Turn on thread page Beta

Motion of No Confidence in the Government watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    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.
    Yes, but I don't see a good reason for disbelieving them for that reason.

    We are not going against the constitution. IMO the constitution rails against your interpretation; at worst, it is vague and should thus be interpreted to produce a result which is just.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    AYE!!!!
    Why?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    If you thought that you shouldn't have been a coward and you should have VoNCed me.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, but I don't see a good reason for disbelieving them for that reason.

    We are not going against the constitution. IMO the constitution rails against your interpretation; at worst, it is vague and should thus be interpreted to produce a result which is just.
    I would say it goes against your interpretation as it clear states a motion not a vote, if it was meant as a vote why not state that?

    I'm not disbelieving it but how can I judge evidence I haven't seen?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I would say it goes against your interpretation as it clear states a motion not a vote, if it was meant as a vote why not state that?

    I'm not disbelieving it but how can I judge evidence I haven't seen?
    I'm not posting the evidence because it reveals Nigel's real name and that is inappropriate.

    'Vote of no confidence' and 'Motion of no confidence' are used interchangeably in the GD; there is no good reason to think that is any different in the Constitution.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not posting the evidence because it reveals Nigel's real name and that is inappropriate.
    Just black out any personal info if it's a screenshot then.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not posting the evidence because it reveals Nigel's real name and that is inappropriate.

    'Vote of no confidence' and 'Motion of no confidence' are used interchangeably in the GD; there is no good reason to think that is any different in the Constitution.
    I would say that is wrong and should be fixed there is a difference between a motion being proposed and a vote being called.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I would say that is wrong and should be fixed there is a difference between a motion being proposed and a vote being called.
    Okay, then propose an amendment, and it will operate differently in the future. Doesn't affect how things work this time though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Okay, then propose an amendment, and it will operate differently in the future. Doesn't affect how things work this time though.
    Like I have said I believe fez has decided this incorrectly this time that is the problem.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    If you thought that you shouldn't have been a coward and you should have VoNCed me.
    Why?

    What good would that have achieved? With Airmed/thb's time commitments there is no-one else who could lead the party.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Why?

    What good would that have achieved? With Airmed/thb's time commitments there is no-one else who could lead the party.
    So you wouldn't have stood? You're implying that I haven't acted in the best interests of the party, or didn't even intend to. That's reason enough.

    If there was so much support for leaving Government we would no longer be in Government. You know that better than most. So don't talk absolute rubbish.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Why?

    What good would that have achieved? With Airmed/thb's time commitments there is no-one else who could lead the party.
    Would they have been different? Airmed seems to understand loyalty and seeing through commitments and THB has declared in this very thread support for remaining in the union (pun intended ) which in my mind redeems him of any prior sins. .
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    So you wouldn't have stood? You're implying that I haven't acted in the best interests of the party, or didn't even intend to. That's reason enough.

    If there was so much support for leaving Government we would no longer be in Government. You know that better than most. So don't talk absolute rubbish.
    No, I wouldn't have stood, I didn't want to be leader of the Liberals.

    Bull. The overall consensus last term was not to go into Government again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Why?

    What good would that have achieved? With Airmed/thb's time commitments there is no-one else who could lead the party.
    What good does your whining achieve? I'm with Petros on this on this one—you're a coward who didn't get his way despite the majority opinion being different and then instead of attempting to take things into your own hands (presumably because you knew you wouldn't get the required support), you jumped the boat and now you're throwing **** at it from the water out of spite. :dontknow:
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    No, I wouldn't have stood, I didn't want to be leader of the Liberals.

    Bull. The overall consensus last term was not to go into Government again.
    Absolute bull. The Party voted to go into Government. I negotiated and presented a coalition agreement that was ratified by the whole party.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    What good does your whining achieve? I'm with Petros on this on this one—you're a coward who didn't get his way despite the majority opinion being different and then instead of attempting to take things into your own hands (presumably because you knew you wouldn't get the required support), you jumped the boat and now you're throwing **** at it from the water out of spite. :dontknow:
    a) Idk where this cowardice s**te came from, I stood against a bill? Oops.

    b) A VoNC in Petros was never on the cards, I didn't agree with his choices or his leadership style but that doesn't mean that's what's not best for a Kingslayer/Kingmaker party.

    c) I'll throw all the **** I like.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    a) Idk where this cowardice s**te came from, I stood against a bill? Oops.

    b) A VoNC in Petros was never on the cards, I didn't agree with his choices or his leadership style but that doesn't mean that's what's not best for a Kingslayer/Kingmaker party.

    c) I'll throw all the **** I like.
    You didn't have the balls to attempt a coup when you thought you could do things better. If you don't want to lead, either shut up and accept what the leader and/or the majority decide, or leave quietly without sabotaging a government bill first. When I didn't like the decision of our party to elect Jarred our deputy leader, I made a statement and resigned as Chairman, not stared to vote against them out of spite. :rolleyes:

    Okay, but the more you throw, the more *****y the water around you becomes.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Again, think back to the football game. If it is called off at half time, nobody reasonable would say it has reached its 'final point'.
    I like this.

    In rugby if the match is abandoned before 60 minutes the match is deemed to have not been played at all and is replayed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    You didn't have the balls to attempt a coup when you thought you could do things better. If you don't want to lead, either shut up and accept what the leader and/or the majority decide, or leave quietly without sabotaging a government bill first. When I didn't like the decision of our party to elect Jarred our deputy leader, I made a statement and resigned as Chairman, not stared to vote against them out of spite. :rolleyes:

    Okay, but the more you throw, the more *****y the water around you becomes.
    It's not about having the balls or not, a coup isn't what the Liberals need.
    I didn't sabotage a Government bill, I voted against one I didn't agree with.

    I'll take a shower.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    It's not about having the balls or not, a coup isn't what the Liberals need.
    I didn't sabotage a Government bill, I voted against one I didn't agree with.

    I'll take a shower.
    Do you actually want to be in Labour? Did you not enjoy your time in your government department?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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.