Motion of No Confidence in the Government

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The last Lab-Lib coalition put forward around 15 bills and 14 SOIs.

    And the current Labour Party on it's own (exams and all) is completely outclassing the government when it comes to both the quality and quantity of legislation produced.

    I'd be much more impressed if you argued the merits of your party rather than try to criticise mine.
    7 when we were in opposition, with 5 passing (71% success rate)
    9 when you've been in opposition, with 2 passing (22% success rate)

    We have passed 2 (with some pending) so far, same as you. Yet the Labour party have put forward 9 and have only passed 2. You may be winning on quantity, but not quality.

    Also you cannot count withdrawn bills. (and I was using Hansard)
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Christmas is hardly an excuse. Most people only take a week or so out of their normal routine, and some only take a few days off.

    More will be doing exams during the summer than December, and I don't ever recall seeing someone say they cannot submit something because of winter exams.

    It would only be an excuse if activity was low across the House and not just in the government. Unless you're bringing up the last coalition to imply that the Liberals are bringing you down?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Christmas is hardly an excuse. Most people only take a week or so out of their normal routine, and some only take a few days off.

    More will be doing exams during the summer than December, and I don't ever recall seeing someone say they cannot submit something because of winter exams.
    I'm pretty sure that most people take a lot longer...

    And not externally because th were no questions at the time... But that definitely happened.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    7 when we were in opposition, with 5 passing (71% success rate)
    9 when you've been in opposition, with 2 passing (22% success rate)

    We have passed 2 (with some pending) so far, same as you. Yet the Labour party have put forward 9 and have only passed 2. You may be winning on quantity, but not quality.

    Also you cannot count withdrawn bills. (and I was using Hansard)
    Why can't you count withdrawn bills? This is a measure of activity. We wrote some fantastically detailed legislation (e.g. Lords Reform) which we realised just wouldn't pass the House. We are 'winning' on quantity, quality and ambition.

    Also did you just boast that your 22 seat government has managed to pass as many bills as the 12 seat Opposition?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    7 when we were in opposition, with 5 passing (71% success rate)
    9 when you've been in opposition, with 2 passing (22% success rate)

    We have passed 2 (with some pending) so far, same as you. Yet the Labour party have put forward 9 and have only passed 2. You may be winning on quantity, but not quality.

    Also you cannot count withdrawn bills. (and I was using Hansard)
    Passing bills doesn't reflect quality at all. Just the ideology of the house.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "We're more active cos we send our bills to Division"


    pftt, ridiculous defence. Aye to the motion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Passing bills doesn't reflect quality at all. Just the ideology of the house.
    If you're in opposition and you can pass a bill, the odds are stacked against and considering how scrupulous some members are here...

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Why can't you count withdrawn bills? This is a measure of activity. We wrote some fantastically detailed legislation (e.g. Lords Reform) which we realised just wouldn't pass the House. We are 'winning' on quantity, quality and ambition.

    Also did you just boast that your 22 seat government has managed to pass as many bills as the 12 seat Opposition?
    You're right. You have passed as many. But how many have you submitted in comparison?

    The activity of a withdrawn bill is the same as that of drafting legislation within party forums - which is what various depts. are doing.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    If you're in opposition and you can pass a bill, the odds are stacked against and considering how scrupulous some members are here...



    You're right. You have passed as many. But how many have you submitted in comparison?

    The activity of a withdrawn bill is the same as that of drafting legislation within party forums - which is what various depts. are doing.
    Or it means that you are submitting peicemeal legeslation witch isn't really offensive to anyone. So vanilla.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    This is rather brilliant I must say
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    If you're in opposition and you can pass a bill, the odds are stacked against and considering how scrupulous some members are here...



    You're right. You have passed as many. But how many have you submitted in comparison?

    The activity of a withdrawn bill is the same as that of drafting legislation within party forums - which is what various depts. are doing.
    We've passed as many with 10 fewer MPs and plan to pass some more. You're grasping at straws.

    How is sending something to Division 'activity'. Activity is the formulation of items. We've put more to the House. You're saying you draft them privately (which we are doing too).

    You're so blatantly wrong on the claim that your party/government is anywhere near as accomplished as mine it's laughable.

    To quote Mr Blair, "Weak, weak, weak!"
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Alright, let's crush this..

    .................

