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 Aph)
    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.
    Hear hear. Rakas21 - don't led the actions of one deluded individual put you off the MHoC.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Will the Government be making a statement about the Prime Minister's latest ban?
    It must have been minutes ago, when i posted my reply he still had the Winston avatar. I'm sure he'll be back.

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    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.
    In fairness to LP he's generally pretty good and my issue is more the policy in the first place than his actions now. Assuming he's not perma banned then he'll be back as leader in a week.

    I would not be standing, i had my time at the top and enjoyed it but that's done.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I won't be returning as an MP for at least this term, if not ever.
    I very much hope you're not serious with this. You are one of the few rational, sensible right-wingers in this House, and you would be missed if you left - your loss would be a blow to the House.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Will the Government be making a statement about the Prime Minister's latest ban?
    How about take everything we said for last time he was banned to answer your questions.
    We know you don't like him, so go celebrate, and get over it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    How about take everything we said for last time he was banned to answer your questions.
    We know you don't like him, so go celebrate, and get over it.
    Sorry Mobbsy. Just wondering.
    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.
    You accusing me of hypocrisy is the flailing arms of a drowning man for I did not say your decision was the wrong one, nor did I "call for elitism", just that it was a surprising move from the party of social hierarchy.

    And as far as I know, Rakas wasn't born a respected MP but rather earned that position - in a manner most fair.

    I for one am an advocate of pragmatism whereby one does not let a wave of dictatorial fury wash over them even as they are about to successfully pass key legislation. It's not a political approach I personally would describe as 'what the heck', but I maintain it's a solid one.

    I'm sure your 'uncooperative', 'negligent', 'self-important' ex-MPs won't hold a grudge against you - I mean, who wouldn't want to be a 'productive asset' for such compassionate leadership.

    Talk to you later Mr PM, perhaps once you've returned from your latest exile.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Correct me if I'm wrong but 2 reds in (it's either a month or 3 months) is an instant black isn't it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Correct me if I'm wrong but 2 reds in (it's either a month or 3 months) is an instant black isn't it?
    This is what the rules say:



    It isn't specific amount how many red cards equal a black card.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This is what the rules say:



    It isn't specific amount how many red cards equal a black card.
    These cards are silly, I got one earlier today for suggesting that sheep in Wales will 'forceably befriend you' if you don't befriend them first.

    Seriously though, if you scroll down on that page, it says that there is a '3 strikes and you're out' policy on the 'debate and current affairs' sub-forum.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    These cards are silly, I got one earlier today for suggesting that sheep in Wales will 'forceably befriend you' if you don't befriend them first.

    Seriously though, if you scroll down on that page, it says that there is a '3 strikes and you're out' policy on the 'debate and current affairs' sub-forum.
    They are very silly, I agree.

    Ah ok. :yy:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    These cards are silly, I got one earlier today for suggesting that sheep in Wales will 'forceably befriend you' if you don't befriend them first.

    Seriously though, if you scroll down on that page, it says that there is a '3 strikes and you're out' policy on the 'debate and current affairs' sub-forum.
    That policy was introduced mainly due to this house actually.

    And the cards are only complained about by people who can't respect the rules.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    *ST Hat on*

    Guys, can I just remind you that you're not allowed to discuss moderation or cards you have received etc. If you have an issue with the cards, Ask the CT link in my signature.

    *ST Hat off*

    Om, I am so behind on the MHoC. Someone speed me up to date.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airmed)
    *ST Hat on*

    Guys, can I just remind you that you're not allowed to discuss moderation or cards you have received etc. If you have an issue with the cards, Ask the CT link in my signature.

    *ST Hat off*

    Om, I am so behind on the MHoC. Someone speed me up to date.
    Am I allowed to ask what the reason behind that rule is?
    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.
    (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.
    (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
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    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.
    I do not propose to go over the arguments about the Bill as the House has made its decision. I do support the convention that matters of conscience (such as abortion, the death penalty, fox hunting) should be a free vote in the House. Can the Government state which matters they consider to be those of conscience and therefore fall within this convention?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    With the dark and petulant days of the past week consigned to history and the House voting decisively to vote in support of euthanasia i would like to once again affirm my continued support for this government and its dutiful leadership. The task of maintaining compliance is not an easy one and the situation was handled in a firm but fair manner. I commend the government for it's continued forthright success in passing groundbreaking legislation and look forward to one day perhaps taking on the duties that government affords with renewed vigor and emphasis as we forge the path ahead into prosperous times.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It is nice to know the Prime Minister copies real life politics by not keeping to deals made with members of the MHoC.


    Meh.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It is nice to know the Prime Minister copies real life politics by not keeping to deals made with members of the MHoC.


    Lol. 'I will dissolve Parliament by the end of August at the latest, though probably much sooner.'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Lol. 'I will dissolve Parliament by the end of August at the latest, though probably much sooner.'
    He also said they were postponing until the end of division (which is failing)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It is nice to know the Prime Minister copies real life politics by not keeping to deals made with members of the MHoC.


    You tried to play politics Nige, and you lost, LP played you

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It is nice to know the Prime Minister copies real life politics by not keeping to deals made with members of the MHoC.


    UU is still leading UKIP right? It seems like you didn't keep to your end of the deal either.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?

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.