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

    19
    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.
    As a Green MP I can advise that I have had no approach from any Labour MP. The statement supporting the attempted military coup in Turkey is my reason for being in favour of the VoNC. For the record also, I do not know any of the other members of the House in RL.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    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.
    Your being too literal here. I meant future governments in general although it seems that the barrier for removal simply falls lower each time.

    I shan't add anything here beyond accepting that the Tories have also contributed to the atmosphere.

    I thank-you and Aph.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    As a Green MP I can advise that I have had no approach from any Labour MP. The statement supporting the attempted military coup in Turkey is my reason for being in favour of the VoNC. For the record also, I do not know any of the other members of the House in RL.
    In the context of my conversation above i shan't fight this other than to say that this vote goes beyond simple policy objections and to the very soul and future of the Mhoc. I hope that when it comes time to vote that the House won't vote to assert policy differences as a reason to bring down governments. It would only aid in fostering the very negative attitude.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Your being too literal here. I meant future governments in general although it seems that the barrier for removal simply falls lower each time.

    I shan't add anything here beyond accepting that the Tories have also contributed to the atmosphere.

    I thank-you and Aph.
    I do believe there is valid justification for a VoNC but I can see why you made that point.

    They have indeed and I hope that there will be a united effort across the House at some point to make the MHoC a more amicable place because at the day, it is a game and everyone should enjoy their time here.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I am of the belief that the Tories have let their long time in Opposition make them toxic and spiteful. During that time they convinced themselves that they could do a good job if only they had the chance and have promptly screwed it up. And the Liberals have allowed resentment against them from all sides build and build since the 21st Parliament. They should have taken a break from government a long time ago but chose not to and lost credibility in the process.


    The TSR Labour Party will send a representative to speak to Rakas21 and members of other parties to negotiate bipartisan reforms to create stable governments and a better 'atmosphere' in the House.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I am of the belief that the Tories have let their long time in Opposition make them toxic and spiteful. During that time they convinced themselves that they could do a good job if only they had the chance and have promptly screwed it up. And the Liberals have allowed resentment against them from all sides build and build since the 21st Parliament. They should have taken a break from government a long time ago but chose not to and lost credibility in the process.


    The TSR Labour Party will send a representative to speak to Rakas21 and members of other parties to negotiate polypartisan reforms to create stable governments and a better 'atmosphere' in the House.
    Fixed that for you

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    They have indeed and I hope that there will be a united effort across the House at some point to make the MHoC a more amicable place because at the day, it is a game and everyone should enjoy their time here.
    It's all well and good to say "at some point" and then to have people carrying on as they were though.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It's all well and good to say "at some point" and then to have people carrying on as they were though.
    I agree - I should have phrased it better. I have made a suggestion in our party subforum of one way a more jovial atmosphere could be created and I will present it to the House if they approve.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    And the Liberals have allowed resentment against them from all sides build and build since the 21st Parliament. They should have taken a break from government a long time ago but chose not to and lost credibility in the process.
    Agreed. I hate to say I told you so.... but they should have listened to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    My two pence:

    - maybe the speaker (and possibly the deputy speaker and whatever job it is that the financier does) need to start coming down harder on 'unparliamentary language' and conversation diverges from debate about legislation to personal attacks. Maybe a three strikes rule with a one month suspension as the punishment. I know I'm guilty just as much as others of stirring the pot from time to time.
    - I think parties need to start trying to form majority governments to offer some stability.
    - Maybe some restrictions when and why MoNC's can be called. The difficulty is deciding on what those restrictions should be. For example, I think this one is justified.