    Over 90 days have passed since the opening of the 23rd Parliament, the Government has created five bills - Correct and with many moons remaining until terms end we are not likely to struggle in terms of the historical prospective. This inactivity is being spun to a greater amplitude than it is.

    has failed to produce a budget in the 90 days’ deadline it set itself - Very few governments have historically released budgets at all, let alone within 90 days. This is a ridiculously weak observation and simply suggests that governments should no longer allow transparency in the House because zealots will simply use it against them.

    provided a response to the crisis produced by the Crisis Committee that was not only indicative of a non-caring attitude towards one of the regions of the UK, but was the result of a failure to properly analyse the situation and would have been catastrophic if done in real life; - I have access to the sub-forum, you allowed a nationalist to draft the response and barely anybody bothered to vet it. Your reasoning here is again ridiculous and would see your governments brought down in but weeks .

    Your ideological objections are not reasons to face a MoNC and you are sh*****ing on convention by using them!


    and has produced few Statements of Intent when the Government’s own coalition agreement states all Secretaries of State must produce a Statement of Intent in the first 90 days of the term - indeed, the Prime Minister himself stated that this part of the agreement had now been suspended, indicating that the two parties, and in particular the Conservatives, had expectations of what it is like to be in government that just did not match the reality. In addition, the Government has simply failed to address many of the issues raised in the last Motion of No Confidence. - This is again poor reasoning for a VoNC. You are once again suggesting that government should reduce the level of transparency in this House in order to pander to zealots.

    That is not all. The incompetent Government is in a state of uncoordinated disarray and a large divide is beginning to form between the two governing parties. Following the decision by two Liberal MPs to vote against the Government's recent Trade Union bill, the Prime Minister mercilessly axed them from the Cabinet. It is notable that the Prime Minister failed to persuade even his deputy to vote in favour of the bill until after it went to Division, and it is clear that miscommunication on a basic level is happening between the government leadership and the ordinary members, as the leadership appears not to have been aware of disagreements over a piece of major legislation that were so strong they led to a defection. The level of tension that is currently present in the Government is highly concerning; it is clear that both parties do not have a unified strategy for the term. As well as criticising the leadership of the Liberals, Conservative MPs are also attacking each other. Rakas publicly scolded Jammy Duel by saying to him 'for frack sake, don't publicly insult the leader of our coalition partners. And yes... I felt the need to say that publicly.' It is obvious from this that there is a dangerous level of division even among the Conservatives, never mind between them and their coalition partners. - No division exists. You have no evidence that there is no co-ordination other than one bill and the government currently has a bill on the floor which received unanimous support internally.

    In the Conservative General Election manifesto, the Conservatives promised to commit to tax reforms, change the pension system, expand access to private tutors, protect digital privacy, and introduce measures to help people struggling with finances, however, the Conservatives have failed to meet any of these promises through legislation. The same can be said for the Liberal Party, in the Liberal manifesto there were promises to build garden cities, increase the minimum wage, increase the personal allowance, crack down on tax havens, improve the prison system, decriminalise certain drugs, introduce basic life support lessons, legalise euthanasia and expand northern airports: all have failed. - These concerns are invalid until the end of term, it is not for a bunch of zealots to instruct the government to meet its manifesto pledges straight away.

    When questioned about the lack of activity from the government, the same excuses are given with the Government repeating the same excuse about real life getting in the way, exams taking priority, and everything being written months ago but it is being finalised for publication: all excuses. Of course, these excuses are only acceptable when they apply to this government, and not to anyone else, in the view of many government members. - Again, the historical record shows that this government will likely (projecting a linear rate of activity) not go down in history as an inactive one.

    It is time for a governmental reality check, A level exams, AS level exams and GCSE exams ended three weeks ago. If the government is incapable of writing a Statement of Intent, or finalising all of the wonder items written, the government has a serious activity crisis: they are living in fantasy land if they think their handling of the responsibilities of government is in any way acceptable, and they need to be replaced.
    The Government is not stable, the frequent changes of cabinet positions indicate mistrust, incompetence, and desperation where the reduced number of cabinet positions are being filled up by any member who wants to feel important. If governance was taken seriously, the cabinet ministers would all have an interest in their role, items would be written, and things would be done to bring about the ideals of the cabinet minister. The Conservative/Liberal coalition has been given a chance to succeed. It was put on notice after the extremely close result of the last VoNC, and since then it has shown that it just isn’t up to the job. There are other parties ready and waiting to take charge of the government subforum and place the interests of the model UK in safe, competent and experienced hands. To quote Oliver Cromwell, ‘You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!’ - The only failure here is that LP has allowed transparency in updating the House on any changes, one suspects that he may be advised not to if zealots are simply going to claw at such information like a pair of rabid rats.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Obviously can't vote on this myself, but it would be an aye

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Though you can't vote for this anyway it's sad that you would.

