was a true display of Tory political brutality. Not even the longest serving PM in MHoC history is safe from the swing of the axe.
    … which is something you equality and fairness folk should love, is it not? It seems that the whole MHoC is becoming quite hypocritical lately. The critics of the Liberal rebellions are doing the exact same thing, one of the greatest advocates of whipping rebels to make a pointless statement despite a clear majority support for the opposing cause, and now the Labour leader is publicly calling for elitism and advising us to ignore binding contracts because what the heck, it was going to pass anyway. :dontknow:

    I'm tired of listing all the issues with that kind of behaviour so let's just say that defying a whip, breaking the coalition agreement, ignoring constitutional conventions, etc. only to make a moot point when the bill is going to pass anyway should be considered an aggravating factor instead of a mitigating one as you suggest, because it's nothing other than an attempt to assert dominance and acquire special immunity that should not be tolerated. I also believe that these actions are motivated by excessive pride and unwarranted feelings of self-importance which are detrimental to the collective morale (otherwise, if the act of voting against one's conscience had been the real issue, an abstention or a temporary proxy should have been the preferred way of avoiding it—these options were offered and rejected).

    If our party is to remain a reliable partner that honours its commitments, it is my duty to prevent individuals from jeopardising it, even at the risk of losing a couple of them in the process. Nevertheless, I trust that all involved parties will eventually see this as the only logical consequence of their uncooperative behaviour and ultimately their own negligence or failure to act in the past, e.g. when they did not ask me to negotiate that the policy is removed from the coalition agreement even though they were asked to review the draft and knew it was possible. Speaking for myself, I am certainly not one to bear grudges against fellow party members, and their list of achievements will only add to my desire to see them back in MP seats as productive assets.

    Finally, it's only for two weeks and then he will be offered his seat back. JD has already been offered the same.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    … which is something you equality and fairness folk should love, is it not? It seems that the whole MHoC is becoming quite hypocritical lately. The critics of the Liberal rebellions are doing the exact same thing, one of the greatest advocates of whipping rebels to make a pointless statement despite a clear majority support for the opposing cause, and now the Labour leader is publicly calling for elitism and advising us to ignore binding contracts because what the heck, it was going to pass anyway. :dontknow:

    I'm tired of listing all the issues with that kind of behaviour so let's just say that defying a whip, breaking the coalition agreement, ignoring constitutional conventions, etc. only to make a moot point when the bill is going to pass anyway should be considered an aggravating factor instead of a mitigating one as you suggest, because it's nothing other than an attempt to assert dominance and acquire special immunity that should not be tolerated. I also believe that these actions are motivated by excessive pride and unwarranted feelings of self-importance which are detrimental to the collective morale (otherwise, if the act of voting against one's conscience had been the real issue, an abstention or a temporary proxy should have been the preferred way of avoiding it—these options were offered and rejected).

    If our party is to remain a reliable partner that honours its commitments, it is my duty to prevent individuals from jeopardising it, even at the risk of losing a couple of them in the process. Nevertheless, I trust that all involved parties will eventually see this as the only logical consequence of their uncooperative behaviour and ultimately their own negligence or failure to act in the past, e.g. when they did not ask me to negotiate that the policy is removed from the coalition agreement even though they were asked to review the draft and knew it was possible. Speaking for myself, I am certainly not one to bear grudges against fellow party members, and their list of achievements will only add to my desire to see them back in MP seats as productive assets.

    Finally, it's only for two weeks and then he will be offered his seat back. JD has already been offered the same.
    It's good that you've provided an explanation of sorts but I'm not sure why you're now offering JD and Rakas their seats back in 2 weeks? :confused:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    It's good that you've provided an explanation of sorts but I'm not sure why you're now offering JD and Rakas their seats back in 2 weeks? :confused:
    I won't be returning as an MP for at least this term, if not ever. If that is to be seen as a display of self importance and wanting special immunity then so be it for i don't think i was at all unreasonable in my actions nor the level of hostility to the bill.

    While i acknowledge that i could have made more noise than i did, it's not like i made it unclear that i would ever vote for such filth. Not only were the first two posts after LP posted the coalition agreement from me and Jammy (he saying he would defy the whip on the issue and me saying that it was a "blood red line" but both of us quickly made our feelings known to Airmed (Health Sec at the time). Short of undermining LP, i don't see how he could not have seen those posts and known what would happen.

    In fairness to LP he has offered me the seat back in 2 weeks however i refuse to be substituted for something i made plainly clear was an issue of deep objection (going far beyond the willy nilly Nay's of some of the Liberals early in the term). I'll be back before midnight Monday (thus maintaining my 100% voting) or not at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Will the Government be making a statement about the Prime Minister's latest ban?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Will the Government be making a statement about the Prime Minister's latest ban?
    They shouldn't.
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I won't be returning as an MP for at least this term, if not ever. If that is to be seen as a display of self importance and wanting special immunity then so be it for i don't think i was at all unreasonable in my actions nor the level of hostility to the bill.

    While i acknowledge that i could have made more noise than i did, it's not like i made it unclear that i would ever vote for such filth. Not only were the first two posts after LP posted the coalition agreement from me and Jammy (he saying he would defy the whip on the issue and me saying that it was a "blood red line" but both of us quickly made our feelings known to Airmed (Health Sec at the time). Short of undermining LP, i don't see how he could not have seen those posts and known what would happen.

    In fairness to LP he has offered me the seat back in 2 weeks however i refuse to be substituted for something i made plainly clear was an issue of deep objection (going far beyond the willy nilly Nay's of some of the Liberals early in the term). I'll be back before midnight Monday (thus maintaining my 100% voting) or not at all.
    It's a shame to see a single vote slay you. I'd rather see you join the socs then leave :hugs:. You are too but a part of this place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I won't be returning as an MP for at least this term, if not ever. If that is to be seen as a display of self importance and wanting special immunity then so be it for i don't think i was at all unreasonable in my actions nor the level of hostility to the bill.

    While i acknowledge that i could have made more noise than i did, it's not like i made it unclear that i would ever vote for such filth. Not only were the first two posts after LP posted the coalition agreement from me and Jammy (he saying he would defy the whip on the issue and me saying that it was a "blood red line" but both of us quickly made our feelings known to Airmed (Health Sec at the time). Short of undermining LP, i don't see how he could not have seen those posts and known what would happen.

    In fairness to LP he has offered me the seat back in 2 weeks however i refuse to be substituted for something i made plainly clear was an issue of deep objection (going far beyond the willy nilly Nay's of some of the Liberals early in the term). I'll be back before midnight Monday (thus maintaining my 100% voting) or not at all.
    I don't think you were unreasonable at all and the fact that the Prime Minister has received another ban demonstrates that he's not capable to lead the party, led alone the Government. Hopefully the Tories will be able to have a reliable and sensible leader next term who respects the views of his members. Would you stand by the way if there was a leadership election?

    I don't think you should be made to decide several months in advance how you are going to vote on some legislation, especially as it may look different on paper and someone may be able to convince you to vote another way. By brutally axing people from the green benches and the Government, LP appears to be alienating his members which is doing the Government a lot more bad than good.

    I think him offering you the seat back in 2 weeks demonstrates how clueless he is about the whole situation and I admire you and JD for standing up for what you believe in.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: October 27, 2016
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.

Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?

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.