Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Then instead of declaring no confidence in your own party publicly you should have declared no confidence in your leadership and pushed for coalition withdrawl.

    One can only assume that since you felt the need to defect, Petros is rather secure and supported by the masses even if a minority want out.
    I tried, several party members joined me.

    Petros is too busy trying to retain his title as DPM than care about anyone else.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    I tried, several party members joined me.

    Petros is too busy trying to retain his title as DPM than care about anyone else.
    Then again that is an internal dispute, not one which warrants you seconding against the party publicly.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Then again that is an internal dispute, not one which warrants you seconding against the party publicly.
    The dispute was internal while I was still in the party.

    Liberal MPs have come out in support of the MoNC, it is their problem now - not mine.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Then again that is an internal dispute, not one which warrants you seconding against the party publicly.
    Despite the fact that he is no longer a member of the Liberal party?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The situation is most analogous to football. Crucially, no result has been reached. The motion did not fail.
    The result is the motion was withdrawn, which is the final point of that motion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The result is the motion was withdrawn, which is the final point of that motion.
    The result is the motion being withdrawn, which is equivalent to it not taking place, especially as the GD equates the motion with the vote.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    AYE!!!!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The result is the motion being withdrawn, which is equivalent to it not taking place, especially as the GD equates the motion with the vote.
    so you are going with the it never happened in the first place argument now? It clearly happened if it had not we would not be talking about this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    so you are going with the it never happened in the first place argument now? It clearly happened if it had not we would not be talking about this.
    A discussion took place, a MoNC never took place, and if it did, it never ended, and if it did end, an interpretation which did not permit another one should be rejected as creating ridiculous results and being the product of an attempt to twist the rules.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    The dispute was internal while I was still in the party.

    Liberal MPs have come out in support of the MoNC, it is their problem now - not mine.
    True but it does raise the question of why you support it now.

    Only two. One never wanted to be in it anyway and has never engaged (i'll show Snufkin some respect since he's never actually tried to get in the way). The other shares your reasoning, has made what should be an internal matter public and less than 7 days was the first MP internally do give his support for continued coalition which does make one question what changed and how credible Titan's opinion is.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Despite the fact that he is no longer a member of the Liberal party?
    My point is that his reason for support is even worse than yours.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I feel sorry for TF who I presume is trying to write a budget so inarguably excellent that it'll absolve the government of everything else.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    True but it does raise the question of why you support it now.

    Only two. One never wanted to be in it anyway and has never engaged (i'll show Snufkin some respect since he's never actually tried to get in the way). The other shares your reasoning, has made what should be an internal matter public and less than 7 days was the first MP internally do give his support for continued coalition which does make one question what changed and how credible Titan's opinion is.



    My point is that his reason for support is even worse than yours.
    You had an internal poll on whether to continue in coalition? Oh well that is a revelation.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cBay)
    You had an internal poll on whether to continue in coalition? Oh well that is a revelation.
    Why would we have a poll? If the Tories did not want this coalition to continue then we'd simply call an election. Clearly we have the support of the Liberals too since Joel left rather than contest.

    I was simply referring to a comment from said member.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    A discussion took place, a MoNC never took place, and if it did, it never ended, and if it did end, an interpretation which did not permit another one should be rejected as creating ridiculous results and being the product of an attempt to twist the rules.
    A motion being withdrawn is a rediculous result?

    Where is proof that someone is twisting the rules? Is the fact someone sent a pm proof of collusion?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    A motion being withdrawn is a rediculous result?

    Where is proof that someone is twisting the rules?
    The ridiculous result is that your interpretation leads to a situation where a government can preclude itself from ever being MoNC'd.

    Twisting the rules, because the Tories were aware of the plan to withdraw from the MoNC of the UKIP supporters, and at that point gained a pretty basic fair play responsibility to make this public - the first MoNC was a farce (the proposer never intended to propose a full MoNC, and thus incidentally the first MoNC also failed for lack of following due procedure - it never had a valid proposer). The fact that this was then used to attempt to buy time is pretty much as bad as duping in respect of coming close to cheating (note that AFAIK, duping is against neither the GD nor the Constitution).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The ridiculous result is that your interpretation leads to a situation where a government can preclude itself from ever being MoNC'd.

    Twisting the rules, because the Tories were aware of the plan to withdraw from the MoNC of the UKIP supporters, and at that point gained a pretty basic fair play responsibility to make this public - the first MoNC was a farce (the proposer never intended to propose a full MoNC, and thus incidentally the first MoNC also failed for lack of following due procedure - it never had a valid proposer). The fact that this was then used to attempt to buy time is pretty much as bad as duping in respect of coming close to cheating (note that AFAIK, duping is against neither the GD nor the Constitution).
    Where is the proof of that accusation? From what I have saw it is based on the fact someone sent a pm by that logic Fez has also colluded with someone.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I feel sorry for TF who I presume is trying to write a budget so inarguably excellent that it'll absolve the government of everything else.
    Won't make a difference.

    The lack of objection to a repeat based on almost no reasoning beyond 'i don't like Tories/policy' means that the House will almost certainly vote for a continued escalation in conflict and a continued lowering of the bar for things like a MoNC.

    It's a sad time for the very soul of the Mhoc. This place is not what it was.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Where is the proof of that accusation? From what I have saw it is based on the fact someone sent a pm by that logic Fez has also colluded with someone.
    Nigel quite clearly said the Tories were in on the plan, something which no member of the Tory party has disputed, despite multiple opportunities to do so (instead choosing to question the relevance of evidence originated on skype).

    Edit: also, I'm sorry if the Liberals, who the Tories clearly see as an inferior coalition partner, there to be ordered around, weren't informed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Won't make a difference.

    The lack of objection to a repeat based on almost no reasoning beyond 'i don't like Tories/policy' means that the House will almost certainly vote for a continued escalation in conflict and a continued lowering of the bar for things like a MoNC.

    It's a sad time for the very soul of the Mhoc. This place is not what it was.
    The main reason is that Govt activity is pathetic. If a Labour govt's activity was this bad, I would also support a MoNC (I've changed my mind on this point since last term). Hell, I might even propose it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nigel quite clearly said the Tories were in on the plan, something which no member of the Tory party has disputed, despite multiple opportunities to do so (instead choosing to question the relevance of evidence originated on skype).

    Edit: also, I'm sorry if the Liberals, who the Tories clearly see as an inferior coalition partner, there to be ordered around, weren't informed.
    So Nigel's comments were said on Skype?

    One problem I would have is if there is no rule against it should we really be going against the constitution to stop something? I would definitely agree something like that should be banned but while it seems it is not only being against the spirit.
    I haven't seen anything that bans it, is there anything? I would say that the constitution on this should be changed to make it clearer.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.