    It's clear that the zealots within the Labour Party (friends in RL even) have bought and paid for Green support.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Alright, let's crush this..

    .................

    Over 90 days have passed since the opening of the 23rd Parliament, the Government has created five bills - Correct and with many moons remaining until terms end we are not likely to struggle in terms of the historical prospective. This inactivity is being spun to a greater amplitude than it is.

    has failed to produce a budget in the 90 days’ deadline it set itself - Very few governments have historically released budgets at all, let alone within 90 days. This is a ridiculously weak observation and simply suggests that governments should no longer allow transparency in the House because zealots will simply use it against them.

    provided a response to the crisis produced by the Crisis Committee that was not only indicative of a non-caring attitude towards one of the regions of the UK, but was the result of a failure to properly analyse the situation and would have been catastrophic if done in real life; - I have access to the sub-forum, you allowed a nationalist to draft the response and barely anybody bothered to vet it. Your reasoning here is again ridiculous and would see your governments brought down in but weeks .

    Your ideological objections are not reasons to face a MoNC and you are sh*****ing on convention by using them!


    and has produced few Statements of Intent when the Government’s own coalition agreement states all Secretaries of State must produce a Statement of Intent in the first 90 days of the term - indeed, the Prime Minister himself stated that this part of the agreement had now been suspended, indicating that the two parties, and in particular the Conservatives, had expectations of what it is like to be in government that just did not match the reality. In addition, the Government has simply failed to address many of the issues raised in the last Motion of No Confidence. - This is again poor reasoning for a VoNC. You are once again suggesting that government should reduce the level of transparency in this House in order to pander to zealots.

    That is not all. The incompetent Government is in a state of uncoordinated disarray and a large divide is beginning to form between the two governing parties. Following the decision by two Liberal MPs to vote against the Government's recent Trade Union bill, the Prime Minister mercilessly axed them from the Cabinet. It is notable that the Prime Minister failed to persuade even his deputy to vote in favour of the bill until after it went to Division, and it is clear that miscommunication on a basic level is happening between the government leadership and the ordinary members, as the leadership appears not to have been aware of disagreements over a piece of major legislation that were so strong they led to a defection. The level of tension that is currently present in the Government is highly concerning; it is clear that both parties do not have a unified strategy for the term. As well as criticising the leadership of the Liberals, Conservative MPs are also attacking each other. Rakas publicly scolded Jammy Duel by saying to him 'for frack sake, don't publicly insult the leader of our coalition partners. And yes... I felt the need to say that publicly.' It is obvious from this that there is a dangerous level of division even among the Conservatives, never mind between them and their coalition partners. - No division exists. You have no evidence that there is no co-ordination other than one bill and the government currently has a bill on the floor which received unanimous support internally.

    In the Conservative General Election manifesto, the Conservatives promised to commit to tax reforms, change the pension system, expand access to private tutors, protect digital privacy, and introduce measures to help people struggling with finances, however, the Conservatives have failed to meet any of these promises through legislation. The same can be said for the Liberal Party, in the Liberal manifesto there were promises to build garden cities, increase the minimum wage, increase the personal allowance, crack down on tax havens, improve the prison system, decriminalise certain drugs, introduce basic life support lessons, legalise euthanasia and expand northern airports: all have failed. - These concerns are invalid until the end of term, it is not for a bunch of zealots to instruct the government to meet its manifesto pledges straight away.

    When questioned about the lack of activity from the government, the same excuses are given with the Government repeating the same excuse about real life getting in the way, exams taking priority, and everything being written months ago but it is being finalised for publication: all excuses. Of course, these excuses are only acceptable when they apply to this government, and not to anyone else, in the view of many government members. - Again, the historical record shows that this government will likely (projecting a linear rate of activity) not go down in history as an inactive one.

