This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by LETSJaM)
Uhhh... election of 1. This is awkward.

I think Metrobeans should open it up again to allow others to submit manifesto's again, to give a real competition, which can't be achieved with only one fielded candidate.

<3 x
There were three candidates, but one was banned and one pulled out. As Nick has said on page one, as there is no precedent to do this, he won't be doing so.
0
eff01
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
So basically toronto353 is the only candidate standing as TehFrance has withdrawn from the race? In this situation I would ask the speaker to RON, so we actually get a serious debate and discussion going, after all, this is a very important role.
0
ByronicHero
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Does this election not illustrate that the House is dead on its feet?

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
But in comparison to the past, the quality of the House is much less. You coronation as speaker is the weakest election since dayne took over for his 2nd term. That, I think, speaks volumes.
Stop hating.
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
Would you be willing/able to attend the Freemason/admin jamboree cabal meetings at TSR HQ?

And regarding the earlier question about MUN-MHoC links, there is a large chunk of the House, myself among them, that already think integration has gone too far. Further links could, I think, be to the detriment of both the House and MUN because its just confusing their purposes. The MHoC is at its best when debating policy. The MUN does best when debating international relations. Mixing the two is irritating for those members that want to keep them separate, I'm mainly thinking of the Libers.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by eff01)
So basically toronto353 is the only candidate standing as TehFrance has withdrawn from the race? In this situation I would ask the speaker to RON, so we actually get a serious debate and discussion going, after all, this is a very important role.
Nick has already stated that he won't be doing that as there isn't a precedent. People had the option to submit manifestos and chose not to do so. What happens if people choose not to do so again in a week's time and I'm the only candidate? Do we keep re-opening nominations? People who submit their manifestos if nominations were to be re-opened would simply be running for the sake of widening the field. I chose to ran because I want to be Speaker and that is the difference. I welcome any questions that you may have though.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by JPKC)
Would you be willing/able to attend the Freemason/admin jamboree cabal meetings at TSR HQ?
I would try to do so if I could. If not, I will seek to hold meetings with the admin team on TSR.

And regarding the earlier question about MUN-MHoC links, there is a large chunk of the House, myself included, that already think that integration has gone too far (in spite of being active in both groups). Further links could, in my opinion, be to the detriment of both the House and MUN because its just confusing their purposes. The MHoC is, IMO, at its best when debating policy. The MUN does best when debating international relations. Mixing the two is irritating from those members that want to keep them separate.
The links would be for the House and not myself, if elected Speaker, to decide. Members decide what direction to move the House in and if they want fewer links, then they are free to sever those links. If elected Speaker, I would leave the decisions on links to the House to decide.
0
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
(Original post by eff01)
So basically toronto353 is the only candidate standing as TehFrance has withdrawn from the race? In this situation I would ask the speaker to RON, so we actually get a serious debate and discussion going, after all, this is a very important role.
Simply vote RON then. That's one of the options and your Problem solved.

All members in this House we're given a week to submit their manifestos to the speaker should they wish to stand and if toronto353 is the only person in the race then so be it. There should be no place in the House for MPs to be pressing either toronto or the speaker to either withdraw or force the reopening of nominations earlier.
0
ByronicHero
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Simply vote RON then. That's one of the options and your Problem solved.

All members in this House we're given a week to submit their manifestos to the speaker should they wish to stand and if toronto353 is the only person in the race then so be it. There should be no place in the House for MPs to be pressing either toronto or the speaker to either withdraw or force the reopening of nominations earlier.
MPs can press either them any way they wish as long as it does not contravene the rules of either the house or the site - whether they choose to succumb or not is on them. Toronto is a big boy and he can answer those critics. It is important that he does and frankly, as I assume he doesn't want his mandate to be a slight victory over RON, I would imagine he would want to answer people who believe he should withdraw and try to win them over. The last thing we should be doing is telling people they are not allowed to express a non-offensive opinion. If it verges on bullying then frankly the rest of the house would jump swiftly on the person and tell them to **** off - I certainly would.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by paddy__power)
MPs can press either them any way they wish as long as it does not contravene the rules of either the house or the site - whether they choose to succumb or not is on them. Toronto is a big boy and he can answer those critics. It is important that he does and frankly, as I assume he doesn't want his mandate to be a slight victory over RON, I would imagine he would want to answer people who believe he should withdraw and try to win them over. The last thing we should be doing is telling people they are not allowed to express a non-offensive opinion. If it verges on bullying then frankly the rest of the house would jump swiftly on the person and tell them to **** off - I certainly would.
I completely agree.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
I have had a pleasant evening watching the Olympic torch relay and come back to a load of bitterness. How sad.

The rules were set out beforehand, let's be British and stick to them.
1
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
(Original post by barnetlad)
I have had a pleasant evening watching the Olympic torch relay and come back to a load of bitterness. How sad.

The rules were set out beforehand, let's be British and stick to them.
An excellent way of summarising my stance.
0
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by meenu89)
To be honest, if people wanted to stand they should have done their manifestos. As it stands I shall be voting for toronto353.
I don't think that this is correct.

