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

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    No notifications currently so missed this. From what I gathered the precedent applied to a previous version, and happened only once, both of which make the precedent rather shaky and therefore really open to interpretation by the sitting speaker. I won't claim to have followed every post, but that is what I gathered
    On a previous version that is functionally the same, further consider that there are very few opportunities for precedent to be established on the matter. It is no excuse however to go for Fez to have gone against the constitution because he doesn't like it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    For goodness sake.

    First, the first MoNC shouldn't have been allowed to be withdrawn.
    Secondly, the constitution/GD aren't even close to clear on the point you think they are and if anything point the other way.
    Thirdly, the interpretation you are suggesting is so unbelievably absurd that it should be ignored if the GD meant that (though if the constitution meant that it shouldn't).
    Fourthly, the fact that you're pressing the point, while not cheating, is twisting the spirit of a rule to gain a completely unjust advantage and should be abhorred by all reasonable members of MHoC, and the members in question should feel extremely ashamed and possibly stop taking their status as a government party so seriously. The coalition partners of the party in question should look at this and strongly question whether that coalition is a good idea.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I can no longer support this government as a liberal MP. I realise that I am most likely going to be criticised and possibly lose my role but I think that us liberals need a break from government and perhaps a one party government is better for the house.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    For goodness sake.

    First, the first MoNC shouldn't have been allowed to be withdrawn.
    Secondly, the constitution/GD aren't even close to clear on the point you think they are and if anything point the other way.
    Thirdly, the interpretation you are suggesting is so unbelievably absurd that it should be ignored if the GD meant that (though if the constitution meant that it shouldn't).
    Fourthly, the fact that you're pressing the point, while not cheating, is twisting the spirit of a rule to gain a completely unjust advantage and should be abhorred by all reasonable members of MHoC, and the members in question should feel extremely ashamed and possibly stop taking their status as a government party so seriously. The coalition partners of the party in question should look at this and strongly question whether that coalition is a good idea.
    Pray tell what is ambiguous about "less than two weeks have passed since the previous Motion of No Confidence in that position ended" without throwing the dictionary out the window, let alone "less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government?"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Pray tell what is ambiguous about "less than two weeks have passed since the previous Motion of No Confidence in that position ended" without throwing the dictionary out the window, let alone "less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government?"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Erm, possibly the fact the MoNC didn't officially end?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Pray tell what is ambiguous about "less than two weeks have passed since the previous Motion of No Confidence in that position ended" without throwing the dictionary out the window, let alone "less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government?"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A motion of no confidence had not taken place, since the text very clearly equates the MoNC with the vote alone, and NOT with the discussion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    A motion of no confidence had not taken place, since the text very clearly equates the MoNC with the vote alone, and NOT with the discussion.
    Was a motion submitted?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Erm, possibly the fact the MoNC didn't officially end?
    So is it currently ongoing?

    A motion was put forward so it is either ongoing or ended.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Erm, possibly the fact the MoNC didn't officially end?
    So if the other is in progress why is there an identical motion here?

    If the other never ceased then it is in progress, if it isn't in progress it ended. It is impossible for something that happened to Jo longer be happening without it ending, that is by definition what it means for something to end, not that the left are too fond of dictionaries.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So if the other is in progress why is there an identical motion here?

    If the other never ceased then it is in progress, if it isn't in progress it ended. It is impossible for something that happened to Jo longer be happening without it ending, that is by definition what it means for something to end, not that the left are too fond of dictionaries.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Unless we consider it voided because it didn't go to fruition. Fruition So instead act like it never happened. Because the seconders weren't real.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Unless we consider it voided because it didn't go to fruition. Fruition So instead act like it never happened. Because the seconders weren't real.
    So a motion is void if a seconder drops out?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So if the other is in progress why is there an identical motion here?

    If the other never ceased then it is in progress, if it isn't in progress it ended. It is impossible for something that happened to Jo longer be happening without it ending, that is by definition what it means for something to end, not that the left are too fond of dictionaries.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Something can end in the sense you're using without reaching its end. If there is a football match, which has to be called off at half time due to a waterlogged pitch, has it reached its end? Of course not! It has, nevertheless, ended.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So a motion is void if a seconder drops out?
    The seconders never intended to second it.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So a motion is void if a seconder drops out?
    When the seconder planned on dropping out from the start to mothball it almost certainly.
    In other cases, possibly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Something can end in the sense you're using without reaching its end. If there is a football match, which has to be called off at half time due to a waterlogged pitch, has it reached its end? Of course not! It has, nevertheless, ended.
    And that is the word used
    'less than two weeks have passed since the previous Motion of No Confidence in that position ended'
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki..._No_Confidence
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Something can end in the sense you're using without reaching its end. If there is a football match, which has to be called off at half time due to a waterlogged pitch, has it reached its end? Of course not! It has, nevertheless, ended.
    Except it would have... something has ended when it reaches it end, whether planned, expected or otherwise; something has reached its end when it has ended.

    Dictionaries and linguistics, people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    And that is the word used
    'less than two weeks have passed since the previous Motion of No Confidence in that position ended'
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki..._No_Confidence
    And the sense that Jammy is using is not the usual one. Here, the MoNC has not ended (i.e. reached its end), it has been withdrawn. It would sound weird to say 'the match ended' when it was called off.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    And the sense that Jammy is using is not the usual one. Here, the MoNC has not ended (i.e. reached its end), it has been withdrawn. It would sound weird to say 'the match ended' when it was called off.
    You just said that the match would have ended.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You just said that the match would have ended.
    Because I was, as I stated, using it in the decidedly abnormal sense that Jammy used it, not the normal one. There is no good reason for taking an interpretation of 'ended' other than 'reached its end' here.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by Airmed)
    *generic comment about how much I really, really do love MoNCs*

    That will be all.
    Seconding this.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.