    It is time for a governmental reality check, A level exams, AS level exams and GCSE exams ended three weeks ago. If the government is incapable of writing a Statement of Intent, or finalising all of the wonder items written, the government has a serious activity crisis: they are living in fantasy land if they think their handling of the responsibilities of government is in any way acceptable, and they need to be replaced.
    The Government is not stable, the frequent changes of cabinet positions indicate mistrust, incompetence, and desperation where the reduced number of cabinet positions are being filled up by any member who wants to feel important. If governance was taken seriously, the cabinet ministers would all have an interest in their role, items would be written, and things would be done to bring about the ideals of the cabinet minister. The Conservative/Liberal coalition has been given a chance to succeed. It was put on notice after the extremely close result of the last VoNC, and since then it has shown that it just isn’t up to the job. There are other parties ready and waiting to take charge of the government subforum and place the interests of the model UK in safe, competent and experienced hands. To quote Oliver Cromwell, ‘You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!’ - The only failure here is that LP has allowed transparency in updating the House on any changes, one suspects that he may be advised not to if zealots are simply going to claw at such information like a pair of rabid rats.
    Was going to go through it tomorrow but I honestly can't put it any better than Rakas just has


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In response to Rakas.

    A) The failure of others is not an excuse for your own failure.
    B) if you fail to meet all your manifesto goals at the end of term it's too late for an MoNC. You should have already at least began to make a dent in them.
    C) calling people names does not make you any more right.

    I think that pretty much rebuts all your points.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Very few governments have historically released budgets at all, let alone within 90 days. This is a ridiculously weak observation and simply suggests that governments should no longer allow transparency in the House because zealots will simply use it against them.
    LP specifically said the budget would be released within 90 days and you Tories, in particular Jammy, raised hell over budget timing when we were last in government. The reason this was included in the MoNC isn't that we necessarily think 90 days is a particularly reasonable timeframe for the budget to be released in, but that you set yourselves a high standard over the timing of the most important item of business in the MHoC calendar and failed to meet it.


    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I have access to the sub-forum, you allowed a nationalist to draft the response and barely anybody bothered to vet it. Your reasoning here is again ridiculous and would see your governments brought down in but weeks .

    Your ideological objections are not reasons to face a MoNC and you are sh*****ing on convention by using them!
    DMcGovern drafted the response because he has more understanding of what would happen in such a situation than all of us put together - the same reason that I personally didn't vet it. But your opinion of the CC response is beside the point: if the rl government had responded to such a situation in the way that the TSR government did, the N. Irish peace process would implode and the region would effectively be back to square one. If the government had properly thought it out rather than just putting out a heavy-handed response in the hope of ending the crisis quickly, this would not be the case.

    If I recall correctly, Tory objections to what was in the budget made their way into the VoNC in the LabLib coalition, disguised as concerns over the way the budget was costed.


    (Original post by Rakas21)
    - This is again poor reasoning for a VoNC. You are once again suggesting that government should reduce the level of transparency in this House in order to pander to zealots.
    It's perfectly good reasoning for a VoNC. If a government is a) incapable of carrying out even the responsibilities it set itself in its coalition agreement and b) silly enough to think that advertising this incapability is in any way a good idea, it deserves to be VoNCed.


    (Original post by Rakas21)
    - No division exists. You have no evidence that there is no co-ordination other than one bill and the government currently has a bill on the floor which received unanimous support internally.
    I'm sorry but with a government with the differences in ideology between members that yours has, you cannot claim that there is no division; and when the response to a major piece of legislation is the DPM stating an intention to abstain, two MPs from different ideological backgrounds voting against and refusing to back down even when threatened with loss of their seats, and a Cabinet minister defecting to the official opposition, it is ludicrous for you to try to claim that that division is not at an unacceptable level. I know that this is only one bill, but it has been obvious for some time just from the general small-scale public interactions between some government members that there are major divisions behind the scenes, and that bill was clearly the boiling point.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Though you can't vote for this anyway it's sad that you would.

    It's clear that the zealots within the Labour Party (friends in RL even) have bought and paid for Green support.
    Actually, it isn't so stop being paranoid. It's just that you haven't put much up and that which you have had been unrealistic. In all, this Government has been, well, a bit ****.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Actually, it isn't so stop being paranoid. It's just that you haven't put much up and that which you have had been unrealistic. In all, this Government has been, well, a bit ****.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    PRSOM
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    After taking stock and thinking about the debate we were having elsewhere about the environment in here i have decided that until division i shall no longer be involving myself in what i think is a do or die moment for those who want a collaborative and positive environment.

    If it is the judgement of people reading this thread that a reasonably active (note the word reasonably, nobody is claiming we are on top form) government should be removed simply because one does not like our policy responses or does not want to allow latitude on their commitments like budget and SOI timing then so be it, for the House will be worse for it when the next government and the next government after that ect.. makes similar errors.