    Edit: just some more on the thought about majority governments. I know some countries with PR require any potential government to face a vote of approval in the chamber where they must receive a majority (but not an absolute majority, so members can abstain). Perhaps we should introduce such a system here; get rid of the 7 day negotiating period, and any agreed coalition proposal is put to a vote on the day it is sent to the speaker. During the voting period, other parties can continue to negotiate and put forward alternative proposals to the speaker which also go to vote. That way we will know that a coalition at least has the 'confidence' of the house in the first place, even if it is a minority government. Therefore something significant would have to change to warrant a MoNC.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cBay)
    My two pence:

    - maybe the speaker (and possibly the deputy speaker and whatever job it is that the financier does) need to start coming down harder on 'unparliamentary language' and conversation diverges from debate about legislation to personal attacks. Maybe a three strikes rule with a one month suspension as the punishment. I know I'm guilty just as much as others of stirring the pot from time to time.
    - I think parties need to start trying to form majority governments to offer some stability.
    - Maybe some restrictions when and why MoNC's can be called. The difficulty is deciding on what those restrictions should be. For example, I think this one is justified.

    Edit: just some more on the thought about majority governments. I know some countries with PR require any potential government to face a vote of approval in the chamber where they must receive a majority (but not an absolute majority, so members can abstain). Perhaps we should introduce such a system here; get rid of the 7 day negotiating period, and any agreed coalition proposal is put to a vote on the day it is sent to the speaker. During the voting period, other parties can continue to negotiate and put forward alternative proposals to the speaker which also go to vote. That way we will know that a coalition at least has the 'confidence' of the house in the first place, even if it is a minority government. Therefore something significant would have to change to warrant a MoNC.
    This should only be the case if a complaint is made IMO. I should be able to call someone a **** in a friendly manner without having to worry about being banned (I think I've had like three warnings from MHoC without ever having said anything offensive to anyone IMO).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cBay)
    My two pence:

    - maybe the speaker (and possibly the deputy speaker and whatever job it is that the financier does) need to start coming down harder on 'unparliamentary language' and conversation diverges from debate about legislation to personal attacks. Maybe a three strikes rule with a one month suspension as the punishment. I know I'm guilty just as much as others of stirring the pot from time to time.
    - I think parties need to start trying to form majority governments to offer some stability.
    - Maybe some restrictions when and why MoNC's can be called. The difficulty is deciding on what those restrictions should be. For example, I think this one is justified.

    Edit: just some more on the thought about majority governments. I know some countries with PR require any potential government to face a vote of approval in the chamber where they must receive a majority (but not an absolute majority, so members can abstain). Perhaps we should introduce such a system here; get rid of the 7 day negotiating period, and any agreed coalition proposal is put to a vote on the day it is sent to the speaker. During the voting period, other parties can continue to negotiate and put forward alternative proposals to the speaker which also go to vote. That way we will know that a coalition at least has the 'confidence' of the house in the first place, even if it is a minority government. Therefore something significant would have to change to warrant a MoNC.
    I would be in favour of the government being voted in. In Ireland the Taisoach has to be approved by the Dail, for example.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by cBay)
    My two pence:

    - maybe the speaker (and possibly the deputy speaker and whatever job it is that the financier does) need to start coming down harder on 'unparliamentary language' and conversation diverges from debate about legislation to personal attacks. Maybe a three strikes rule with a one month suspension as the punishment. I know I'm guilty just as much as others of stirring the pot from time to time.
    - I think parties need to start trying to form majority governments to offer some stability.
    - Maybe some restrictions when and why MoNC's can be called. The difficulty is deciding on what those restrictions should be. For example, I think this one is justified.