People who might have wanted to stand might have been put off (with all the effort of writing their bio, etc.) because they lacked the confidence, assuming that only the most prolific, active and popular posters would have put themselves forward (possibly considering previous elections). Now that they see that, actually, they would have had a chance, they might now fancy their chances (and there might be a wider array of people). It therefore doesn't necessarily have to be the case that other people didn't want to stand, just that they may have been too cowardly, rightly or wrongly. I mean, it's like lambasting timid averagely qualified people for not applying to become a CEO of Barclays when they fancy their chances after seeing that only Ronald MacDonald and Howard from the Halifax adverts had applied. I'm not saying that this reflects the calibre of the candidature from any of the candidates, just that it's possible for good and eager candidates to be put off applying under the false impression that their competition would be stiff. Hindsight is great.

That said, I agree that the rules ought to be followed. If you want to run, vote RON. If you don't like any of the candidates (or could not stomach them as the speaker), vote RON. If you prefer a candidate, vote for them. But don't try to disrupt the election; it's not very gentlemanly - you had your chance to apply.
2
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
It's a shame that tehFrance stood down. I don't think we should have an election with one candidate, and for that reason I'll be voting RON. This isn't to say that toronto would be in any way a bad speaker, and I might well end up voting for him, merely that I think we should have more than 1 candidate in the election. For this reason, and without comment on toronto's abilities, whether you think positively or negatively, I urge you to vote RON.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
It's a shame that tehFrance stood down. I don't think we should have an election with one candidate, and for that reason I'll be voting RON. This isn't to say that toronto would be in any way a bad speaker, and I might well end up voting for him, merely that I think we should have more than 1 candidate in the election. For this reason, and without comment on toronto's abilities, whether you think positively or negatively, I urge you to vote RON.
I respect your view on this issue and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. It should be noted that people had their chance and didn't put themselves forward for this race. Anyone standing in any subsequent race in this election would not be standing because they truly wanted to be Speaker (otherwise they will have taken the same risk that I did and put their name forward), but simply for the sake of widening the field. It is a shame that tehfrance stood down, but everyone had an equal opportunity to submit a manifesto and no-one chose to do so.
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by toronto353)
I respect your view on this issue and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. It should be noted that people had their chance and didn't put themselves forward for this race. Anyone standing in any subsequent race in this election would not be standing because they truly wanted to be Speaker (otherwise they will have taken the same risk that I did and put their name forward), but simply for the sake of widening the field. It is a shame that tehfrance stood down, but everyone had an equal opportunity to submit a manifesto and no-one chose to do so.
This is part of the reason why I'm uncertain of you being speaker. During the last week it was assumed that this election would involve several candidates (I believe Paddy, Birchington, yourself and Morgsie were all expected to run); had the House known that there was going to be so little competition then other people might have come out of the wood work. Person X might have declined to run because they expected Person Y to be standing. It's not a hard concept to grasp, and Melancholy puts it far more eloquently a few posts above. Heck, I might even have stood had I known only one other person were to seriously stand.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by JPKC)
This is part of the reason why I'm uncertain of you being speaker. During the last week it was assumed that this election would involve several candidates (I believe Paddy, Birchington, yourself and Morgsie were all expected to run); had the House known that there was going to be so little competition then other people might have come out of the wood work. Person X might have declined to run because they expected Person Y to be standing. It's not a hard concept to grasp, and Melancholy puts it far more eloquently a few posts above. Heck, I might even have stood had I known only one other person were to seriously stand.
What doubts are you having about me being Speaker? People should have taken a risk if they really wanted it. They didn't and I played by the rules. We can't bend the rules now as some people are suggesting because there is only me standing - that isn't my fault.
0
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by toronto353)
I would like to submit an amendment that would codify the re-election of the Speaker at the start of each new term so that it is official and not simply a matter of precedence. Other than that, I believe that as Speaker, it would be my job to uphold the Constitution and Guidance Document and enforce them, but not to change them. That is the responsibility of the members of this House.
Now, in your time in government and UKIP and the government you've been aware of a potential amendment that would seek to introduce a codification of the election of the speakership/deputy speakership. Something I hope the government will introduce in the coming weeks. As a neutral, would this be a codification that you would hope to bring in if elected speaker?
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Now, in your time in government and UKIP and the government you've been aware of a potential amendment that would seek to introduce a codification of the election of the speakership/deputy speakership. Something I hope the government will introduce in the coming weeks. As a neutral, would this be a codification that you would hope to bring in if elected speaker?
If elected Speaker, I don't believe that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the election process for my own role. It would be for the House to decide.
0
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by toronto353)
If elected Speaker, I don't believe that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the election process for my own role. It would be for the House to decide.
Typical politician
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by JPKC)
This is part of the reason why I'm uncertain of you being speaker. During the last week it was assumed that this election would involve several candidates (I believe Paddy, Birchington, yourself and Morgsie were all expected to run); had the House known that there was going to be so little competition then other people might have come out of the wood work. Person X might have declined to run because they expected Person Y to be standing. It's not a hard concept to grasp, and Melancholy puts it far more eloquently a few posts above. Heck, I might even have stood had I known only one other person were to seriously stand.
If you had run as well I definately would have voted R.O.N.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (1)
10%
No (9)
90%

Watched Threads

View All