    If however the House decides that times must change, that this symbolic act should light the road to a more collaborative and pleasant attitude then i will happily discuss (perhaps with one person from each party) what constitutional changes and additions are needed (perhaps an outline of minimum requirements which render a MoNC valid or not - protecting both the left and right from rabid assault) to bring this about in addition to offering all parties the chance to work with the government and myself on reformist measures rather than against.

    I'll take my leave of this thread until division now bar any quoted responses from this.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    After taking stock and thinking about the debate we were having elsewhere about the environment in here i have decided that until division i shall no longer be involving myself in what i think is a do or die moment for those who want a collaborative and positive environment.

    If it is the judgement of people reading this thread that a reasonably active (note the word reasonably, nobody is claiming we are on top form) government should be removed simply because one does not like our policy responses or does not want to allow latitude on their commitments like budget and SOI timing then so be it, for the House will be worse for it when the next government and the next government after that ect.. makes similar errors.

    If however the House decides that times must change, that this symbolic act should light the road to a more collaborative and pleasant attitude then i will happily discuss (perhaps with one person from each party) what constitutional changes and additions are needed (perhaps an outline of minimum requirements which render a MoNC valid or not - protecting both the left and right from rabid assault) to bring this about in addition to offering all parties the chance to work with the government and myself on reformist measures rather than against.

    I'll take my leave of this thread until division now bar any quoted responses from this.
    You seem to be implying that the Government that would form, should this VoNC be successful, would be just as bad as the current one in terms of legislation output. However, Labour has already demonstrated it is capable of producing a high level of quality and quantity when it comes to legislation, so if it were to be involved in the next Government, it would continue this good work.

    I do believe this VoNC is justified for the reasons mentioned both in the content of the motion and in this thread. The Government has been given a whole month to sort itself out but unfortunately, it has failed to do this. With regards to a pleasant attitude, your leader does not exactly help to achieve this through his immature behaviour. Calling people 'quackquack' is simply not the attitude you expect, or want, from a Prime Minister.

    In addition to my complaints, I would like to add that I think you have been one of the best members in the current Cabinet. It is clear that you have an interest in the role which has been reflected through your work this term.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    After taking stock and thinking about the debate we were having elsewhere about the environment in here i have decided that until division i shall no longer be involving myself in what i think is a do or die moment for those who want a collaborative and positive environment.

    If it is the judgement of people reading this thread that a reasonably active (note the word reasonably, nobody is claiming we are on top form) government should be removed simply because one does not like our policy responses or does not want to allow latitude on their commitments like budget and SOI timing then so be it, for the House will be worse for it when the next government and the next government after that ect.. makes similar errors.

    If however the House decides that times must change, that this symbolic act should light the road to a more collaborative and pleasant attitude then i will happily discuss (perhaps with one person from each party) what constitutional changes and additions are needed (perhaps an outline of minimum requirements which render a MoNC valid or not - protecting both the left and right from rabid assault) to bring this about in addition to offering all parties the chance to work with the government and myself on reformist measures rather than against.

    I'll take my leave of this thread until division now bar any quoted responses from this.
    I'll be completely honest here and drop the partisanship. I do believe that what you are saying here is somewhat true. The VoNC every term is getting boring and the house is too partisan and adversarial. I also know that government activity is much harder to maintain due to the sort of compromises you have to make in government and fewer people actually look at the government sub-forum.

    I admit that I do not like the policy's of the government nor do I think that this government is one of the best we have seen in recent history, personally I would have waited to see the government budget before backing a MoNC and do wish the people had given you a week longer to publish the budget (which I trust will be delivered before the vote on this?). There are times when governments should have ended, generally I'm thinking of LUG but I do agree with you that most MoNC's are undeserved and unwarented.

    Your offer is a tempting one and I do support trying to make the house much less adversarial and restrictions on MoNCs are probably a good thing. My issue is as much as I respect you and would trust you to keep your word I'm not sure that wounds can be healed and bridges repaired and I don't know if I could trust anyone else to work to make this house a better place because there is too much distrust.

    Also if what you suggest doesn't materialise we then loose the opportunity to remove the government for essentially the rest of the term essentially.

    So in summary: Governments need to be accountable but at the same time should be given some slack, I would love to side with you but I find myself unable to trust that others would get on board to make it work, however if the budget is produced before the vote on this happens and it looks good and is of high quality I will reconsider my position on this MoNC.

    I hope that you understand where I'm coming from and see I'm trying to be reasonable.

    APH
 
 
 
Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Study resources

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.