    Edit: just some more on the thought about majority governments. I know some countries with PR require any potential government to face a vote of approval in the chamber where they must receive a majority (but not an absolute majority, so members can abstain). Perhaps we should introduce such a system here; get rid of the 7 day negotiating period, and any agreed coalition proposal is put to a vote on the day it is sent to the speaker. During the voting period, other parties can continue to negotiate and put forward alternative proposals to the speaker which also go to vote. That way we will know that a coalition at least has the 'confidence' of the house in the first place, even if it is a minority government. Therefore something significant would have to change to warrant a MoNC.
    You are taking the ****ing piss... Quite frankly, I'd use 'unparliamentary language' three times, and if the rule was put into effect, the CT would get so many complaints. There's a difference between not allowing a Party into Gov for a few weeks, and a ban that is given to someone in conjunction with the CT because they've actually broken some rules. Calling someone a hypocrite, in the right context, is absolutely appropriate imo, and I think that trying to suspend members for an entire month will just cause hell. Not only that, but it'd be very hard to properly keep track of when someone's said something - some words wouldn't be noticed, and therefore not all members that should be receiving a ban would. I reckon it'd also open the Speaker right up to an MoNC. Also certain words would actually probably get the member a card if they were reported, and so double punishing people is wrong here. Finally, if it's not against TSR rules, then you shouldn't get punished for what you post.

    Possibly the worst idea you've ever ever had.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yea in hindsight the idea about the speaker clamping down on language and personal attacks was a bit stupid, I personally enjoy a bit of confrontation on here and know not to take anything to heart.

    That said, I think the idea about a minority government having to be voted in through a motion of confidence or whatever would be a good thing for the house and provide more stable governments. I'll consider writing an amendment whenever I get the chance, possibly this weekend.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    You are taking the ****ing piss... Quite frankly, I'd use 'unparliamentary language' three times, and if the rule was put into effect, the CT would get so many complaints. There's a difference between not allowing a Party into Gov for a few weeks, and a ban that is given to someone in conjunction with the CT because they've actually broken some rules. Calling someone a hypocrite, in the right context, is absolutely appropriate imo, and I think that trying to suspend members for an entire month will just cause hell. Not only that, but it'd be very hard to properly keep track of when someone's said something - some words wouldn't be noticed, and therefore not all members that should be receiving a ban would. I reckon it'd also open the Speaker right up to an MoNC. Also certain words would actually probably get the member a card if they were reported, and so double punishing people is wrong here. Finally, if it's not against TSR rules, then you shouldn't get punished for what you post.

    Possibly the worst idea you've ever ever had.
    I have to say, I don't think handing out bans for petty comments is the way to go. I think instead it would be best chanelling the satire that certain members have into something like the Ad Hoc instead of allowing it to translate into tension in the House. And do I share the opinion of some other people that you should be able to make sure views on topics clear without having to worry about the filters. I personally feel the rules that TSR are ott and can sometimes be restrictive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I am now allowed to comment on the MoNC.

    So I am here to say 'no comment'.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    I am now allowed to comment on the MoNC.

    So I am here to say 'no comment'.
    And why weren't you allowed before?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I have decide to withdraw my support for the VoNC . Now is not the time for party bickering and to criticise one another . I feel this VoNC has been a personal attack on the conservatives when the liberal party were mainly to blame for the failure of this government . No government is perfect and basing this VoNC on a budget that is a few days overdue is not a valid reason and the fact that not all cabinet minsters have finalised their polices . I therefore will be voting against this vonc. I Feel this was forced among UKIP MPs to second a Labour VoNC .... I Suggest Nigel Farage MEP Withdraw your support for this MoNC

    Saracen's Fez Please remove my name as primary proposer
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    I have decide to withdraw my support for the VoNC . Now is not the time for party bickering and to criticise one another . I feel this VoNC has been a personal attack on the conservatives when the liberal party were mainly to blame for the failure of this government . No government is perfect and basing this VoNC on a budget that is a few days overdue is not a valid reason and the fact that not all cabinet minsters have finalised their polices . I therefore will be voting against this vonc and request that QQ is made primary proposer as he is the one that suggested UKIP launch a VoNC with labour backing . I Feel this was forced among UKIP MPs to second a Labour VoNC .... I Suggest Nigel Farage MEP Withdraw your support for this MoNC

    Saracen's Fez Please remove my name as primary proposer
    Pretty sure you can't do this under the GD.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Pretty sure you can't do this under the GD.
    What clause is that?
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.

  • 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.